http://oportet.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
oportet.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2016-03-16 09:46 pm
oportet.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2016-03-16 09:46 pm
(no subject)
In any given American political debate - both parties are somewhat full of shit - but usually they at least try to hide the fact. But occasionally, the hypocrisy is so thick - covering it up is useless. Now is one of those times.
Republicans don't think a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice at the end of his term, unless that President is Republican.
Democrats absolutely believe a President should be allowed to fill a vacant seat, as long as that President is a Democrat.
When the situation suits them, one party will cite the constitution, and the other will cite an unwritten rule.
With video evidence of almost every major political figure in the country arguing the exact opposite point they're arguing now when the roles were reversed - whether they are full of shit isn't really in question - but you have to wonder why neither side has the tact to present a better argument than 'they did it so we can do it too'.
I really don't know much about this Garland fella (I suppose I could google him but my ignorance will make the post seem more genuine - maybe I'll look into him more after I send this through).
He seems nice - obviously qualified - and gracious for the opportunity. Shame on both sides - those who refuse to even consider him given his service so far, and those who threw him into the spotlight as a political statement already knowing the outcome - apparently giving more of a shit about a line in the middle their legacy than the first paragraph of his.
Even though I know it isn't true, I'd like to at least be able to pretend I'm naive enough to think the Supreme Court is distinguished, somehow separated from and above all the day-to-day Republican vs. Democrat bullshit we pay attention to.
If you're on the right - would you rather take Obamas pick, or take your chance with Hillary or Trumps pick? If you're on the left - pretend you're on the right and answer the first question - or fast forward to maybe 4 or 8 years from now when the tables are turned and convince me you'll want to end the cycle of following unwritten rules over written ones.
Republicans don't think a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice at the end of his term, unless that President is Republican.
Democrats absolutely believe a President should be allowed to fill a vacant seat, as long as that President is a Democrat.
When the situation suits them, one party will cite the constitution, and the other will cite an unwritten rule.
With video evidence of almost every major political figure in the country arguing the exact opposite point they're arguing now when the roles were reversed - whether they are full of shit isn't really in question - but you have to wonder why neither side has the tact to present a better argument than 'they did it so we can do it too'.
I really don't know much about this Garland fella (I suppose I could google him but my ignorance will make the post seem more genuine - maybe I'll look into him more after I send this through).
He seems nice - obviously qualified - and gracious for the opportunity. Shame on both sides - those who refuse to even consider him given his service so far, and those who threw him into the spotlight as a political statement already knowing the outcome - apparently giving more of a shit about a line in the middle their legacy than the first paragraph of his.
Even though I know it isn't true, I'd like to at least be able to pretend I'm naive enough to think the Supreme Court is distinguished, somehow separated from and above all the day-to-day Republican vs. Democrat bullshit we pay attention to.
If you're on the right - would you rather take Obamas pick, or take your chance with Hillary or Trumps pick? If you're on the left - pretend you're on the right and answer the first question - or fast forward to maybe 4 or 8 years from now when the tables are turned and convince me you'll want to end the cycle of following unwritten rules over written ones.