Justice Samuel Alito Leaked Hobby Lobby Decision On Contraception In 2014: Report

[Glorious Leader]

I have already characterized this opinion as a petulant lashing-out, and I have nothing further to add.

Hey guys he characterized something so he wins.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Just go a tiny bit farther. He literally explained the "why" in terms of divided Executive and Senate multiple times, and printing one-sentence statements of the "what" doesn't excuse ignoring the why.

It's a meaningless distinction as explained by others. Besides, the 2019 to 2021 congress was Democrat controlled. So in 2020 congress and senate were split Democrat/Republican control. So that excuse still means he's a hypocrite.

[Edge-]

Right back at you. Pretending this particular thing is worth singling out is playing partisan games.

The argumentative equivalent of "I am rubber and you are glue, everything you say bounced off of me and sticks to you."

It's no different than every other time legislation is not brought up for a vote by both parties.

How many other examples of this can you find in history? Specifically citing, "Well there's a divided Legislature and Executive and it's the last year of the current Executives term and consequently we just can't do ANYTHING because we need to let the voters decide." argument.

I'm not going anywhere, I'll wait to see all the multitude of examples of historical precedent.

That's the foundation. The starting point. If you can't build that foundation and show me that you actually have some kind of point based on fact, then we can summarily and easily dismiss your pearl clutching as truly dishonest as it sure seems.

[tehdang]

Hey guys he characterized something so he wins.

Do you actually have anything to add, or are you just committing to this quote-one-sentence-of-a-post-and-make-a-zinger?

It's a meaningless distinction as explained by others. Besides, the 2019 to 2021 congress was Democrat controlled. So in 2020 congress and senate were split Democrat/Republican control. So that excuse still means he's a hypocrite.

You and I experienced a very different 2019-2021. Republicans increased their lead in the Senate. That's very different than what you said. You said "congress was Democrat controlled." Congress includes a House and a Senate; Democrat control of Congress means they control both houses. Please revise or explain.

The Senate and Presidency being united in party dominance absolutely does not leave doubt on consent to presidential appointments.

(As a reminder, whoever possesses the House does not impact the nominations of the President to things like the Supreme Court. The constitution confers that responsibility to the Senate. Additionally, the constitution does not require the Senate to hold a vote.)

For more information: https://www.republicanleader.senate....urt-nomination

The argumentative equivalent of "I am rubber and you are glue, everything you say bounced off of me and sticks to you."

Or, the partisan sides to this issue are sincerely believing the other is guilty of the same things. This is quite normal in politics of the 21st and late 20th century, if you ask me.

How many other examples of this can you find in history? Specifically citing, "Well there's a divided Legislature and Executive and it's the last year of the current Executives term and consequently we just can't do ANYTHING because we need to let the voters decide." argument.

I'm not going anywhere, I'll wait to see all the multitude of examples of historical precedent.

That's the foundation. The starting point. If you can't build that foundation and show me that you actually have some kind of point based on fact, then we can summarily and easily dismiss your pearl clutching as truly dishonest as it sure seems.

You mean besides the then-Senator Biden, now President Biden, issuing a statement on this very topic? Oh, and besides Schumer declaring he would not consider possible Bush nominees? Clearly, you should publicly condemn them both for violating certain standards you're currently bashing Republicans on. Both prominent Democrats made public their intentions, and Democrats like usual got all heated when Republicans had opportunity to also keep to their standards. Funny thing that history becomes inconvenient and forgotten the second it doesn't serve the goals of the Democrats.

[Edge-]

You mean besides the then-Senator Biden, now President Biden, issuing a statement on this very topic?

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...t-nominations/

Thankfully I don't need to spend much time batting down this bit of misinformation. Politifact does it for me.

Now if this is how you're going to continue to engage, i.e. dishonestly and in bad faith, I'm not sure what you seek to gain here or what you hope to accomplish.

Oh, and besides Schumer declaring he would not consider possible Bush nominees?

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/...t-picks-005146

Again, grossly misrepresenting the facts here.

I gotta say, you at least do a good job of helping remind me about recent political history. I just wish your dishonesty was a bit more difficult to debunk the correct information being in the literal first 2 links that pop up after searching.

Very low effort. Very low energy.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You and I experienced a very different 2019-2021. Republicans increased their lead in the Senate. That's very different than what you said. You said "congress was Democrat controlled." Congress includes a House and a Senate; Democrat control of Congress means they control both houses. Please revise or explain.

