Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 42 of 50 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 616 to 630 of 747
  1. #616
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    28,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    This goes back to my point: he did it because he could. And Republicans blocked Obama’s nominee because they could. And if Democrats add seats to the SC it will be because they can.

    So no complaining about how it’s illegal, unethical, etc. when Democrats do it if you don’t think what the Republicans did to Garland and Barrett are.

    Because it’s the same thing: doing it because they can.
    If Biden takes over, they NEED to try to add 2,3 spots at minimum. These are lifetime appointments so its ****ed until then.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  2. #617
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Zmaster52 View Post
    Name them


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    https://bfy.tw/PTdP

  3. #618
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerSL View Post
    If Democrats do take the Senate, I say add six S.C. Justices to make a 15-person bench, and then put term limits on all S.C. Justices moving forward. Say what you want about "packing the Court", the fact is the GOP packed the court when they denied Merrick Garland for 11 months because it was an "election year", but nominated and confirmed Amy Coney Barrett within 38 days and eight days before a national election.

    Trump has also filled 1/3 of the federal judiciary because Mitch McConnell didn't allow Obama's judicial nominees through for the last three years of his Presidency. The GOP has stacked the federal judiciary, and now the S.C., so anything the Democrats do would be in retaliation of that and would have merit. They also need to give Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood, which would mean more Democratic Senators and Representatives. Puerto Rico wouldn't be guaranteed to elect Democratic Senators like D.C., but it's likely they would.

    More importantly than anything though, the Democrats have to actually get things done in the two years they would have if they take the White House and Senate. When Obama walked into office with Democratic control of the House and a Democratic Super Majority in the Senate (60 Democratic Senators) they accomplished very little honestly. They did get the ACA through, but it took over a year and lobbyists wrote the bill. Aside from the Dodd-Frank and the ACA, almost nothing got done. That can't happen again. They have to address the S.C., they have to raise taxes on the rich, they have to raise minimum wage to a living wage, and they need to make public college tuition-free. They have to do something about the climate, and healthcare, and coronavirus, and on and on and on. Basically, the United States needs to be a transformed nation in two years from what it is now (on the brink of fascism).
    * vomitting *

  4. #619
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    And denying a SCOTUS nominee a hearing is like throwing at the batter’s head.

    You can expect payback.
    Biden rule

  5. #620
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,172
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Biden rule
    Not a rule. Not even an “unwritten” rule.
    Last edited by Crovash; 10-27-2020 at 09:19 AM.

  6. #621
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,194
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    * vomitting *
    So what are you in favor of? What we have now?

  7. #622
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,877
    I woke up this morning and was happy to see there was daylight.

    I guess the sun still rose despite the new SC appointee. The way some were carrying on, I wasn't sure if we could count on that.

  8. #623
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    21,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper View Post
    A vacancy was created. He filled it and had every right to as sitting President. He did nothing unethical, he didn’t change a rule or break a rule. If Obama had replaced Scalia in the same manner he’d have been within his elected right to do so. Stop being so dramatic.
    200 something days since the last stimulus but we can get a lifetime appointment in within 40 days?

    Completely unethical and if not unethical, you should see that the right doesn’t give half a **** about anybody, they only care about ‘winning’ like everyone (including yourself) is insinuating.

    I wrote one sentence and you’re saying I’m being dramatic, that’s cute.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If Trump can become president with no political background then I don't understand why I need a resumé

  9. #624
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,877
    Why can't the dems just lose once in a while and just take it.

    Politics is cyclical. The worm will turn and the dems will have the advantage…probably in a week or so.

    Packing the court is just a terrible idea. Cases come before the SC one at a time. The justices don't divvy them up …three judges here, four judges over there, two judges for the easy cases. They are heard one at a time in front of nine judges. The nine judges are supposed to be the finest legal minds in the country.

    There is no reason to believe that nine top legal minds cannot intelligently come to a legal decision……except it is not a decision you like. So let's add more that think like me. That's not really court packing as much as court fixing. This is just like criminal court in a backwater county. Blacks want a black jury, whites want a white jury etc.The point of law becomes irrelevant.

