(November 17, 2022 at 2:42 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: It was obvious that Hunter Biden was going to be the focus of the next 2 years of investigations.

He has done a lot of shady things in his business life.  The problem with congressional investigation is that this is a private individual.  He isn't part of government.  It isn't part of government oversight to look into the business dealings of individuals.  That is the job of attorneys-general, and only when evidence of a crime exists.

This is just harassment of a private citizen for political purposes.  If the Democrats get back the house in 2024, should they investigate Jared Kushner?

If a private individual is allegedly acting in concert or on the behalf of a government official, then the private individuals alleged actions would be subject to oversight, especially if the government official is the Vice President at the time. If the Dems wish to alleged Jared sold access to Trump, it would be equally legitimate.

(November 18, 2022 at 5:18 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Yeah, the Republican Party are massive hypocrites. They'll refuse to confirm any Supreme Court Justice that Obama appointed to replace Scalia and pull out some bullshit rule about how they shouldn't appoint a judge in an election year, even if the election is more than half a year away, then when RBG dies weeks prior to the next election, they approve Amy Coney Barnett in record time. They'll do everything they can to hobble the post office to curb mail-in voting due to some concerns about voter fraud, then Trump encourages his voters to vote twice. Hell, any issue they claim to care deeply about, they're almost certainly going to support policies that make said issues worse.

Obama considered nominating a SCOTUS replace was:

Quote:One of the most consequential responsibilities our Constitution grants a President is appointing a Supreme Court Justice. 

Source

It would be just a duty for Trump as it was for Obama. Regarding the refusal to considered Garland, Harry Reid said "Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”  Source: C-Span

(November 27, 2022 at 2:51 pm)Dio Wrote:

(November 18, 2022 at 5:18 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Yeah, the Republican Party are massive hypocrites. They'll refuse to confirm any Supreme Court Justice that Obama appointed to replace Scalia and pull out some bullshit rule about how they shouldn't appoint a judge in an election year, even if the election is more than half a year away, then when RBG dies weeks prior to the next election, they approve Amy Coney Barnett in record time. They'll do everything they can to hobble the post office to curb mail-in voting due to some concerns about voter fraud, then Trump encourages his voters to vote twice. Hell, any issue they claim to care deeply about, they're almost certainly going to support policies that make said issues worse.

Obama considered nominating a SCOTUS replace was:

Quote:One of the most consequential responsibilities our Constitution grants a President is appointing a Supreme Court Justice. 

Source

It would be just a duty for Trump as it was for Obama. Regarding the refusal to considered Garland, Harry Reid said "Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”  Source: C-Span

Which throughly and completely misses Rev’s point, which is that it’s hypocritical for Republicans to not vote on a nominee because it’s an election year, and then vote on a a different nominee in an election year.

Boru

(November 27, 2022 at 3:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 27, 2022 at 2:51 pm)Dio Wrote: Obama considered nominating a SCOTUS replace was:


Source

It would be just a duty for Trump as it was for Obama. Regarding the refusal to considered Garland, Harry Reid said "Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”  Source: C-Span

Which throughly and completely misses Rev’s point, which is that it’s hypocritical for Republicans to not vote on a nominee because it’s an election year, and then vote on a a different nominee in an election year.

Boru

Politicians are hypocrites, shocked Pikachu face.

Yes, Dio. They are hypocrites, but something like this is just at a whole new level.

(November 27, 2022 at 3:05 pm)LinuxGal Wrote:

And? I get the joke, but the use of "conspiracy" has been rendered pointless thanks to COVID.

(November 27, 2022 at 3:38 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Yes, Dio. They are hypocrites, but something like this is just at a whole new level.

If the President has a duty to submit a nominee no matter how close to an election (as was allegedly the case with Obama), then Trump did his duty. If Trump should have waited until after the election, so should have Obama.

If the Senate had a duty to vote, then Reid violated such duty. 


Next Dems will have to be remined that Schumer once supported the filibuster and the Senate was the "cooling plate of democracy" when it was politically convenient for him. 

Where is the "whole new level"?

Where's the whole new level? Making up justifications for an obvious power grab out of whole cloth, acting like it's an inviolable principle that might as well be in the constitution, and then tossing it aside at the first possible opportunity when the president's Republican.

Also, are we forgetting that Harry Reid wasn't actually the Senate Majority Leader at the time of the Merrick Garland nomination? The Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016, so it's Mitch McConnell who actually blocked the vote.

(November 27, 2022 at 4:02 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Where's the whole new level? Making up justifications for an obvious power grab out of whole cloth, acting like it's an inviolable principle that might as well be in the constitution, and then tossing it aside at the first possible opportunity when the president's Republican.

Also, are we forgetting that Harry Reid wasn't actually the Senate Majority Leader at the time of the Merrick Garland nomination? The Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016, so it's Mitch McConnell who actually blocked the vote.

Reid was Senate Majority leader from January 3, 2007 to January 3, 2015. The mere fact Reid wasn't majority leader at the time does not negate his statement, while he was Majority lead, that the Senate has no constitutional duty to take a vote. The easiest thing to do is say Reid was wrong. 

If you want to talk about power grabs, we can talk about the Dems desire to expand SCOTUS to retake the majority but that would mean de-canonizing RBG as she was against it.