The Senate and Presidency being united in party dominance absolutely does not leave doubt on consent to presidential appointments.

The democrats held the house. There was still a split. You seem to be moving the goalposts here. Either that or your entire distinction and excuse for McConnell is exactly that. An excuse. You know you could have just admitted that you're in favor of naked power grabs by the Republicans and I would have believed you were being honest, rather than the current dribble you're spewing.

Presidency basically changes hands every 8 years. Congress and Senate are changing hands all the time. Saying that "the voters should choose" who occupies a supreme court seat for the next 50-odd years when power is changing hands literally every couple of years is the worst excuse I've heard. And yes, power in CONGRESS was split.

And as has been pointed out, there's absolutely ZERO precedent anywhere in history that one party needs to hold the senate and presidency for a supreme court justice to be approved. That was literally just McConnell making up random shit to justify stacking the court with regressive conservative activist judges.

[Beefhammer]

Do you actually have anything to add, or are you just committing to this quote-one-sentence-of-a-post-and-make-a-zinger?

You and I experienced a very different 2019-2021. Republicans increased their lead in the Senate. That's very different than what you said. You said "congress was Democrat controlled." Congress includes a House and a Senate; Democrat control of Congress means they control both houses. Please revise or explain.

The Senate and Presidency being united in party dominance absolutely does not leave doubt on consent to presidential appointments.

(As a reminder, whoever possesses the House does not impact the nominations of the President to things like the Supreme Court. The constitution confers that responsibility to the Senate. Additionally, the constitution does not require the Senate to hold a vote.)

For more information: https://www.republicanleader.senate....urt-nomination

Or, the partisan sides to this issue are sincerely believing the other is guilty of the same things. This is quite normal in politics of the 21st and late 20th century, if you ask me.

You mean besides the then-Senator Biden, now President Biden, issuing a statement on this very topic? Oh, and besides Schumer declaring he would not consider possible Bush nominees? Clearly, you should publicly condemn them both for violating certain standards you're currently bashing Republicans on. Both prominent Democrats made public their intentions, and Democrats like usual got all heated when Republicans had opportunity to also keep to their standards. Funny thing that history becomes inconvenient and forgotten the second it doesn't serve the goals of the Democrats.

Amazing how you are so wrong all the time, yet so confident that you are right.

[unfilteredJW]

Do you actually have anything to add, or are you just committing to this quote-one-sentence-of-a-post-and-make-a-zinger?

You and I experienced a very different 2019-2021. Republicans increased their lead in the Senate. That's very different than what you said. You said "congress was Democrat controlled." Congress includes a House and a Senate; Democrat control of Congress means they control both houses. Please revise or explain.

The Senate and Presidency being united in party dominance absolutely does not leave doubt on consent to presidential appointments.

(As a reminder, whoever possesses the House does not impact the nominations of the President to things like the Supreme Court. The constitution confers that responsibility to the Senate. Additionally, the constitution does not require the Senate to hold a vote.)

For more information: https://www.republicanleader.senate....urt-nomination

Or, the partisan sides to this issue are sincerely believing the other is guilty of the same things. This is quite normal in politics of the 21st and late 20th century, if you ask me.

You mean besides the then-Senator Biden, now President Biden, issuing a statement on this very topic? Oh, and besides Schumer declaring he would not consider possible Bush nominees? Clearly, you should publicly condemn them both for violating certain standards you're currently bashing Republicans on. Both prominent Democrats made public their intentions, and Democrats like usual got all heated when Republicans had opportunity to also keep to their standards. Funny thing that history becomes inconvenient and forgotten the second it doesn't serve the goals of the Democrats.

You aren’t worth more than derision.

But here’s two sentences so you feel better.

[Flarelaine]

Please stop personal attacks and post on topic.

[tehdang]

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...t-nominations/

Posting a link and winking might be a mode of your communication, but I expect a little more of the human element. As in summarize in your own words and specifically tell me what logic you also subscribe to from the author. In fact, I believe my discussion and link makes yours out to be a little bit of weaseling around, hoping that calling other people bad faith covers up your own.

Again, grossly misrepresenting the facts here.

I gotta say, you at least do a good job of helping remind me about recent political history. I just wish your dishonesty was a bit more difficult to debunk the correct information being in the literal first 2 links that pop up after searching.

Two for two non-answers. I'm going to need to deal with you, not authors you decline to post on and give appropriate credit to.

Please see my previous post(s) for exactly what my response to the arguments in the links are. Because they utterly fail to address the controversy, and you fail to identify what you found convincing that I find utterly laughable.

