Should Scalia's seat be vacated?

[Keith&Co.]

If I have to explain then I am really wasting my time.

I can't argue against the idea that you're really wasting your time here.
If you really see me as 'defending treason' by refusing to accept your histrionics as a rational interpretation of the facts, then you're just doomed to spin your wheels.

 

[untermensche]

If I have to explain then I am really wasting my time.

I can't argue against the idea that you're really wasting your time here.
If you really see me as 'defending treason' by refusing to accept your histrionics as a rational interpretation of the facts, then you're just doomed to spin your wheels.

You are basically saying no new ideas can arise and you don't want to be bothered by any.

The modern right-wing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can't argue against the idea that you're really wasting your time here.
If you really see me as 'defending treason' by refusing to accept your histrionics as a rational interpretation of the facts, then you're just doomed to spin your wheels.

You are basically saying no new ideas can arise and you don't want to be bothered by any.

The modern right-wing.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are right-wing.

 

[untermensche]

You are basically saying no new ideas can arise and you don't want to be bothered by any.

The modern right-wing.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are right-wing.

I am not saying the person would label themselves as being on the right.

Only that they are displaying a common trait of people who do.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can't argue against the idea that you're really wasting your time here.
If you really see me as 'defending treason' by refusing to accept your histrionics as a rational interpretation of the facts, then you're just doomed to spin your wheels.

You are basically saying no new ideas can arise and you don't want to be bothered by any.

What a fascinating world you must live in...
I'm saying that the founding fathers were VERY concerned about the charge of treason, and went to some effort to protect people from being charged with it when it wasn't actually treason.
I'm saying that it's not something we want the definition to creep on, as that lends itself to abuse.
I'm saying we don't want to go down the road where Trump can claim that SNL making fun of him or his policies weakens his government, making that a treasonous attack on the government.

The modern right-wing.

Wow, that charge hits SO close to home... I'm so right wing. Yep. You got me.

You're still wrong about treason, as wrong as a knitted fire extinguisher.

 

[untermensche]

You are basically saying no new ideas can arise and you don't want to be bothered by any.

What a fascinating world you must live in...

Clearly more interesting than yours.

Disrupting the function of an entire branch of the government is no small matter.

No matter how much you want to pretend it is.

Wow, that charge hits SO close to home... I'm so right wing. Yep. You got me.

You display thinking patterns that are the same as the modern right-wing.

A stubborn refusal to learn new things, or even examine them.

A denial of serious problems, like climate change or the willful disruption of governments.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Disrupting the function of an entire branch of the government is no small matter.

No matter how much you want to pretend it is.

Fascinating.
So, if I say it's not exactly 'treason' you read that as saying it's a small matter?
And, really, one less person on the bench doesn't even disrupt the function of the Supreme Court, much less the ENTIRE BRANCH of the government.
You're just getting silly, now.

Wow, that charge hits SO close to home... I'm so right wing. Yep. You got me.

You display thinking patterns that are the same as the modern right-wing.

A stubborn refusal to learn new things, or even examine them.

I don't think you're even trying to understand my thinking pattern.
I have examined your claims and they're totally emotional bullshit that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

A denial of serious problems, like climate change or the willful disruption of governments.

I'm not denying that it's a problem or that it's a serious problem.
I'm denying that this problem qualifies as Treason as legally defined in the Constitution.
And you're adding all sorts of bullshit to what you say I'm saying, or what you think I'm thinking, or why I'm not supporting your interpretation.

So you're wasting your time if you're trying to shame me into thinking something I don't think is true.

 

[KeepTalking]

And i guess i need to specify, i was saying that 'disrupting the function' of the government could be a protest, not an act of war. Say if people crowd into a government building to block people going about their business. It'd be a bad precedent to start saying any disruption is levying war.

The above bears repeating, given that unter ignored it, snipped it, and blew right past it in his zeal to label Keith as a right-wing supporter of treason.

You should respond to what Keith said above, unter, as that is a big part of his argument. Arguing the way unter is currently arguing is the road to totalitarianism.

 

[untermensche]

And i guess i need to specify, i was saying that 'disrupting the function' of the government could be a protest, not an act of war. Say if people crowd into a government building to block people going about their business. It'd be a bad precedent to start saying any disruption is levying war.

The above bears repeating, given that unter ignored it, snipped it, and blew right past it in his zeal to label Keith as a right-wing supporter of treason.

You should respond to what Keith said above, unter, as that is a big part of his argument. Arguing the way unter is currently arguing is the road to totalitarianism.

Protest of what?

The Senate IS the government.

It has a duty to fulfill.

Willfully shirking that duty is not protest.

It is treason. An act of war on another branch. Actually two.

A clear violation of the separation of powers. These duties are not optional.

You are saying WE work for the Senate and it does not work for us. That is the road to totalitarianism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The above bears repeating, given that unter ignored it, snipped it, and blew right past it in his zeal to label Keith as a right-wing supporter of treason.

