Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ek5hAcuXIAES0On?format=jpg&name=small[/IMG]

Lol this thread...

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1262856]“Don’t think when you have established the rule of ‘because we can,’ that should the shoe be on the other foot, you will have any credibility to come to us and say: ‘yeah, I know you can do that, but you shouldn’t,’” Whitehouse said. “Your credibility to make that argument at any time in the future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue.”



The Rhode Island Democrat succinctly stated what’s on everyone’s mind: Once Barrett is confirmed, all bets are off about how the Senate — and the Supreme Court — might look a few months from now if Democrats sweep in November.

[url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/your-credibility-will-die-in-this-room/ar-BB1a4rvd?li=BBnb7Kz[/url]



Watching the live clip of his full comments ... he basically put the Republicans on notice. By not confirming Obama's nominee with 11 months left "because the American people should have a say" and then rushing Barrett's confirmation in days before election day ..



Civility and statesmanship, whatever was left of it, has died.



If the Dems take the Presidency and Senate ... how can republicans be taken seriously when they object to the Dems rushing through judicial appointments or whatever else they want to do. Senate minority has been rendered toothless over the past 4 years.[/QUOTE]I will say this, with all sincerity, if as you have claimed, the Democrats will be running the show for the indefinable future, then isn't it a good thing to have the 3rd branch of government positioned in such a way that there is an oppositional and effective check on unregulated executive and legislative branches.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1263135]I will say this, with all sincerity, if as you have claimed, the Democrats will be running the show for the indefinable future, then isn't it a good thing to have the 3rd branch of government positioned in such a way that there is an oppositional and effective check on unregulated executive and legislative branches.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

1. I think theres a chance (just from what I read) that the Dems take the Senate this time bc the Rs have a bunch of seats on the ballot vs 2018 when the Dems had to defend a bunch of seats. I am just going off what Ive read, I have zero original thoughts on this.

2. Yes I agree it would be beneficial, as long as the SCOTUS sticks to judicial cannons (oaths to be fair, etc). In 20-30 years, I dont want some AOC president ramming through far left agendas. I expect the 6-3 SCOTUS to lean conservative. I can live with that. But I hope they dont become an operative arm of the GOP, with the GOP running to the SC every time a dem President signs an executive order. That would be a problem imo.

If Clarence Thomas gets his way and overturns Roe v Wade or Obergefell (same sex marriage) ... i would have major problems with the SCOTUS. I would expect protests like we have never seen and i honestly dont think the republicans even want that.

Its like the dog chasing the car. Now that you caught up to the car, what are you going to do now? did you think this through?

3. What McConnnell did to the process of placing justices on the SC will not be forgotten for a long time. For the past 6 years, he has done anything he could to put party over Country. Civility and statesmanship was dying in Congress but McConnell drove it off a cliff.

Lots of us Dems are really pissed off at McConnell and the hypocrisy of the republicans. The Chicos of the world can laugh and roll around enjoying our anger ... but I hope the moderates can agree that this is not good for the future of congress. The camels back is broken. Enjoy the stolen seat on the SCOTUS, but it will cost the republicans in the end.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Dems should have never changed the rules...cocaine Mitch stood up and said you will regret it. He was right

That’s where your beef should be...but that was the dems power grab, Obama was good with it, Schumer and Pelosi celebrated.

Own it now!

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Yes, the Dems did lower the threshold to simple majority for federal judicial appointments.

Yes, McConnell rightfully warned the Dems this will come back to bite them

Yes, the Dems kept the blue slip policy

Yes, McConnell lowered the threshold for Supreme Court picks to a simple majority

Yes, McConnell did away with the blue slip policy

Yes, McConnell refused to allow vetting of Garland with 10 months to go in Obamas term so "the american people have a say"

Yes, McConnell then ignored the "american people have a say" by rushing Barretts confirmation just days before an election

Yes, Dems have warned McConnell that this will comeback to bite him

Yes, one day one of the party's will do away with legislative filibusters thereby creating a simple majority rule in the Senate for legislation and policy (and that will be a sad for every American, regardless of political affiliation)

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=SunnySide;1263176]Yes, the Dems did lower the threshold to simple majority for federal judicial appointments.

Yes, McConnell rightfully warned the Dems this will come back to bite them

Yes, the Dems kept the blue slip policy

Yes, McConnell lowered the threshold for Supreme Court picks to a simple majority

Yes, McConnell did away with the blue slip policy

Yes, McConnell refused to allow vetting of Garland with 10 months to go in Obamas term so "the american people have a say"

Yes, McConnell then ignored the "american people have a say" by rushing Barretts confirmation just days before an election

Yes, Dems have warned McConnell that this will comeback to bite him

Yes, one day one of the party's will do away with legislative filibusters thereby creating a simple majority rule in the Senate for legislation and policy (and that will be a sad for every American, regardless of political affiliation)[/quote]

So you good with putting the rules back in place?