Edge: Oh, but don't you see, these people proposed and argued for standards that they never had a chance to put into practice. That makes all the difference in the world, darling.

The democrats held the house. There was still a split. You seem to be moving the goalposts here.

You've failed to give an answer responsive to the question in the last post. I'll put it to you one more time, before you go off on tangents accusing me of moving goalposts (and helpfully avoid answering on your part). I won't belabor it further if you never intended to respond to my post that you quoted.

When you said "the 2019 to 2021 congress was Democrat controlled," is that still something you sincerely believe to be true?

When the Presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties, and they are the only ones that matter in the Presidential appointments we're talking about, do you understand that rules explicitly made for different parties' control are not implicated when there is united party control? Do you understand why that would not be hypocritical?

[Edge-]

Posting a link and winking might be a mode of your communication, but I expect a little more of the human element. As in summarize in your own words and specifically tell me what logic you also subscribe to from the author. In fact, I believe my discussion and link makes yours out to be a little bit of weaseling around, hoping that calling other people bad faith covers up your own.

Why redo the work that the author already did well? Are you not able to read the article yourself or something?

If you need me to basically spoon-feed the relevant bits to you let me know and I'll do what I can.

Two for two non-answers. I'm going to need to deal with you, not authors you decline to post on and give appropriate credit to.

This is just a flat-out rejection of discussion. I'm sharing the direct source material with you that includes context and facts, and you're here demanding that I summarize short articles because you, I guess, can't be bothered to read them.

To spell it out a bit more explicitly since this isn't a straight fact-check so I get that it can be confusing: Schumer did not use the same "logic" or argument that McConnell did. Instead, Schumer had specific objections based on prior SCOTUS nominees the Senate had approved appearing to have mislead members of the Senate.

I'll remind you of your claim -

It's no different than every other time legislation is not brought up for a vote by both parties.

Which, as noted, there are very specific differences.

Unless your argument is, "The Senate can simply do whatever it wants within the rules." which like, yes? But also that doesn't do anything to defend or deflect people correctly pointing out that Republicans consistently engage within these rules in explicitly and expressly bad faith.

The best you can find for historical examples of Democrats "doing" what Republicans and McConnell did is, essentially, Democrats talking about potentially doing something similar - either holding off on confirmations until after the election (but not until the next Congress is seated), or having objections to additional nominees given concerns about honesty and forthrightness with recently approved nominees. McConnell did neither of these things, and his reason was fairly expressly, "Because we can potentially let Republicans choose another nominee if we win." which, again, is in expressly bad faith and I'd challenge you to find any writings by the founding fathers validating this kind of weaponization of the normal operation of government for partisan gain.

[Orange Joe]

Please stop personal attacks and post on topic.

personal attacks would stop if moderators banned trolls and bad faith posters.

[tehdang]

Why redo the work that the author already did well? Are you not able to read the article yourself or something?

If you need me to basically spoon-feed the relevant bits to you let me know and I'll do what I can.

Then my response is the following: I believe the argument in my previous post including the link for further information more than covers the dithering attempts presented in the link. If I knew more about what you strangely found persuasive, maybe I could elaborate further. Provided this all remains civil and doesn't devolve into mutual accusations of dishonesty and bad faith, which tends to end things.

This is just a flat-out rejection of discussion. I'm sharing the direct source material with you that includes context and facts, and you're here demanding that I summarize short articles because you, I guess, can't be bothered to read them.

You literally posted a link, said I was "grossly misstating the facts," and made an aside about dishonesty. You have a very strange way of bringing up "discussion." I'd say it was more like dumping a link and declaring the battle over, with a little parading afterwards.

To spell it out a bit more explicitly since this isn't a straight fact-check so I get that it can be confusing: Schumer did not use the same "logic" or argument that McConnell did. Instead, Schumer had specific objections based on prior SCOTUS nominees the Senate had approved appearing to have mislead members of the Senate.

See, this gives me a little information about the argument you subscribe to. In fact, enough to give an appropriate response. Schumer declared the future nominees of the president would not be considered, prior even to their nomination. Schumer declared that it pained him that "I didn't do more to try to block Justice Alito." Whereas McConnell also declared that the nominee would not be considered, and blocked the vote. When looking at the compare and contrast, these are incredibly similar arguments. Both claimed they had reason to peremptorily dismiss consideration of the nominee in the Senate. They claimed different reasons for doing so; Schumer claimed it was due to past nominees and his conception of "balance," and McConnell that the American people should have a chance to speak their mind on the future nominee, since the election was coming soon. Different reasons for the action, but incredible similar actions, nearly identical in their effect.

