|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 20:32:59 GMT -8
So you're actively okay with inciting civil war. Cool. It shouldn't be an incitement to civil war to do the jobs the Constitution says you should do. Ah, the Constitution defense again. That never gets old. What does it say in the Constitution about blocking federal judges for more than half the year? It's really simple....if you in any way support Donald Trump, you're not entitled to a defense that includes any historical documents, sorry. We've spent nearly 4 years now shredding that into dust. There would be no riots if McConnell had done his job and appointed a qualified Merrick Garland. Instead, he played games and held up his nomination in cowardice. When Donald loses, the Democrats will abolish the filibuster and take that Supreme Court to 11. Mitch will reap what he sows. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 18, 2020 20:37:33 GMT -8
People reading a statement how they want it to read. Shocking. Thanks for chiming in. Not necessary, though. I'm guessing the irony is that you didn't read the statement and as clueless as you have been on almost everything from the debates to presidential candor, I don't think you should be barking up this tree. Do some more research. And, vintage you jumping on a post that meant "people" in general. I didn't say "Ryan." It was an observation. To only you I would have to clarify "people" meaning from more than one and all sides. It gets old when you twist stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 18, 2020 20:55:26 GMT -8
Thanks for chiming in. Not necessary, though. I'm guessing the irony is that you didn't read the statement and as clueless as you have been on almost everything from the debates to presidential candor, I don't think you should be barking up this tree. Do some more research. And, vintage you jumping on a post that meant "people" in general. I didn't say "Ryan." It was an observation. To only you I would have to clarify "people" meaning from more than one and all sides. It gets old when you twist stuff. When you only respond to one side of the conversation, it looks snarky and targeted. I didn't twist anything. I posted a freaking link. I'm sorry if you're naive enough to accept one poster's spin as gospel. That's once again on you, for being uninformed. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 18, 2020 21:03:56 GMT -8
When you only respond to one side of the conversation, it looks snarky and targeted. I didn't twist anything. I posted a freaking link. I'm sorry if you're naive enough to accept one poster's spin as gospel. That's once again on you, for being uninformed. Nope. I just happen to agree with more of what that poster and other posters say than what you say. That's it. You don't agree with me on anything, yet I don't call you uninformed or naive. A lot of the stuff you say is twisted, or simply your opinion of how something reads. I've called you out on it. You simply have such a big ego that if someone doesn't agree with you, then they're an idiot. I don't respect that at all, but carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 21:19:11 GMT -8
It shouldn't be an incitement to civil war to do the jobs the Constitution says you should do. Ah, the Constitution defense again. That never gets old. What does it say in the Constitution about blocking federal judges for more than half the year? Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 gives the Senate plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee. The Senate did exactly that. They rejected Merrick Garland. There would be no riots if McConnell had done his job and appointed a qualified Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland didn't have the votes to get through the Senate, but even if he did it would have done nothing to stop leftists from rioting. Terrorists gonna terrorist. When Donald loses, the Democrats will abolish the filibuster and take that Supreme Court to 11. The Democrats are going to nuke the filibuster regardless of what happens. As for taking the Supreme Court to 11 and packing it, they may but if so they're going to do it anyway. There is no point in negotiating with Democrats who demand no replacement be named until a new President is sworn in even if that means waiting 4 1/2 years. I do love the hypocrisy of being upset that Merrick Garland didn't receive a vote while being outraged President Trump would dare do exactly as President Obama did 4 years earlier and name a nominee in an election year. Obama was right to name a nominee and Trump will be right to name a nominee. If Obama's nominee had the votes to get through the Senate, or even if it was a close call (it wasn't), then they should have engaged in the confirmation process. Likewise, if Trump's nominee has the votes to get through the Senate, or even if it is a close call, then they should engage in the confirmation process. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 18, 2020 22:56:38 GMT -8
More importantly, Murkowski said she would vote no, as did Grassley. Romney will do the right thing. No majority. Womp womp. I wouldn't count on Romney. He hates Trump but his conservative base in Utah likes conservative judges. Refusing Amy Coney Barrett could be political suicide for him. Romney is going to be a 'Yes'. His Communications Director has put out an official statement of claims Romney being a 'No' are fake news. Cocaine Mitch has the votes to get this done. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 19, 2020 6:47:52 GMT -8
What do you think Schumer would do if he had the Senate, the WH, an open SCOTUS seat with only 4 months left with an ability to seat a liberal activist Judge without opposition? He absolutely would do it regardless if it hurt a Dem Senator or two.