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1263177]So you good with putting the rules back in place?[/quote]

I honestly dont know.

if trump wins and Rs retain control of the senate ... they will continue to rule "because they can"

if biden wins and D control the Senate .. they will be out for blood

best case (outside a dem sweep lol) -- biden wins, Rs retain control of the Senate and Rs force legislation to a crawl and we just do government shutdowns, furloughs and stop gap spending bills.

things are getting nasty and trump has been gasoline to a simmering fire. trump has to go. i dont think the framework of our country can stand 4 more years of him.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Both parties have contributed to where we are, and both parties have been hypocrites. In real terms, IF the country wasn't as divided as civil war times, The most constitutional and legitimate action that the president and senate would do when a SC dies would be to nominate and confirm a justice as quickly as possible so that the court's term would not be hampered. Because both sides have played politics with judicial nominations for the past 15 years that ship has sailed though.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Supreme Court vacancy
 

Oh God. I cannot with the both sides bullshit. There is only one loudmouth racist asshole spouting lies and conspiracy theories and endangering our democracy and the Republicans married the mother fucker.
The end.


Edit: i was going to delete and say that
If you referring just to the supreme court than it is a little easier to swallow but i like what i wrote and it is still bullshit. The Republicans are the ones that talked out of both sides of their asses.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=punch it in;1263195]Oh God. I cannot with the both sides bullshit. There is only one loudmouth racist asshole spouting lies and conspiracy theories and endangering our democracy and the Republicans married the mother fucker.
The end.


Edit: i was going to delete and say that
If you referring just to the supreme court than it is a little easier to swallow but i like what i wrote and it is still bullshit. The Republicans are the ones that talked out of both sides of their asses.[/quote]

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkO3fg8XcAIy7SH?format=jpg&name=medium[/IMG]


Lololololol...

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=punch it in;1263195]Oh God. I cannot with the both sides bullshit. There is only one loudmouth racist asshole spouting lies and conspiracy theories and endangering our democracy and the Republicans married the mother fucker.
The end.

Edit: i was going to delete and say that
If you referring just to the supreme court than it is a little easier to swallow but i like what i wrote and it is still bullshit. The Republicans are the ones that talked out of both sides of their asses.[/quote]

This is my favorite edit of all times. I edited to confirm how much I liked my original post and how right I was. This is a scientific breakthrough in the editing community.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

F it, pack the court, term limits, whatever, all bets are off going forward

[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html?surface=most-popular&fellback=false&req_id=556127526&algo=top_conversion&imp_id=866580405"]The quest to entrench political conservatism in the country’s highest court comes with a steep cost.[/URL]

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

^^ Thats a good article. I didnt know republicans have seated 14 of the last 18 justices. Kinda fucked up considering this country is majority democrat. Senate allocation of seats just favors rural states so much.

Lets see how things play out. I dont think they will ever over turn Roe but they will allow undue restictions that abortion will effectively become a States rights issue. States can slap on the hospital requirements and bans after 15 weeks.

obergefell (2015 - same sex) .. this case took a long time through the Courts. I would protest if they tried to overturn this and I imagine they will. this would mean same sex couples would not have the same rights and protections under estate laws, hospital visitation, health insurance, pensions, etc.

If you are cheering on this rushed Barrett confirmation .. youre cheering on same sex couples being discriminated against. im assuming they will overturn obergefell but its a safe assumption.

McConnell has certainly made the SCOTUS a political stick now.

SCOTUS has one foot in the grave in terms of being apolitical and revered by the american people. I see it as a stained institution now.

But I want to see how they rule and the mental gymnastics they go through first before supporting blowing it up and packing the court and making it a kangaroo court.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Lol...pack the court is your answer? JFC...dilute the institution

Harry Reid fuck it all up, not McConnell period.

If there is a stain, at least understand who stained it. Democrats have a history there...read up

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Sure chico .. well, at least we agree its stained.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[URL="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/"]Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees[/URL]

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1263666][URL="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/"]Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees[/URL][/QUOTE]And yet when(if) the democrats try to put on two justices (the 2 "stolen" seats) they will loudly proclaim the Republicans made them do it, and there will be no "fact check" stating the sequence started back in the early 2000s. We have arrived here because both parties stopped evaluating candidates on legal merit and instead on political preference. And one only need to look at how the senate voting has changed to see who started that.
Thurgood Marshall 11 no votes out of 80
Thomas 52-48 (10 dems for 2 reps against)
Ginsburg 96-3 (38 reps for)
Breyer 87-9 (31 reps for)
Roberts 78-22 to be chief justice ( 22 dems voted against 20 voted for)
Alito 58-42 (3 dems)
Sotomayor 68-31 (9 reps)
Kagan 67-31 (4 reps)
Garland no vote ( personally i wish trump had nominated him instead of Kavanaugh. Maybe would have brought unity [emoji852] )
Gorsuch Kavanaugh Barrett - all party line

It is pretty clear from Thomas on Dems have held SCOTUS and judicial nominees hostage and have counted on the court system as an ally their political agenda. Trump/McConnell seem to have frustrated them a bit on that part.