You should respond to what Keith said above, unter, as that is a big part of his argument. Arguing the way unter is currently arguing is the road to totalitarianism.

Protest of what?

The Senate IS the government.

It has a duty to fulfill.

Willfully shirking that duty is not protest.

It is treason. An act of war on another branch. Actually two.

A clear violation of the separation of powers. These duties are not optional.

You are saying WE work for the Senate and it does not work for us. That is the road to totalitarianism.

Treason is to perform an act of betrayal of the nation. What the Republicans did was heavily partisan and unethical, but it wasn't treason. Killing a Justice would be treason. Not allowing the replacement of a Justice is obstruction.

 

[untermensche]

...one less person on the bench doesn't even disrupt the function of the Supreme Court, much less the ENTIRE BRANCH of the government...

Total lie.

Changing the makeup of the Court not by law but by the will of one Senate is a significant disruption to its normal functioning.

All decisions are skewed. An entire mind is missing from the process.

That cannot be denied.

Your argument rests on a lie.

 

[untermensche]

Protest of what?

The Senate IS the government.

It has a duty to fulfill.

Willfully shirking that duty is not protest.

It is treason. An act of war on another branch. Actually two.

A clear violation of the separation of powers. These duties are not optional.

You are saying WE work for the Senate and it does not work for us. That is the road to totalitarianism.

Treason is to perform an act of betrayal of the nation. What the Republicans did was heavily partisan and unethical, but it wasn't treason. Killing a Justice would be treason. Not allowing the replacement of a Justice is obstruction.

Disrupting the government IS a betrayal of the entire nation.

It is saying the Senate does not work for the people. The people work for the Senate.

When people make themselves kings and war on the government they commit treason.

 

[Keith&Co.]

...one less person on the bench doesn't even disrupt the function of the Supreme Court, much less the ENTIRE BRANCH of the government...

Total lie.

Feel free to explain this assertion.

Changing the makeup of the Court not by law but by the will of one Senate is a significant disruption to its normal functioning.

See, that's odd because it still seems to function. it still produces judgments. They're still useful for laws and shit.
So what, exactly, was 'disrupted?' Or is that another word you want to ignore the definition of?

All decisions are skewed. An entire mind is missing from the process.

Okay, but that's not a 'disruption.'

That cannot be denied.

I deny it.

Your argument rests on a lie.

No, just on English.

 

[untermensche]

Total lie.

Feel free to explain this assertion.

Since I just did I feel I am wasting my time. Any ignorant fool can pretend they can't see what is clearly before them.

Changing the makeup of the Court not by law but by the will of one Senate is a significant disruption to its normal functioning.

See, that's odd because it still seems to function. it still produces judgments. They're still useful for laws and shit.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend the word "normal". Producing skewed decisions with a less than full Court is not "normal". It is abnormal.

All decisions are skewed. An entire mind is missing from the process.

Okay, but that's not a 'disruption.'

Another lie. It is all you have. Skewing decisions is a disruption of "normal" function. Normal function is defined by law. Law these Senators are ignoring.

Your argument rests on a lie.

Sorry, actually it rests on several lies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Treason is to perform an act of betrayal of the nation. What the Republicans did was heavily partisan and unethical, but it wasn't treason. Killing a Justice would be treason. Not allowing the replacement of a Justice is obstruction.

Disrupting the government IS a betrayal of the entire nation.

You are guilty of hyperbole here. If not giving a nominee a hearing is treason, what do we call murdering a Justice?

 

[untermensche]

Disrupting the government IS a betrayal of the entire nation.

You are guilty of hyperbole here. If not giving a nominee a hearing is treason, what do we call murdering a Justice?

Murder.

I am not exaggerating the severity of willful disruption of the government by those with Constitutional duties.

Others, for some reason, are ignoring the severity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not exaggerating the severity of willful disruption of the government by those with Constitutional duties.

Of course you are.
By your logic, a filibuster would be treason.

 

[Elixir]

I am not exaggerating the severity of willful disruption of the government by those with Constitutional duties.

Of course you are.
By your logic, a filibuster would be treason.

Hmmm... maybe we can get Mitch to buy into that.

 

[laughing dog]

They can filibuster.

And then McConnell can go nuclear.

If going nuclear means eliminating the procedural filibuster, then good riddance.

[
In any case, that gambit would be better kept for the case another SCOTUS seat is comes up if Trump nominates somebody really outside the judicial mainstream. Gorsuch is a conservative, but he is not that.

I think holding up nominations for political reasons is wrong. But if the Democrats wish to educate their Republican colleagues and get the procedural filibuster eliminated, then I am all for it.

 

[untermensche]

I am not exaggerating the severity of willful disruption of the government by those with Constitutional duties.

Of course you are.
By your logic, a filibuster would be treason.

How is that willfully refusing to do your duty to allow another branch to function as it is defined in law?

It is willfully harming another branch.

If any other entity did it most would see the severity.

Willfully harming a nation's government is an act of war on that government.