On the national level, Democrats rely much more on activist judges to enact their agenda than passing legislation. And Democrat pols are much more disciplined when it comes to party priorities...being power first and foremost.
I suspect a few knock kneed Republican Senators, who want to keep their job more than forward a good jurist, won't act before the election but, depending on the lunacy seen out of the left with voting fraud, rioting, brown shirt intimidation, etc., these same Senators may well go ahead a seat a Jurist regardless of who won the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 19, 2020 8:01:49 GMT -8
Ah, the Constitution defense again. That never gets old. What does it say in the Constitution about blocking federal judges for more than half the year? Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 gives the Senate plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee. The Senate did exactly that. They rejected Merrick Garland. There would be no riots if McConnell had done his job and appointed a qualified Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland didn't have the votes to get through the Senate, but even if he did it would have done nothing to stop leftists from rioting. Terrorists gonna terrorist. When Donald loses, the Democrats will abolish the filibuster and take that Supreme Court to 11. The Democrats are going to nuke the filibuster regardless of what happens. As for taking the Supreme Court to 11 and packing it, they may but if so they're going to do it anyway. There is no point in negotiating with Democrats who demand no replacement be named until a new President is sworn in even if that means waiting 4 1/2 years. I do love the hypocrisy of being upset that Merrick Garland didn't receive a vote while being outraged President Trump would dare do exactly as President Obama did 4 years earlier and name a nominee in an election year. Obama was right to name a nominee and Trump will be right to name a nominee. If Obama's nominee had the votes to get through the Senate, or even if it was a close call (it wasn't), then they should have engaged in the confirmation process. Likewise, if Trump's nominee has the votes to get through the Senate, or even if it is a close call, then they should engage in the confirmation process. And yet I'm the one who twists things. Lol. Good...grief. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 19, 2020 9:16:47 GMT -8
[And yet I'm the one who twists things. Lol. Good...grief. It isn’t twisting things to point out Republicans are doing their jobs to the letter. Now contrast that to how you want Democrats to behave with violence and civil war. Yes, your preference of stripping Constitutionally granted power from the President and Senate under the threat of “warranted” politically motived violence at the hands of leftists is twisted. The right wants to play by the rules and the left wants to be criminally violent. The person you should be mad at is RBG. She has been fighting cancer and well past her prime for a long time. She knew there was a good chance this would happen but her own ego was more important than the ideals she believed in. RBG should have stepped down 5 years ago when Obama was President, and fought for her replacement exactly as Anthony Kennedy did in 2018. |
|
|
|
Post by mactec on Sept 19, 2020 9:46:42 GMT -8
I do love the hypocrisy of being upset that Merrick Garland didn't receive a vote while being outraged President Trump would dare do exactly as President Obama did 4 years earlier and name a nominee in an election year. Obama was right to name a nominee and Trump will be right to name a nominee. If Obama's nominee had the votes to get through the Senate, or even if it was a close call (it wasn't), then they should have engaged in the confirmation process. Likewise, if Trump's nominee has the votes to get through the Senate, or even if it is a close call, then they should engage in the confirmation process. Asking for the same treatment is hypocrisy? But vowing to swear in a new supreme court justice after what happened 4 years ago is NOT hypocrisy? I have no words. Reading this comment made me sad that this is truly what 47% of the country believe. The fact that our supreme court will be packed 2/3 of members appointed by a single party (that's received less votes in every election in recent years) shows how broken our system is. The fact that people complain when one party continues to abuse the system is not "hypocrisy." |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 19, 2020 10:07:50 GMT -8
I do love the hypocrisy of being upset that Merrick Garland didn't receive a vote while being outraged President Trump would dare do exactly as President Obama did 4 years earlier and name a nominee in an election year. Obama was right to name a nominee and Trump will be right to name a nominee. If Obama's nominee had the votes to get through the Senate, or even if it was a close call (it wasn't), then they should have engaged in the confirmation process. Likewise, if Trump's nominee has the votes to get through the Senate, or even if it is a close call, then they should engage in the confirmation process. Asking for the same treatment is hypocrisy? But vowing to swear in a new supreme court justice after what happened 4 years ago is NOT hypocrisy? I have no words. Reading this comment made me sad that this is truly what 47% of the country believe. The fact that our supreme court will be packed 2/3 of members appointed by a single party (that's received less votes in every election in recent years) shows how broken our system is. The fact that people complain when one party continues to abuse the system is not "hypocrisy." Don't waste your time. You're dealing with the most manipulative and cult-immersed person on this board. Somehow, we went from the obvious (The hypocrisy of McConnell) to me advocating for civil war, which is noticeably absent from any of my posts. It's a total cesspool in here. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 19, 2020 11:46:29 GMT -8
About the Court being "packed" with 2/3 of the justices from one party, what the hell do you think the makeup of the Court was by the time Eisenhower was sworn in? The Dems had been in control of the Presidency and the Congress for over two decades! All 9 justices at that time had been appointed by FDR or Truman.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 19, 2020 11:54:26 GMT -8
Ryan wants you all to know that my thread on this topic was begun 2 minutes after his.