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Those are good points CRed, really good points I did not know ... I think since McConnell made it a simple majority we will see just straight party voting going forward as we saw with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

I think a few dems voted yay for Gorsuch(?) ... not that it mattered bc Republicans had the 51 votes and Pence as any tie breaker.

points that cannot be denied:

1. 14 of the last 18 justices have been placed by republicans
2. McConnell stole Garland's seat leading to the contentious Kavanaugh confirmation .. which I think was the breaking point for everyone.
3. its broken and will only become more broken

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Funny how the picture last night of a black man whose parents were sharecroppers swearing in a mother of 7 to the highest court isn’t getting the proper due.

But when the media is completely deranged and dishonest as ours, what do you expect? Anybody defending the media this point is mental midget. The media never hesitated to push a story of Brett Kavenaugh being a gang rapist. Pathetic

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

What's proper due exactly? Every news show I flipped by last night had a story on it. What did you want a prime time special?

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Mainstream media and Democrats avoided hammering the point that her version of religion speaks in tongues.

Speaks. In. Tongues.



(no I dont consider bill maher mainstream media)

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Lol...sunnyside.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1263656]Lol...pack the court is your answer? JFC...dilute the institution

Harry Reid fuck it all up, not McConnell period.

If there is a stain, at least understand who stained it. Democrats have a history there...read up[/quote]

Lolololol.

Harry Reid fucked it all up by reducing lower judicial nominees to a majority-vote threshold, so naturally the only proper reaction was to do the same thing to the highest court in the land?

Are we agreeing that this tit-for-tat bs is the status quo now?

Because if we are, it's only natural that the Dems retaliate in some manner, and we've been playing this game long enough that the only options left are extreme options.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1263706]Lolololol.



Harry Reid fucked it all up by reducing lower judicial nominees to a majority-vote threshold, so naturally the only proper reaction was to do the same thing to the highest court in the land?



Are we agreeing that this tit-for-tat bs is the status quo now?



Because if we are, it's only natural that the Dems retaliate in some manner, and we've been playing this game long enough that the only options left are extreme options.[/QUOTE]I have said that I wished Trump had focused on unity and held off. That said neither party is trying to be the better actor in all this. Both are pandering to the more extreme part of their base with their respective media outlets. The US is going downhill fast and, as Sunny likes to point out, the Democrats will get to be the ones in charge when it all goes pop

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1263708]I have said that I wished Trump had focused on unity and held off. That said neither party is trying to be the better actor in all this. Both are pandering to the more extreme part of their base with their respective media outlets. The US is going downhill fast and, as Sunny likes to point out, the Democrats will get to be the ones in charge when it all goes pop

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

For 200 years SCOTUS was held to a honorable standard above the partisan bickering of the day.

Sad to see that day has passed. It's all in the game though gents. No turning around now.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1263710]For 200 years SCOTUS was held to a honorable standard above the partisan bickering of the day.



Sad to see that day has passed. It's all in the game though gents. No turning around now.[/QUOTE]True. And the Democrats use of Roe v Wade as political measuring stick was ultimately the seed of the end. There is such a fundamental disconnect between one side (in extreme) seeing the fetus as an inconvenience to be washed away and at the other end a life to be protected above all, that in the end there is no 1 truth that all judges, or people in the US hold to anymore.

The old adage of I may disagree with you but i will defend to the death your right to say it falls short of the mark when your concept of rights includes killing the unborn, or on the other side, taking away the right of a woman over her own body.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1263712]True. And the Democrats use of Roe v Wade as political measuring stick was ultimately the seed of the end.[/quote]

Your post is proof it's actually the other way around. Republicans have been stirring up political BS about Roe vs Wade since it was decided . The Republicans have had to destroy the integrity of the SC just to get the Court the way they want it ,again very trump like.I must get my way at all cost damn everything else.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=mooby;1263710]For 200 years SCOTUS was held to a honorable standard above the partisan bickering of the day.

Sad to see that day has passed. It's all in the game though gents. No turning around now.[/quote]


Amen ,Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for this mess . They sold their souls to the Devil in backing trump and in the process might have destroyed the republican party.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1263718]Amen ,Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for this mess . They sold their souls to the Devil in backing trump and in the process might have destroyed the republican party.[/quote]
so have you moved off the I'm a republican facade?