    Seems like it would be easier to keep the nine and just bribe them to get what you want.

    Packing the court, as mentioned, is a bad idea in so many ways. And you can't remove judges. Pack a court and the pres doesn't have to appoint judges foe an opening. That will happen. Pack a court and it won't stop at 11,13,15,17,19 (I sense a pattern here). You cannot add term limits without a constitutional amendment (good luck with that).

    You probably could enact a law specifying time frames:
    SC justice croaks or retires…pres has 14 days to nominate a judge (he already has a list)
    Senate has 30 days to confirm or deny
    If no confirmation or denial is made within 30 days…nominee is automatically approved.
    Senators must state a valid reason to deny a nominee…not just party line, not just a disagreement over a point of law. Reason could be challenged by other senators with a rapid hearing by an impartial board. (Maybe a quick decision by the SC itself…shouldn't take all that long). Senators without a valid reason would have their vote not count and the majority number would be reduced. If this happened a few times, they would take their vote seriously (Hi Mazie).

    Similar set up for lower court judges.

    Having specific time frames would prevent McConnell like intentional delays in keeping presidential appointments from happening.

    I am all for logical compromise. Packing the court…an emphatic no.

    …………

    Side note: With all the dems loving how all the youth of the country is changing the country for the better (in their eyes), why are't they excited about this youthful SC judge???? Just wondering.

  10. #625
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    95,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Why can't the dems just lose once in a while and just take it.

    Politics is cyclical. The worm will turn and the dems will have the advantage…probably in a week or so.

    Packing the court is just a terrible idea. Cases come before the SC one at a time. The justices don't divvy them up …three judges here, four judges over there, two judges for the easy cases. They are heard one at a time in front of nine judges. The nine judges are supposed to be the finest legal minds in the country.

    There is no reason to believe that nine top legal minds cannot intelligently come to a legal decision……except it is not a decision you like. So let's add more that think like me. That's not really court packing as much as court fixing. This is just like criminal court in a backwater county. Blacks want a black jury, whites want a white jury etc.The point of law becomes irrelevant.

    Seems like it would be easier to keep the nine and just bribe them to get what you want.

    Packing the court, as mentioned, is a bad idea in so many ways. And you can't remove judges. Pack a court and the pres doesn't have to appoint judges foe an opening. That will happen. Pack a court and it won't stop at 11,13,15,17,19 (I sense a pattern here). You cannot add term limits without a constitutional amendment (good luck with that).

    You probably could enact a law specifying time frames:
    SC justice croaks or retires…pres has 14 days to nominate a judge (he already has a list)
    Senate has 30 days to confirm or deny
    If no confirmation or denial is made within 30 days…nominee is automatically approved.
    Senators must state a valid reason to deny a nominee…not just party line, not just a disagreement over a point of law. Reason could be challenged by other senators with a rapid hearing by an impartial board. (Maybe a quick decision by the SC itself…shouldn't take all that long). Senators without a valid reason would have their vote not count and the majority number would be reduced. If this happened a few times, they would take their vote seriously (Hi Mazie).

    Similar set up for lower court judges.

    Having specific time frames would prevent McConnell like intentional delays in keeping presidential appointments from happening.

    I am all for logical compromise. Packing the court…an emphatic no.

    …………

    Side note: With all the dems loving how all the youth of the country is changing the country for the better (in their eyes), why are't they excited about this youthful SC judge???? Just wondering.
    Lose once in a while and take it?

    Republicans can't even get half the country to say they are the party they want to lead our country and yet they have been able to get 6 of the 9 justices. It hasn't been just once in a while. It's been a systemic effort of control. Even when Democrats have the presidency, they don't get to confirm justices.

    So if they win and take the senate, it's why I think it's time that they step up and use the brute force that Republicans have used over the decades. No more Mr. Niceguy.
    Prior to 11/1/19: if you were on my ignore list, I was sticking to ignoring you thanks to great advise.
    From 11/1/19 on: I will no longer be responding to comments back to people on my ignore list.
    _____

    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!