Anyway, here is what I posted on this topic yesterday PM. Hope it is food for thought.
If the Republicans try to replace RBG with a very conservative justice, the Left is going to explode. Supernova might not be too exaggerated a term. I understand that. But the Left, seen as whole, have no one to blame but themselves.
Bader Ginsburg has had health problems for a long time. I think it would have been wise for her to retire when she reached 80. Come on, that's OLD, as my wife and know from experience. She should have retired during the Obama administration. Under no circumstances would the Left have had a worse chance of seeing someone they like go to the Court in that case.
My opinion is, by the way, that SCOTUS justices should be term-limited. Let's say 15 years. That's plenty of time.
As someone posted, RBG can rightly be criticized for holding on so long. My god, shouldn't folks think about retirement by age 75?! Or 80?! Or 85?! The fact is, no one is irreplaceable.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 19, 2020 12:10:32 GMT -8
About the Court being "packed" with 2/3 of the justices from one party, what the hell do you think the makeup of the Court was by the time Eisenhower was sworn in? The Dems had been in control of the Presidency and the Congress for over two decades! All 9 justices at that time had been appointed by FDR or Truman. AzWm The world is just a little different now... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 19, 2020 12:12:03 GMT -8
Ryan wants you all to know that my thread on this topic was begun 2 minutes after his. Anyway, here is what I posted on this topic yesterday PM. Hope it is food for thought.
If the Republicans try to replace RBG with a very conservative justice, the Left is going to explode. Supernova might not be too exaggerated a term. I understand that. But the Left, seen as whole, have no one to blame but themselves.
Bader Ginsburg has had health problems for a long time. I think it would have been wise for her to retire when she reached 80. Come on, that's OLD, as my wife and know from experience. She should have retired during the Obama administration. Under no circumstances would the Left have had a worse chance of seeing someone they like go to the Court in that case.
My opinion is, by the way, that SCOTUS justices should be term-limited. Let's say 15 years. That's plenty of time.
As someone posted, RBG can rightly be criticized for holding on so long. My god, shouldn't folks think about retirement by age 75?! Or 80?! Or 85?! The fact is, no one is irreplaceable. AzWm Cool, unnecessary jab, moderator. My first post beat you by two minutes, then you made another post, an hour later, and your thread is still up, when this thread had multiple posts in it. It's okay to join us. We are tolerant....well, at least one of us. (I don't really care, it's not a big deal, truthfully) As far as your take, it's hypocritical. Justices have served into their 80's with regularity. Lifetime appointments are a huge issue, yes, with so much power being wielded. And if you think that only one side is to blame when the Republicans blocked a lawful admission to the Court just 4 years ago, then you're as bad as the others, sadly. I don't know if you have actually read through the list of nominees, but it's truly terrifying. When the Democrats take this thing up to 11, or 13, though, McConnell's railroading strategy is going to look idiotic. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 19, 2020 13:05:10 GMT -8
Susan Collins statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 19, 2020 13:47:56 GMT -8
About the Court being "packed" with 2/3 of the justices from one party, what the hell do you think the makeup of the Court was by the time Eisenhower was sworn in? The Dems had been in control of the Presidency and the Congress for over two decades! All 9 justices at that time had been appointed by FDR or Truman. AzWm The world is just a little different now... How so? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 19, 2020 13:56:18 GMT -8
Weak. The decision on a lifetime appointment is made by the Senate, not by the President. All the President can do is nominate someone. Susan Collins is admitting that she does not have the spine required of someone occupying the position she has and she wants someone else to make the decision for her. Maine deserves better. The United States deserves better. If Susan Collins doesn't have what it takes then she needs to retire to make room for someone who does. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 19, 2020 14:02:02 GMT -8
Ryan wants you all to know that my thread on this topic was begun 2 minutes after his. Anyway, here is what I posted on this topic yesterday PM. Hope it is food for thought.