This all started long before Trump, and would have occurred with any republican, because none were going to pass up the opportunity to put SC justices on the bench.

This is a blood feud between McConnell and Schumer, and the whole damn country is going to suffer because of it, while liberals and conservatives both play the wo is me chorus to their sycophants.

You, for what it's worth are so caught up in your Trump hatred that you don't see the devil is in both parties. Full tilt.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1263717]Your post is proof it's actually the other way around. Republicans have been stirring up political BS about Roe vs Wade since it was decided . The Republicans have had to destroy the integrity of the SC just to get the Court the way they want it ,again very trump like.I must get my way at all cost damn everything else.[/quote]

Only in Bizarro G1 Land does your post make any sense

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1263718]Amen ,Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for this mess . They sold their souls to the Devil in backing trump and in the process might have destroyed the republican party.[/quote]

You are amening to something Mooby didn't say. The post you responded to said nothing about solely blaming Republicans. Both sides got us to where we are right now.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Disclaimer - What the Republicans did with Garland was bush league. Going 10 months without a SC justice is dumb.

And they were too pathetic to put him up for a vote, so every Senate member had to put their name on it. Took the cowardly way out.

So I can see why Democrats are against ACB. Has nothing to do with her at all, at least I don't think so, she seems pretty impressive.

Trump had every right to fill that seat. And by that standard, Obama absolutely had the right to nominate Garland.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=sdskinsfan2001;1263725]Disclaimer - What the Republicans did with Garland was bush league. Going 10 months without a SC justice is dumb.



And they were too pathetic to put him up for a vote, so every Senate member had to put their name on it. Took the cowardly way out.



So I can see why Democrats are against ACB. Has nothing to do with her at all, at least I don't think so, she seems pretty impressive.



Trump had every right to fill that seat. And by that standard, Obama absolutely had the right to nominate Garland.[/QUOTE]Agree with all this.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

This is an opinion piece. But it's from the WSJ. I think 99% of us hold them as a credible organization and this carries at least a bit more weight than the average opinion piece.

[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-reids-filibuster-legacy-11602803203[/url]

I admit I have never followed the judicial appointment procedures as close as I should have, so a lot of this is new info to me. If anyone posts an article about the same issue from a different perspective I'll read it.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=sdskinsfan2001;1263728]This is an opinion piece. But it's from the WSJ. I think 99% of us hold them as a credible organization and this carries at least a bit more weight than the average opinion piece.



[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-reids-filibuster-legacy-11602803203[/url]



I admit I have never followed the judicial appointment procedures as close as I should have, so a lot of this is new info to me. If anyone posts an article about the same issue from a different perspective I'll read it.[/QUOTE]The article needed a login to the WSJ. Bummers

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1263729]The article needed a login to the WSJ. Bummers

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

WSJ is tricky. I literally was able to read the whole article, then it brought up subscribing, after I was already done reading. I don't have a subscription to WSJ. I assumed that article was free. Ignore my link. My apologies.

The article was basically about Harry Reid changing the rules to get some local DC judges appointed, and McConnell told him it would not work out well. I don't even like Turtle. And not trying to justify any action by anyone after that. That was the just the jist of the article. Basically was a piece about the state we're in now, slanted more towards blaming the left a little more than the right. And that is why I offered that I would read any article from the other perspective.

Edit - Posting a WSJ article is like posting an NFL.com mock draft article. No one actually gets to read it.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Apparently the SCOTUS declined to hear a case re whether Pennsylvania ballots received up to 3 days after the election should be counted. It appears the PA Governor (D) requested a 3 day extension bc of COVID. State republicans challenged saying under the PA constitution only the legislature can change State election laws.

But it appears the SCOTUS could very well be asked to decide after the election.
For now, PA officials will keep any ballots rec'd after election day separate.
[url]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-could-still-overturn-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-deadline-extension-after-election[/url]

--------------------------

large edit by me, I was wrong on most of my thoughts .... more information has come to my attention man

I thought the US Constitution gives States the power to decide how to run the elections in their State, but apparently the US Constitution gives "state legislatures" that power not "states".

[IMG]https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/height/900/https://media.salon.com/2012/12/the-big-lebowski-1.jpeg[/IMG]

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1263723]Only in Bizarro G1 Land does your post make any sense[/quote]

No , only trumpetts refuse to accept it.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

...................and still a republican and that piss's you off, a republican who hasn't drank the kool aid.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1263905]...................and still a republican and that piss's you off, a republican who hasn't drank the kool aid.[/quote]

[IMG]https://media.tenor.com/images/63470b0faf1dab36d54cd5fbdfa0ee01/tenor.gif[/IMG]