No, it isn’t. There is no objectivity in politics.
The justification is simple…politicians do what politicians do if they have the power to do it. This is becoming increasingly clear.
If they “overreach” on a particular issue by exercising their power on it, the voters may…or may not…punish them for it by voting them out when they can.
Everything else is subjective narrative.
Whoever tell the better story gets the short term win.
Barrett will be confirmed.
If Biden wins and gets a Dem Senate, he will expand the court to 13…and there will be a thread here on Hannity where the right asks the left what the justification for doing so will be…and each side will spin their own narratives.
Rinse…repeat.
1 Like
That is exactly correct. Elections have consequences. The disorder of democracy. A good example of why a republic is much preferred by intelligent.
2 Likes
Feinstein doesn’t even know what the upcoming obamacare case is about.
Still happens in a Republic.
I agree. I do not see any reason why she would not and should not be confirmed, just because she is a conservative. Hell, Liberals have said for years since OBAMA said it. Elections have consequences. The consequences of 2016 are that Trump won and conservative appointees have been the rule. If Clinton had won enough electoral college votes, we’d see liberal justices be nominated…and then conservatives would be complaining.
As Trump has recently stated. It is what it is.
1 Like
We agree in that being subjective is always par for the course these politicians play on.
And when precedence does not fit perfectly politicians will still attempt to cram their square peg agenda in a round hole nonetheless.
Speaking of contested election I suspect Ginsburg’s untimely death will foil one compelling Dem plot towards this end. After all both sides have gamed out what a 4-4 deadlock on the Supreme Court could do should a clear winner of the general election not present itself and rather it all goes into prolonged court battle(s).
Depends on the republic and the topic. But yes, in general.
Any political system is only as good as its people.
I disagree. A republic is only as good as the People’s willingness to demand their self-possession be respected.
“The people” include “The People”.
Feinstein doesn’t need to be the dem lead on this. She doesn’t know the law, cases or anything about this.
And she’s doddering.
She actually said “Ok, let me try something else.”
Call the bull pen!
The People do not include pols.
Lol. Nope they will come home to roost when the dems are back in control.
Chucky and the dems will take care of business.
Allan
There will be yet another escalation.
1 Like
Yep. And this time it will be for the good guys.
A little court packing and loss of the senate filibuster is on tap.
Allan
1 Like
Funny how the gop didn’t think that was an issue in 2016
“If I am confirmed, you’ll be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia.”
Good.
Invoking the “Ginsburg Rule on previews”
Also good.
If you want to make such a distinction, my framing allows for it.
But my thinking is simple.
For any system, there will be people (you can call them “pols”) that will learn how to game it.
Over a long period of time (not even that long), they will subvert the system to their will…Republic or not.
History shows this happens over and over.
It happened with our own Republic from the moment of its birth.
You just proved my point. Thanks.