  11. #626
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Side note: With all the dems loving how all the youth of the country is changing the country for the better (in their eyes), why are't they excited about this youthful SC judge???? Just wondering.
    I think you know...that it's because it's not THEIR youthful judge...and she'll now be there for possibly 40 years
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  12. #627
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,030
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Lose once in a while and take it?

    Republicans can't even get half the country to say they are the party they want to lead our country and yet they have been able to get 6 of the 9 justices. It hasn't been just once in a while. It's been a systemic effort of control. Even when Democrats have the presidency, they don't get to confirm justices.

    So if they win and take the senate, it's why I think it's time that they step up and use the brute force that Republicans have used over the decades. No more Mr. Niceguy.
    They can't get half the country to say they're their party....but they've somehow still used their brute force for decades? How have they HAD brute force if most people don't want them in power? Hmm...seems to contradict your point.

    I've said all along this appointment should have waited...even if only as a one time 'make up call' for 2016. But the other justices were all justly appointed to the court by the party that earned the right to put them there, correct?

    And this no more Mr Nice Guy BS will only serve one purpose- to FURTHER divide this country, if that's even possible at this point without it erupting into far MORE civil unrest...which may happen anyway depending on election results.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  13. #628
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    95,184
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    They can't get half the country to say they're their party....but they've somehow still used their brute force for decades? How have they HAD brute force if most people don't want them in power? Hmm...seems to contradict your point.

    I've said all along this appointment should have waited...even if only as a one time 'make up call' for 2016. But the other justices were all justly appointed to the court by the party that earned the right to put them there, correct?

    And this no more Mr Nice Guy BS will only serve one purpose- to FURTHER divide this country, if that's even possible at this point without it erupting into far MORE civil unrest...which may happen anyway depending on election results.
    I wish that it contradicted my point. But no, actually it is my point.

    Republicans continually get to have far higher representation because states that have more cows than people get artificially high representation.
    Prior to 11/1/19: if you were on my ignore list, I was sticking to ignoring you thanks to great advise.
    From 11/1/19 on: I will no longer be responding to comments back to people on my ignore list.
    _____

    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!


  14. #629
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,877
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Lose once in a while and take it?

    Republicans can't even get half the country to say they are the party they want to lead our country and yet they have been able to get 6 of the 9 justices. It hasn't been just once in a while. It's been a systemic effort of control. Even when Democrats have the presidency, they don't get to confirm justices.

    So if they win and take the senate, it's why I think it's time that they step up and use the brute force that Republicans have used over the decades. No more Mr. Niceguy.
    Here's what happened. Pay attention and take notes.

    The election of 2016 was won by Trump due to the electoral system. This is the system set up by the founders and it has worked for over two hundred years. It was meant to ensure that small states had a say. Sometimes the popular vote does not jive with the electoral vote. Without the electoral system, the pres would be selected by 3-4 states.

    You don't like it, OK. Let's change the constitution to make it a strict popular vote. I am all for that (also require all people to vote).

    Brute force………not really. Taking advantage of the balance of power……most definitely. And the dems would do the same thing if they had a chance. But neither party should change the structure of the country. Adding more justices just means that you don't like the decision that the court delivers. And that is a decision made by nine brilliant people. Keep adding justices until you get one that you like…that's more court fixing than anything. If you cannot see that that is wrong then you are clueless.

    No more Mister Nice Guy (Pelosi has been a Nice Guy??? Really???) very bad precedent to initiate. What goes around comes around.

    The suggestions I made with mandatory time limits for bringing judges to a vote and being able to question their reasons for a Nay vote would help immensely.

    And as far as Trump getting to appoint 3 judges………so did Jimmy Carter who was by far the worst president in my lifetime. He was also a one termer.

  15. #630
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,877
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    I think you know...that it's because it's not THEIR youthful judge...and she'll now be there for possibly 40 years
    Gee, no kidding.

Page 42 of 50 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... 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
  •