Unless your argument is, "The Senate can simply do whatever it wants within the rules." which like, yes? But also that doesn't do anything to defend or deflect people correctly pointing out that Republicans consistently engage within these rules in explicitly and expressly bad faith.

I'm afraid that the rules are more an objective matter, but whether they're being applied in "bad faith" is a very subjective matter. I happen to disagree with you, and others, on your subjective assertions, both for reason of failing to apply them equally to Democrats, and for overall weakness of substance. It appears to simply cover for a lack of courage to state that originalist justices deserve to be blocked and defeated, and more activist judges should be confirmed without undue delay (Like you, I also can dabble in the subjective).

The best you can find for historical examples of Democrats "doing" what Republicans and McConnell did is, essentially, Democrats talking about potentially doing something similar - either holding off on confirmations until after the election (but not until the next Congress is seated), or having objections to additional nominees given concerns about honesty and forthrightness with recently approved nominees. McConnell did neither of these things, and his reason was fairly expressly, "Because we can potentially let Republicans choose another nominee if we win." which, again, is in expressly bad faith and I'd challenge you to find any writings by the founding fathers validating this kind of weaponization of the normal operation of government for partisan gain.

You like to repeat "bad faith" like the tally of its use makes the argument stronger. Schumer and Biden declared their standards and intentions with full ability to put them into practice if the opportunity arose. You're either calling them liars, or saying they're so well known for double standards that every word of theirs is meaningless with regards to setting standards, or Democrats particularly are prone to saying one thing and doing another. As it happens, McConnell both said what he was going to do and did it. He both declared his intention and followed through on it. His reasons were bipartisan and historical. I can't really help you if you're committed to assuming the most bad faith in Republican actions, and the most latitude and indecision in Democrats. Usually we call that partisanship.

[Edge-]

Schumer and Biden declared their standards and intentions with full ability to carry them out if the opportunity arose.

Neither of which were anything remotely approaching what McConnell did, which remains my point.

Biden talked about a purely theoretical delay until after the election happened, but not holding off until the next Congress was seated as McConnell did.

Schumer discussed another theoretical delay, giving justification for his comments by directly citing apparent dishonesty from nominees who expressed that they would not overturn precedent and then did so.

Are you still claiming that these two theoretical delays, both with specific reasonings behind them and one that didn't preclude a potential nominee from being confirmed after the election and before the next Congress was seated, are the same as what McConnel did? McConnell didn't have specific justification beyond, "Well there's a divided government" which again, I'll point out there's little to not historical precedent for.

You're either calling them liars, or saying they're so well known for double standards that every word of theirs is meaningless with regards to setting standards, or Democrats particularly are prone to saying one thing and doing another. As it happens, McConnell both said what he was going to do and did it. He both declared his intention and followed through on it. His reasons were bipartisan and historical. I can't really help you if you're committed to assuming the most bad faith in Republican actions, and the most latitude and indecision in Democrats. Usually we call that partisanship.[/QUOTE]

[Glorious Leader]

You like to repeat "bad faith" like the tally of its use makes the argument stronger.

Consider it characterization and take the L.

[tehdang]

Neither of which were anything remotely approaching what McConnell did, which remains my point.

In the unquoted parts of my post, I explained exactly why they were similar. If you wish to discuss it, I'm still willing.

Biden talked about a purely theoretical delay until after the election happened, but not holding off until the next Congress was seated as McConnell did.

A "purely theoretical delay" is a very weird way to describe Biden declaring what should happen, arguing at length about why it needs to happen, and bringing up the history of when it happened historically. But you do you.

Schumer discussed another theoretical delay, giving justification for his comments by directly citing apparent dishonesty from nominees who expressed that they would not overturn precedent and then did so.

He was even more concrete. He only lacked the opportunity. Again, I don't agree with you that declaring intention and lacking opportunity is inapplicable to declaring intention and following through with opportunity. The examples of Bork and Estrada are examples that prove Democrats are willing to "bad faith" their way through troublesome nominations.

Are you still claiming that these two theoretical delays, both with specific reasonings behind them and one that didn't preclude a potential nominee from being confirmed after the election and before the next Congress was seated, are the same as what McConnel did? McConnell didn't have specific justification beyond, "Well there's a divided government" which again, I'll point out there's little to not historical precedent for.

