I don’t think I said anything about court packing. And could have done the same as what?
Ok fair enough, you said court stacking. But the Dems did try to redefine the term court packing. The Democrats could have confirmed Merrick Garland in the last year of Obama's term if they had controlled the Senate.
In a world where politicians redefine everything ("rounding the turn?), temporary misuse of a term is way down on my list of things to worry about.
Why, yes, they could have. So? How does that justify the GOPs Calvinball rules for approving Supreme Court Justices in presidential election years?
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
You answered your own question. You weren't paying attention. You clearly asked your question out of ignorance of the events in 2016. That's why it's mysterious to you and nobody else.
In that case, now that I know the events of 2016, I am equally disgusted at the Republicans for playing dirty tricks in order to prevent President Obama from doing his job. If he had nominated someone odious, the senate could've simply voted to not confirm that person.
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
In that case, now that I know the events of 2016, I am equally disgusted at the Republicans for playing dirty tricks in order to prevent President Obama from doing his job. If he had nominated someone odious, the senate could've simply voted to not confirm that person.
Shades, this was a contentious and glaringly public spectacle for nearly the entirety of 2016 - specifically, McConnell sat on Garland’s nomination for 293 days. Are you sure that you didn’t hear anything about this during that time?
What has changed since then to make you so much more finely attuned to events and commentary surrounding the much-shorter timeline of Barrett’s nomination?
Shades, this was a contentious and glaringly public spectacle for nearly the entirety of 2016 - specifically, McConnell sat on Garland’s nomination for 293 days. Are you sure that you didn’t hear anything about this during that time?
It is starting to sound familiar.
What has changed since then to make you so much more finely attuned to events and commentary surrounding the much-shorter timeline of Barrett’s nomination?
Barrett's nomination hearings were live broadcast, so I could listen during my breaks and during my lunch break. Plus, the words "court stacking" were all up in my face this time around from all angles.
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
Taking a serious crack at Shades' question, the bottom line to me is that "his job" is a rather open ended. Abuse of authority often happens when fulfilling the letter of a position. It wasn't "his job" to do exactly what he did. Had he ignored all recommendations and said we should wait until next year, he'd also have been doing "his job". His job could have been fulfilled in any number of varying configurations.
Assuming the ends of the job aren't explicitly reprehensible (Hitler was just doing his job):
How can you fault that cop for giving a ticket for 26 in a 25? That's his job.
How can you fault a bishop for asking 26 sexually explicit questions to a minor: it's his job to determine worthiness.
How can you fault that trash collector for not taking that recycle bin? A pizza box was thrown in, and they technically aren't allowed. Note: It's often customary to take them anyway, and this same trash collector had just taken the last 7 containers when they also had pizza boxes. But for the bin that was skipped, the home owner had been in the driveway, and of a racial background this trash collector had a history of taking swipes at. Oh yeah, this guy won't deny his prejudice, but that's all extraneous information, as it was within his job description to pass on a recycle bin with a pizza box.
Shades, this was a contentious and glaringly public spectacle for nearly the entirety of 2016 - specifically, McConnell sat on Garland’s nomination for 293 days. Are you sure that you didn’t hear anything about this during that time?
It is starting to sound familiar.
This could have been during a period of time when Perfume had some major event or tour.
You answered your own question. You weren't paying attention. You clearly asked your question out of ignorance of the events in 2016. That's why it's mysterious to you and nobody else.
In that case, now that I know the events of 2016, I am equally disgusted at the Republicans for playing dirty tricks in order to prevent President Obama from doing his job. If he had nominated someone odious, the senate could've simply voted to not confirm that person.
Yes. Thank you. I believe you now might understand why people who aren't right wing extremists might be upset at what happened this last month.
And just for context, the only reason I hit you hard is that you came in all gangbusters criticizing Democrats without knowing the background (which, I admit, seemed outrageous - were you living in a cave at the time?). Had you come in just asking why things were the way they were, you'd have received a lot less derision.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
