New answers tagged democratic-party
0
Neither side is being hypocritical, because anyone assuming that the senate works from principles as opposed to party tribalism is naive.
Both parties have been completely consistent, in that: they're going to vote with whatever helps their party out. The supposed reasons that are given are just post-hoc justifications (which pretty much just makes them ...
-3
It's important to note that Republicans did not "set a precedent" in 2016; they simply followed the existing precedent.
Statistically speaking, you'd expect approximately 1 in 4 Supreme Court Justice deaths to occur during an election year, so it would be very strange indeed if 2016 were the first time this had ever happened! In fact, it's ...
-1
Mainstream media bias, plain and simple.
I know it’s a cliched term at this point, but when I say “mainstream media”, I’m referring to the big 3 cable news networks (CNN, MSNBC, and Fox), the big 3 broadcast networks (CBS, ABC, and NBC), and the two largest newspapers in the country (The New York Times and the Washington Post). These outlets dominate most ...
0
Republicans and Democrats will make decisions when politically expedient and come up with reasonings like "precedent" and "will of the people" to justify it. In 2016 it was Democrats saying "do your job and give Garland a vote", with Republicans opposing with "let the next president decide", and now in 2020 it is ...
7
Precedent
Republicans proposed a new rule and introduced it successfully. Now they want to get rid of the rule.
Democrats opposed the rule, yet the rule was established over their objections. Democrats don't even have to mention where they stand on confirming Supreme Court nominees in an election year. Instead they argue that Republicans should be bound by ...
-1
Your question and many of these answers seem to be overestimating the importance of principles here.
Republicans didn't oppose Garland's opposition because they believe in the principle that late presidents shouldn't appoint supreme court justices. They didn't do it to honor Scalia. Those explanations were made up to justify their actions.They did it ...
4
If the Senate were able to perform their constitutionally mandated duty to "advise and consent" on Merrick Garland, that is, if there was a hearing and Republicans voted Garland down fair and square 49-51, that would have been as remarkable now as Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsberg, or Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court nominee who didn't make it through ...
-4
The Republicans wanted to oppose Obama's Supreme Court nomination, since Obama was a Democrat, but now, Republicans are changing their mind since the incumbent president is a Republican, Donald Trump. They only used "nominating someone to the Supreme Court in an election year is bad practice" as an excuse to not support the Democratic Supreme Court ...
9
Others have answered about the hypocrisy angle, but I also see another difference this time.
In 2016, the Democrats knew that they would face opposition from the Republican Senate. So Obama deliberately chose a moderate candidate, Merrick Garland. He was clearly trying to offer the GOP a compromise by not nominating a far-left justice. But the Republicans ...
10
Suppose you and your friend had been playing a game many times for years. One day your friend decided to change the rules in the middle of a session in a way that was very advantageous to them. The next time the two of you played, the rule change would benefit you. So you suggested that you do the rule change again. But your friend was absolutely against it. ...
2
The other answers provide some reasons, but here is another one: because the Republicans have been demonstrating their partisanship for four years, and people do not judge political decisions in a vacuum.
The Democrats do not control the presidency and the Senate, and they are less partisan overall (asymmetrical polarization). Thus, during Trump's presidency ...
54
Why are the Republicans being criticized? Because in 2016 they didn't simply say it was party politics as the reason to oppose Obama's choice, nor even that they disagreed with his choice.
They chose to portray this as a matter of principle.
On principle, they declared that they believed a new Justice should not be appointed in an election year, because it ...
11
The timing reinforces the case for waiting
In 2016 the gap in the Supreme Court opened in February. That meant that waiting for the election left the seat open for an extra half a year.
In 2020 the gap in the Supreme Court opened in September. In this case appointing a new justice before the election would require unusual haste, and delaying appointment ...
21
which seems symmetrically inconsistent
No, they're not. The Republicans are asking that precedent established by them be disregarded because it benefits them. Democrats are asking that precedent be respected.
So it's not symmetric. There is a difference between arguing for A, then arguing for B, versus arguing for (A and B). Suppose your company offers you ...
36
The main reason for this is down to one question: who won the argument in 2016?
Because the Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016, it was them who decided how Obama's nomination would be handled. The position of the Democrats would not have affected the outcome in any way.
Similarly, in 2020, as the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they ...
83
The Democrats were in favour of appointing Garland in 2016, but now that the Republicans have set a precedent that Supreme Court Justices should not be appointed in an election year, the Republicans are being asked to stick to it. The Democrats are simply asking the Republicans to stick to the principles they used four years ago. The Republicans are the ones ...
18
It happens all the time, though less so recently. If we assume you're only talking only about the Supreme Court, 1 Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin voted to confirm Kavanaugh, while 3 Democrats, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, and Joe Donnelly, voted to confirm Gorsuch
8
Packing the Court would be a pretty radical step, and so Democrats who are actually in government have been pretty hesitant to talk about it in any specifics, particularly as it is still just a hypothetical.
The issue did come up during the primary campaign, so there are statements about it from all the major candidates. Axios has an article summarizing them:...
0
I think this comes down to two things
The U.S. quite a religious country.
"Average" candidates win elections
In order to attract a large enough numbers of voters, a successful candidate will almost always need to demonstrate a significant amount of religiosity.
Elections generate "average" winners, not those drawn from random samples of ...
3
The best example I'm aware of was in 2002, when redistricting in Michigan following the 2000 Census caused Rep. Lynn N. Rivers to lose her 13th district. The majority of its area was merged into the neighboring district, represented by fellow Democrat John Dingell, a Michigan representative for almost 50 years. Rivers challenged Dingell in the primary for ...
0
Has Markey discussed past votes to preserve tax-exempt status for racist colleges?
[H]as Markey discussed his support for the 1981 amendment prohibiting the IRS from denying tax-exempt status to colleges on the basis of the colleges engaging in racial discrimination?
Did he discuss it either back then or in the course of the current primary campaign? And if ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