If the Republicans try to replace RBG with a very conservative justice, the Left is going to explode. Supernova might not be too exaggerated a term. I understand that. But the Left, seen as whole, have no one to blame but themselves.
Bader Ginsburg has had health problems for a long time. I think it would have been wise for her to retire when she reached 80. Come on, that's OLD, as my wife and know from experience. She should have retired during the Obama administration. Under no circumstances would the Left have had a worse chance of seeing someone they like go to the Court in that case.
My opinion is, by the way, that SCOTUS justices should be term-limited. Let's say 15 years. That's plenty of time.
As someone posted, RBG can rightly be criticized for holding on so long. My god, shouldn't folks think about retirement by age 75?! Or 80?! Or 85?! The fact is, no one is irreplaceable. AzWm Cool, unnecessary jab, moderator. My first post beat you by two minutes, then you made another post, an hour later, and your thread is still up, when this thread had multiple posts in it. It's okay to join us. We are tolerant....well, at least one of us. (I don't really care, it's not a big deal, truthfully) As far as your take, it's hypocritical. Justices have served into their 80's with regularity. Lifetime appointments are a huge issue, yes, with so much power being wielded. And if you think that only one side is to blame when the Republicans blocked a lawful admission to the Court just 4 years ago, then you're as bad as the others, sadly. I don't know if you have actually read through the list of nominees, but it's truly terrifying. When the Democrats take this thing up to 11, or 13, though, McConnell's railroading strategy is going to look idiotic. Ryan, as for whose thread was first, you went out of your way to post in my thread the chronology of the two. Why? Did you really think I did not know whose was first? Why did you take the time to post what you surely must have known I was already aware of? It's a trivial matter. What is not a trivial matter is how the SCOTUS justices see their jobs. Clearly, Left leaning justices see their jobs as one of, in essence, making law. Those I would like to see on the Court do not see it that way. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 19, 2020 14:31:15 GMT -8
The fact that our supreme court will be packed 2/3 of members appointed by a single party (that's received less votes in every election in recent years) shows how broken our system is. The fact that people complain when one party continues to abuse the system is not "hypocrisy." I'm glad for you sharing your opinion but "Packing the Court" does not refer to one party nominating a majority of justices. The term has a specific meaning. It refers to increasing the number of justices -AND- filling those newly created vacancies with single party or single issue judges. There are currently 9 seats on the Supreme Court with 1 of those seats being open. Filling that 1 seat with a justice is not packing the court regardless of who is chosen to fill it or who does the nomination/confirmation. Earlier in this thread AztecRyan said the Democrats would increase the number of positions on the Supreme Court to 11 seats and immediately fill those newly created seats with Democrat loyal justices. He correctly called that packing the court. He used the term correctly. Truthfully the Supreme Court should not be political at all. That you are evaluating judges by the political party of who nominated them is in and of itself a problem. It shouldn't matter. The ONLY thing that matters is how well the judges follow the law. Sadly it has become political because one party likes to nominate judges that follow the law while the other party likes to nominate judges who want to fill the role of the Legislative Branch. If you have specific gripes about specific rulings made about specific judges, I'm more than happy to debate that. You'll find I'm surprisingly even handed in how I view judges. I disagree vehemently on a philosophical level with Elan Kagan, but I respect her. Fellow leftist Sonia Sotomayor is a bigot in a robe who decides almost every case on skin color of the victim. On "the right" is unprincipled populist Brett Kavanaugh in the mold of equally awful Anthony Kennedy whom he replaced, and he shouldn't be there. That said, if your objection is "not nominated by the team I support" then there is nothing worth talking about. Try looking up Amy Coney Barrett. There is a really good chance that is who it will be. If she has a position or ruling you don't like, what is it? and why? ...And if there are 47% of people who think like me then that is 47% of people who will still talk to anyone about anything. |
|
