No-they provided facts. Especially at the bottom, when they listed the circumstance of every single vacancy in SCotUS history.
No, I found guys who did actual research and demonstrated that what happened nearly 200 years ago does not set a precedent for what happened 2 years ago.
No, I’m not ignoring that-the “dissent” was “here’s why I don’t agree with why they made distinctions they made” and the study explained exactly why, with historical context.
You and B’en want to pretend that what happened 200 years ago is exactly the same, in exactly the same circumstances, as happened in 2018. The study demonstrates why that is not historically accurate to do.
Confirmation bias has you ignoring the rebuttal.
No-the study itself addresses the complaint in the rebuttal. The rebuttal doesn’t want to consider the context that the study provides, just like you don’t want to. Context is important. I get that context shatters the precedent argument, and some people don’t like that, but it’s what is, not what I want to be.
Of course you are. Because the other two confirms your bias. Your elephant is in control.
There is no bias-there are facts. And there is context to those facts. I want the entire picture to be considered. You don’t want the entire picture to be considered.
You’re judging the Mona Lisa based upon a 1 square inch portion of the painting. I’m looking at the entire thing.
You are not better than anyone else. Of course there is bias.
Amazing. They’re calling baby murder “abortion care”. I thought “reproductive rights” was bad enough.
I’m looking at the whole picture. I’m considering the entire context of what happened 200 years ago compared to now. You’re not looking at the entire picture. You’re not considering all of the circumstances of 200 years ago v now. I’m looking at it through an empirical lens. You’re looking at it through a feelings lens.
You are in denial. You are no different than any other member of any tribe. Your link is pure unadulterated confirmation bias. There is none so blind…
You have a nice day.
which has absolutely nothing to do with the records they did not get and even kagan said should not get.
thanks for playing!
This is the first SCOTUS confirmation hearing I’ve been able to watch so much of. Fascinating. I love the panel. Today is the best day.
I could listen to these experts all day.
I want to sit in on Amar’s Constitutional Law class.
What it has to do with is your claim that the Judiciary committee now “got the documents” it requested. They were NOT requested by the chairman, ignoring the minority. Those that have been delivered were not delivered in a useful timeframe, as opposed to the Kagan docs requested and delivered well before the hearings.
the committee did get the documents the committee requested. what they did not get is the same thing they did not get with kagan and the gop was wise enough to not ask for. the minority can request whatever they want and then go pound sand, the minority is not the committee.
made up excuses to deviate from precedent does not change the context.
the context is
scotus vacancies opened in the last year of a presidency when the potus ans senate are from opposing parties. that is the context, there is no other context.
psst… you seem to be ignoring it did not just happen in 1828
imagine that!
under the same circumstances, the same thing was done EVERY time with the exception of the elevation of a sitting justice to chief justice.
the spin your liberal masters want to put on it with their made up bs study is just spin.
Man, they are really worried about abortion.
He just mentioned Hamilton. Won’t be sitting in, we’ll be fighting.
During the Kagan hearings, the committee chairman, a Democrat, requested the documents asked for by the minority. This time: not. Because, Republicans.