I just rejected your premises. The difference between declaring what "must be put off" or "block[ed]," in no uncertain terms, is not undone by failing to have opportunity to act. You're playing some juvenile games pretending that Democrats, but not Republicans, would instantly reverse themselves if they actually could do what they said they would and must do.

You're either calling them liars, or saying they're so well known for double standards that every word of theirs is meaningless with regards to setting standards, or Democrats particularly are prone to saying one thing and doing another. As it happens, McConnell both said what he was going to do and did it. He both declared his intention and followed through on it. His reasons were bipartisan and historical. I can't really help you if you're committed to assuming the most bad faith in Republican actions, and the most latitude and indecision in Democrats. Usually we call that partisanship.

I'll have to wait for your future edit. But if that isn't forthcoming, thanks for repeating my argument without disputing it.

- - - Updated - - -

Consider it characterization and take the L.

Reminder that you, not I, chose to select out a sentence from my post and pretend it existed as an argument in itself and not a sentence within a conclusion to a post. If you're ever done trolling and pretending to dunk, maybe you do have a full opinion on the argument and post? It might even be a cogent opinion that will benefit us all!

[unfilteredJW]

In the unquoted parts of my post, I explained exactly why they were similar. If you wish to discuss it, I'm still willing.

A "purely theoretical delay" is a very weird way to describe Biden declaring what should happen, arguing at length about why it needs to happen, and bringing up the history of when it happened historically. But you do you.

He was even more concrete. He only lacked the opportunity. Again, I don't agree with you that declaring intention and lacking opportunity is inapplicable to declaring intention and following through with opportunity. The examples of Bork and Estrada are examples that prove Democrats are willing to "bad faith" their way through troublesome nominations.

I just rejected your premises. The difference between declaring what "must be put off" or "block[ed]," in no uncertain terms, is not undone by failing to have opportunity to act. You're playing some juvenile games pretending that Democrats, but not Republicans, would instantly reverse themselves if they actually could do what they said they would and must do.

I'll have to wait for your future edit. But if that isn't forthcoming, thanks for repeating my argument without disputing it.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminder that you, not I, chose to select out a sentence from my post and pretend it existed as an argument in itself and not a sentence within a conclusion to a post. If you're ever done trolling and pretending to dunk, maybe you do have a full opinion on the argument and post? It might even be a cogent opinion that will benefit us all!

Why would anyone do that when constantly lie and ignore evidence?

You are getting back what you deserve.

Stop lying. Stop ignoring evidence. Then maybe you can join us at the big boy table.

[Gestopft]

The examples of Bork and Estrada are examples that prove Democrats are willing to "bad faith" their way through troublesome nominations.

O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter all got 90+ votes in the same 10-year span, but it couldn't possibly have been that Bork was too far out of the mainstream...

Oh, and he also helped Nixon obstruct justice. That alone should've been disqualifying.

[Cthulhu 2020]

When you said "the 2019 to 2021 congress was Democrat controlled," is that still something you sincerely believe to be true?

Yes. In coloquial usage within the united states, when someone talks about "congress" they mean the congressional house, which is differentiated from the Senate.

Holding the presidency + Senate being a requirement to appoint judges is some kind of weird fucking fantasy you made up.

As I said, if you'd just admitted that you like and agree with naked Republican power grabs, I'd be more inclined to believe you were being honest than the tripe you've posted.


Here's a question for you: What precedent or law requires the presidency and Senate be held by one party to appoint judges?

Also, does it even make any sense that the presidency, which changes hands every 8 years, and the Senate which changes hands every 2-4 years, is required to appoint a judge who will serve for life, very likely 40-50 years?

I'll take a non answer as your admission that McConnell just went for a naked power grab, made up a terrible excuse, and you happen to agree with that.

[tehdang]

O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter all got 90+ votes in the same 10-year span, but it couldn't possibly have been that Bork was too far out of the mainstream...

Oh, and he also helped Nixon obstruct justice. That alone should've been disqualifying.

The quality of the attacks was so poor and the attacks so vicious and unfair that the verb 'bork' entered the political lexicon to describe such defamation and obstruction. If you want to bemoan whatever Republicans do today, you'd best call the original borking a mistake and thoroughly unjust. He was a decent man and a brilliant legal mind, but the politics of the day demanded the shattering of norms and injustice.

But this is probably not the best place to relitigate the original norm-breaking that Democrats would rather be forgotten.