Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 36 of 58 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 867

Thread: RBG Has Died

  1. #526
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    37,169
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    He'd probably get more votes if he said he was going to wait to appoint a Justice until after the election because then he could tell every Republican he needs their vote or else Democrats will appoint the Justice.
    Hmm, lol, hold them hostage!

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  2. #527
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    50,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Everything in DC is partisanship . But……There is partisanship and there is partisanship

    Show me where the repubs did something like……

    The Bork appointment
    The Thomas appointment
    The Kavanaugh appointment

    Screaming outside people's homes

    Threatening to "burn it all down"

    Lying about Romney's tax returns

    Impeachment over nothing

    Whining about voter suppression after a loss.

    Sometimes you just lose. Sometimes the landscape changes against you by happenstance.

    Tge Dems can't take it.
    You’re kidding right? Sending death threats to dem leaders, doctors who perform abortions, claiming Obama wasn’t even a citizen, staging a riot and storming a county clerk office in 2000 to intimidate people recounting votes, making up lies about pedophilia rings to the point where someone showed up at a pizza place with a gun, etc etc

    Whining about voter suppression? Honestly, you’re going to tell me that whining about that problem is worse than creating the problem (lest I remind you there’s actual settled court cases and audio of gop reps admitting to these tactics).

    Both sides are horrible in this. Debating the degrees of how bad each side is just distracts from the core problem. We are lead by two corrupt parties that profit off our bitter divisions. Cable media profits when they ran the flames. Social media profits when they force engagement and fights.

  3. #528
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,091
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    It's like you are ignorant on history. This is the Biden rule in 2016. You can blame the dems if you want to be truthful.
    Yes, Dems definitely changed things that allowed Republicans to do what they're about to do. But Republicans rationale is they are doing it because they can. Cool. So if Democrats win all 3 of the White House, the Senate, and the House they will be able to change the number because they can. Same rationale.

    If you don't think they should, maybe Republicans should not do this simply because they can.

  4. #529
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yes, Dems definitely changed things that allowed Republicans to do what they're about to do. But Republicans rationale is they are doing it because they can. Cool. So if Democrats win all 3 of the White House, the Senate, and the House they will be able to change the number because they can. Same rationale.

    If you don't think they should, maybe Republicans should not do this simply because they can.
    Does the constitution not say the President nominates and the senate considers and ultimately votes for approval? It was Biden that wanted that part to be ignored.

  5. #530
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    35,994
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    There would be no lawsuit. It’s a simple law that substitutes the number 9 for another. It’s perfectly constitutional and has been done dozens of times. If modifying it isn’t constitutional then the court has a sticky deal of untangling what the number of justices is. But it wouldn’t be 9 because it was made to 9 by the 1869 law that would also de facto be unconstitutional.
    You are right that it's not in the constitution ... I do wonder about the "dozens of times" ... has the official total number of seats changed 24+ times?

  6. #531
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,091
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Does the constitution not say the President nominates and the senate considers and ultimately votes for approval? It was Biden that wanted that part to be ignored.
    A bad example considering the last time that didn't happen was in 2016 when the Senate refused to even consider the nomination of the President. If this is the way it should have gone, then why weren't you upset at the Senate for not doing it as the Constitution states it should be done in 2016?

  7. #532
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,221
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Of course I'm OK with it. If Republicans are going to be OK with being gigantic hypocrites to get another SC Justice on the court before this election then why wouldn't I be?

    The thing that would stop Republicans from doing it is they'd have to control all 3 of the White House, the Senate and the House.

    The reason Democrats would add 4 SC Justices to the court is the exact same reason Republicans are saying they can appoint a new SC Justice before this election: because they can.

    If Republicans don't want this to happen, maybe they should stop being hypocrites and appointing a Justice simply because they have the ability to do so.
    But I bet you are against gerrymandering though, aren't you???

    Packing the court, adding phony states is just like gerrymandering……adjusting political entities to get what you want.

    So if packing the court is OK and gerrymandering is not…who is the hypocrite here????


    And for the record (again) Merrit Garland should have had hearings. The repubs should not have refused.

  8. #533
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,221
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    You’re kidding right? Sending death threats to dem leaders, doctors who perform abortions, claiming Obama wasn’t even a citizen, staging a riot and storming a county clerk office in 2000 to intimidate people recounting votes, making up lies about pedophilia rings to the point where someone showed up at a pizza place with a gun, etc etc

    Whining about voter suppression? Honestly, you’re going to tell me that whining about that problem is worse than creating the problem (lest I remind you there’s actual settled court cases and audio of gop reps admitting to these tactics).

    Both sides are horrible in this. Debating the degrees of how bad each side is just distracts from the core problem. We are lead by two corrupt parties that profit off our bitter divisions. Cable media profits when they ran the flames. Social media profits when they force engagement and fights.
    Writing letters by wackos……that's the same as your "peaceful protests." Claiming BO wasn't a citizen……any business burned down over that???

    How many cities had riots this year???? They were all dems.

    Has there ever been violent protests over SC justices from the right like there was for Bork, Thomas, and Kava??? If so, I never saw it.

    Any repubs screaming outside of dems homes, yelling at them in the streets and restaurants??? If so I've missed those.

    Which party has caused cities the most $$$ this summer??? Get back to me on that one.

    Voter suppression………show me. All anyone has to do is a few months before an election, call the local county election supervisor and ask "What do I have to do or need to vote in the November election?" Then when they tell you…just go do it. People too stupid to figure it out or too lazy to do it are quick to cry suppression. It only exists if you let it exist.

    You're kidding right???

  9. #534
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    35,994
    Can we limit this thread to just talking about RBG and have the general SC discussion in the new SC thread?

  10. #535
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    But I bet you are against gerrymandering though, aren't you???

    Packing the court, adding phony states is just like gerrymandering……adjusting political entities to get what you want.

    So if packing the court is OK and gerrymandering is not…who is the hypocrite here????

    And for the record (again) Merrit Garland should have had hearings. The repubs should not have refused.
    Oh, packing the court and gerrymandering are both wrong. But if one side does it, then it's OK for the other side to do it too unless both sides agree to stop and make things equal again.

    And as for your admission Garland should have had a hearing. It's easy to say it should have happened when you're about to get everything you want. Your sentiment won't stop Republicans from nominating and adding a 6th Justice now despite their blatant hypocrisy.

    The fact that it didn't happen is why I'm perfectly OK with adding Justices to the court by Democrats. If Republicans don't want court packing, they should probably not try to pack the court with a nominee less than 2 months from an election.

  11. #536
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    You are right that it's not in the constitution ... I do wonder about the "dozens of times" ... has the official total number of seats changed 24+ times?
    It has not changed from 9 justices in 150 years.

    This is a very bad precedent to be setting and it will make things far worse than it is now.

    The court has been liberal for 50 years or more and conservatives had to sit put and live with it. No one was looking for repub admins to pack the court conservative.

    Some of you are apoplectic over this. Why is this change so hard for some of you to take?? What will happen with a conservative court that will change your life as you know it??? What is the big concern here???

  12. #537
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    It has not changed from 9 justices in 150 years.

    This is a very bad precedent to be setting and it will make things far worse than it is now.

    The court has been liberal for 50 years or more and conservatives had to sit put and live with it. No one was looking for repub admins to pack the court conservative.

    Some of you are apoplectic over this. Why is this change so hard for some of you to take?? What will happen with a conservative court that will change your life as you know it??? What is the big concern here???
    As was not considering Garland and ramming through a SC Justice with 2 months to an election.

  13. #538
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    56,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I don't see how the SC nom assures him winning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Neither do I.
    Here here.

  14. #539
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,221
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Oh, packing the court and gerrymandering are both wrong. But if one side does it, then it's OK for the other side to do it too unless both sides agree to stop and make things equal again.

    And as for your admission Garland should have had a hearing. It's easy to say it should have happened when you're about to get everything you want. Your sentiment won't stop Republicans from nominating and adding a 6th Justice now despite their blatant hypocrisy.

    The fact that it didn't happen is why I'm perfectly OK with adding Justices to the court by Democrats. If Republicans don't want court packing, they should probably not try to pack the court with a nominee less than 2 months from an election.

    Bolded………I said it when it occurred.

    And no matter what happen with Garland and will happen with Ruthie croaking…that is not a reason to change the structure of our society and, by setting precedent, opening the door to the opposite party doing the same thing. It is a very bad idea.

    Look, I know you are all PO'd over Garland not being heard and this one being pushed thru but that is how the cards fell…and this has been done numerous times in the past…numerous times. Nothing new here. But you do not change the structure of the country over something like bad luck happening to you party.


    And don't forget……all of this could have been avoided if Ruthie would have simply retired during the BO admin. She was certain Hilly would win in 2016 and decided to wait a few more years. So her poor planning is really what led to all this. She could have easily retired at 82, gotten all the legal giant accolades, done some speeches and enjoyed being adored for the rest of her life. She could have picked her own replacement. But she didn't. Instead, she died as a fragile old woman with people waiting for her to kick the bucket. And no one wants to talk about this.

  15. #540
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    56,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Great post (I suppose.)

    But it has nothing to do with why can't dems just lose gracefully. Why can't they accept a loss???
    You do realize Trump continuously says that the only way he'll lose is if there is voter fraud?

Page 36 of 58 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •