|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 22, 2020 9:27:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 22, 2020 9:46:20 GMT -8
When the smug punk once said “Elections have consequences.” and went ahead with Obamacare without any modifications from the GOP, it cost him the House and Senate. My take is that Obama would do it all again given the same circumstances for what he considered was the greater good. Similarly, Trump will try to seat a replacement for RBG either before the election or during the lame duck session and he will have Democrat voting fraud/riots of their "Color Revolution" (attempted or successful) as his water tight reasoning for doing so (see greater good).
|
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 22, 2020 9:49:20 GMT -8
The nominee means very little, although Barrett is a far-right evangelical who blurs the church and state separation line in a terrifying way. It has everything to do with what the end goal has been for months....to steal the election. That's why the rush is in. Trump even admitted it - He wants judges in place to count votes (which isn't a thing) and then he will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court to try and hijack another election where he isn't supported by the majority of the people. This election is going to be the most contentious in a century. Everyone knows there will be multiple legal challenges filed by both sides. It would be irresponsible to know that, and still leave an 8-seat court that could be deadlocked with 4-4 ties. The GOP is acting like grown-ups. They have a job to do and they are doing it. The left is acting like children throwing a tantrum. History is extremely clear on what should be done. There have been 15 times that a Supreme Court vacancy arose in a presidential election year. In 8 of those, the President and the Senate were controlled by a single party. Of the 8 nominees, 7 were confirmed and 1 was rejected. When the President and the Senate are controlled by a single party, the seat gets filled. There were also 7 instances where the President was of a different party than the Senate, and only twice in US history was the seat filled. Historically when the power between the bodies is divided, the seat is NOT filled. Denying Merrick Garland in 2016 is exactly what historical precedent dictated while seating Amy Coney Barrett is also historical precedent. In all of those other instances, the other side didn’t threaten to break their toys, and make new states, and stack the court, and burn stuff down because back then everyone was an adult. The ONLY thing new about this situation is how the left is reacting. The modern left has shown themselves to be a cross between terrorists and toddlers. I hope they don’t gain power. God help us if they do. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 22, 2020 10:05:12 GMT -8
Romney is 73 years old and has more money than he knows what to do with. So he won't stick it to Trump because he's concerned that his "base" will still be butthurt four years from now? Did you read the tweet I posted from his Communications Director? Romney is a yes. Beyond that we already have confirmation, I think that you are missing some things about human nature. At this point for Romney it isn't about money but about legacy. This is a legacy moment in history. Does Mitt Romney want to be viewed by most of the people living around him as a traitor? Does Romney want his kids to be viewed as belonging to a traitorous family? It won't be good enough if California likes him and his kids because his neighbors, friends, and immediate family, the people he sees every day are in Utah. Long after Trump is gone, every big decision that comes down from the Supreme Court will remind people of how Romney acted in this moment. Did Romney betray Conservatives values and the obvious will of the majority who trusted him to represent them or did Romney act as the champion the majority of his electorate wanted? Even before we had the confirmation, all you needed to know was human nature and what Utah is like. You were absolutely right. He is a confirmed yes. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 22, 2020 10:17:10 GMT -8
The nominee means very little, although Barrett is a far-right evangelical who blurs the church and state separation line in a terrifying way. It has everything to do with what the end goal has been for months....to steal the election. That's why the rush is in. Trump even admitted it - He wants judges in place to count votes (which isn't a thing) and then he will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court to try and hijack another election where he isn't supported by the majority of the people. This election is going to be the most contentious in a century. Everyone knows there will be multiple legal challenges filed by both sides. It would be irresponsible to know that, and still leave an 8-seat court that could be deadlocked with 4-4 ties. The GOP is acting like grown-ups. They have a job to do and they are doing it. The left is acting like children throwing a tantrum. History is extremely clear on what should be done. There have been 15 times that a Supreme Court vacancy arose in a presidential election year. In 8 of those, the President and the Senate were controlled by a single party. Of the 8 nominees, 7 were confirmed and 1 was rejected. When the President and the Senate are controlled by a single party, the seat gets filled. There were also 7 instances where the President was of a different party than the Senate, and only twice in US history was the seat filled. Historically when the power between the bodies is divided, the seat is NOT filled. Denying Merrick Garland in 2016 is exactly what historical precedent dictated while seating Amy Coney Barret is also historical precedent. In all of those other instances, the other side didn’t threaten to break their toys, and make new states, and stack the court, and burn stuff down because back then everyone was an adult. The ONLY thing new about this situation is how the left is reacting. The modern left has shown themselves to be a cross between terrorists and toddlers. I hope they don’t gain power. God help us if they do. Yeah, I mean it's totally not like we have a Neo-Fascist in office now, who has plunged this country into chaos and lawlessness, while being one of the most disapprovee presidents in the past century. The Republicans love to flaunt the Constitution when it fits their agenda, but where was the Constitution when it came to impeachment? We're seriously about to allow an impeached president choose another Supreme Court Justice in an election year where he is a decided underdog, to try and once again interfere with a fair electoral process. (This is where you look the other way, sigh and shrug.) |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 22, 2020 10:36:41 GMT -8
The nominee means very little, although Barrett is a far-right evangelical who blurs the church and state separation line in a terrifying way. It has everything to do with what the end goal has been for months....to steal the election. That's why the rush is in. Trump even admitted it - He wants judges in place to count votes (which isn't a thing) and then he will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court to try and hijack another election where he isn't supported by the majority of the people. This election is going to be the most contentious in a century. Everyone knows there will be multiple legal challenges filed by both sides. It would be irresponsible to know that, and still leave an 8-seat court that could be deadlocked with 4-4 ties. The GOP is acting like grown-ups. They have a job to do and they are doing it. The left is acting like children throwing a tantrum. History is extremely clear on what should be done. There have been 15 times that a Supreme Court vacancy arose in a presidential election year. In 8 of those, the President and the Senate were controlled by a single party. Of the 8 nominees, 7 were confirmed and 1 was rejected. When the President and the Senate are controlled by a single party, the seat gets filled. There were also 7 instances where the President was of a different party than the Senate, and only twice in US history was the seat filled. Historically when the power between the bodies is divided, the seat is NOT filled. Denying Merrick Garland in 2016 is exactly what historical precedent dictated while seating Amy Coney Barrett is also historical precedent. In all of those other instances, the other side didn’t threaten to break their toys, and make new states, and stack the court, and burn stuff down because back then everyone was an adult. The ONLY thing new about this situation is how the left is reacting. The modern left has shown themselves to be a cross between terrorists and toddlers. I hope they don’t gain power. God help us if they do. I'm not sure where you're getting your 7 times statistic from, but it's nowhere near accurate, by the way. Since 1945, it's happened 13 times and all 13 times it was a Republican president and a Democrat controlled Senate. Earl Warren's an example. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 22, 2020 10:57:42 GMT -8
This election is going to be the most contentious in a century. Everyone knows there will be multiple legal challenges filed by both sides. It would be irresponsible to know that, and still leave an 8-seat court that could be deadlocked with 4-4 ties. The GOP is acting like grown-ups. They have a job to do and they are doing it. The left is acting like children throwing a tantrum. History is extremely clear on what should be done. There have been 15 times that a Supreme Court vacancy arose in a presidential election year. In 8 of those, the President and the Senate were controlled by a single party. Of the 8 nominees, 7 were confirmed and 1 was rejected. When the President and the Senate are controlled by a single party, the seat gets filled. There were also 7 instances where the President was of a different party than the Senate, and only twice in US history was the seat filled. Historically when the power between the bodies is divided, the seat is NOT filled. Denying Merrick Garland in 2016 is exactly what historical precedent dictated while seating Amy Coney Barret is also historical precedent. In all of those other instances, the other side didn’t threaten to break their toys, and make new states, and stack the court, and burn stuff down because back then everyone was an adult. The ONLY thing new about this situation is how the left is reacting. The modern left has shown themselves to be a cross between terrorists and toddlers. I hope they don’t gain power. God help us if they do. Yeah, I mean it's totally not like we have a Neo-Fascist in office now, who has plunged this country into chaos and lawlessness, while being one of the most disapprovee presidents in the past century. The Republicans love to flaunt the Constitution when it fits their agenda, but where was the Constitution when it came to impeachment? We're seriously about to allow an impeached president choose another Supreme Court Justice in an election year where he is a decided underdog, to try and once again interfere with a fair electoral process. (This is where you look the other way, sigh and shrug.) The only thing Trump has shredded in the Constitution was when he passed an executive order extending $300 payments to the unemployed after Congress failed to do anything. Trump did not have the authority to do that but no one wants to be seen as being against it, so everyone whistled past the graveyard. Nothing else you said is rooted in reality. Your thinking Trump is even close to Fascism shows you are as bad at history as you are at civics and political science. Yes, Donald Trump gets to nominate someone to fill an empty seat. Yes, the Senate gets to confirm it. That is how our government works. Have you truly not noticed there isn't any person among all those you listen to giving you a single reason why the Constitution says they can't seat a new Supreme Court Justice? All you have are threats and hurt feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 22, 2020 11:32:54 GMT -8
Yeah, I mean it's totally not like we have a Neo-Fascist in office now, who has plunged this country into chaos and lawlessness, while being one of the most disapprovee presidents in the past century. The Republicans love to flaunt the Constitution when it fits their agenda, but where was the Constitution when it came to impeachment? We're seriously about to allow an impeached president choose another Supreme Court Justice in an election year where he is a decided underdog, to try and once again interfere with a fair electoral process. (This is where you look the other way, sigh and shrug.) The only thing Trump has shredded in the Constitution was when he passed an executive order extending $300 payments to the unemployed after Congress failed to do anything. Trump did not have the authority to do that but no one wants to be seen as being against it, so everyone whistled past the graveyard. Nothing else you said is rooted in reality. Your thinking Trump is even close to Fascism shows you are as bad at history as you are at civics and political science. Yes, Donald Trump gets to nominate someone to fill an empty seat. Yes, the Senate gets to confirm it. That is how our government works. Have you truly not noticed there isn't any person among all those you listen to giving you a single reason why the Constitution says they can't seat a new Supreme Court Justice? All you have are threats and hurt feelings. *Whispers* - Because it's not about the Constitution, genius. Except when it's convenient to back the argument that was made 4 years ago. Oops. And yes, an impeached president clearly never violated the Constitution. Oh. Wait. What a nonsensical bunch of drivel. Glad you're blocked now. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 22, 2020 11:57:46 GMT -8
I'm not sure where you're getting your 7 times statistic from, but it's nowhere near accurate, by the way. Since 1945, it's happened 13 times and all 13 times it was a Republican president and a Democrat controlled Senate. Earl Warren's an example. You have no statics to show that when the President and Senate are both of the same party that Supreme Court seat vacancies arising in an election year are not usually filled. Likewise, you have no statics to show that when the President and Senate are different political parties that Supreme Court seat vacancies arising in an election year are not usually blocked. Blocking Merrick Garland was normal. Seating Amy Coney Barrett will be normal. It is only the threats and tantrums from the left that are abnormal. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 22, 2020 12:28:22 GMT -8
I'm not sure where you're getting your 7 times statistic from, but it's nowhere near accurate, by the way. Since 1945, it's happened 13 times and all 13 times it was a Republican president and a Democrat controlled Senate. Earl Warren's an example. You have no statics to show that when the President and Senate are both of the same party that Supreme Court seat vacancies arising in an election year are not usually filled. Likewise, you have no statics to show that when the President and Senate are different political parties that Supreme Court seat vacancies arising in an election year are not usually blocked. Blocking Merrick Garland was normal. Seating Amy Coney Barrett will be normal. It is only the threats and tantrums from the left that are abnormal. By normal, do you mean "never happened before in history?" www.nationalreview.com/corner/supreme-court-why-no-justice-has-beenconfirmed-in-the-fall-of-a-presidential-election-year/ |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 22, 2020 13:12:03 GMT -8
You have no statics to show that when the President and Senate are both of the same party that Supreme Court seat vacancies arising in an election year are not usually filled. Likewise, you have no statics to show that when the President and Senate are different political parties that Supreme Court seat vacancies arising in an election year are not usually blocked. Blocking Merrick Garland was normal. Seating Amy Coney Barrett will be normal. It is only the threats and tantrums from the left that are abnormal. By normal, do you mean "never happened before in history?" www.nationalreview.com/corner/supreme-court-why-no-justice-has-beenconfirmed-in-the-fall-of-a-presidential-election-year/Don't forget a Leap Year... |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 22, 2020 13:22:42 GMT -8
From the article you link: Also: Your article makes it very clear McConnell is correct and justified in doing his job. The opposing voices are wrong to block the Senate from filling the seat. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 22, 2020 19:34:05 GMT -8
From the article you link: Also: Your article makes it very clear McConnell is correct and justified in doing his job. The opposing voices are wrong to block the Senate from filling the seat. A brick wall is more productive. |
|
|
|
Post by La Mesa Aztec on Sept 22, 2020 21:37:06 GMT -8
For those who were holding out hope, Mitt Romney officially put the nails in the coffin. "If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications." That's not a "yes". He may but that's not what he said. |
|
|
|
Post by La Mesa Aztec on Sept 22, 2020 21:51:05 GMT -8
History is extremely clear on what should be done. There have been 15 times that a Supreme Court vacancy arose in a presidential election year. In 8 of those, the President and the Senate were controlled by a single party. Of the 8 nominees, 7 were confirmed and 1 was rejected. When the President and the Senate are controlled by a single party, the seat gets filled. There were also 7 instances where the President was of a different party than the Senate, and only twice in US history was the seat filled. Historically when the power between the bodies is divided, the seat is NOT filled. Denying Merrick Garland in 2016 is exactly what historical precedent dictated while seating Amy Coney Barrett is also historical precedent. Fine but own it. The reason for not filling in 2016 and filling in 2020 is the same: because they can. No nonsense like in 2016 stating that the American people get a say, when that really meant they get a say but only when the president from the other party nominates someone. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 23, 2020 5:15:19 GMT -8
Fine but own it. The reason for not filling in 2016 and filling in 2020 is the same: because they can. No nonsense like in 2016 stating that the American people get a say, when that really meant they get a say but only when the president from the other party nominates someone. On that, you and I are 100% in agreement. The 2016 Republicans should have had the backbone to say Merrick Garland was so unacceptable as a nominee that he couldn't get out of committee so they aren't moving forward on him. Instead, they made a bunch of statements that are now being weaponized. In my view, those statements were abhorrent when they spoke them because the Supreme Court was specifically designed to NOT be swayed by the political process and the American people should NEVER have a say on them. That said, politicians making dumb and spineless statements don't change the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 23, 2020 7:41:55 GMT -8
Fine but own it. The reason for not filling in 2016 and filling in 2020 is the same: because they can. No nonsense like in 2016 stating that the American people get a say, when that really meant they get a say but only when the president from the other party nominates someone. On that, you and I are 100% in agreement. The 2016 Republicans should have had the backbone to say Merrick Garland was so unacceptable as a nominee that he couldn't get out of committee so they aren't moving forward on him. Instead, they made a bunch of statements that are now being weaponized. In my view, those statements were abhorrent when they spoke them because the Supreme Court was specifically designed to NOT be swayed by the political process and the American people should NEVER have a say on them. That said, politicians making dumb and spineless statements don't change the Constitution. Also doesn't change the fact that in the fall of an election year, a new Justice has never been confirmed. Ever. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 23, 2020 7:50:46 GMT -8
Anyone who says that the Democrats wouldn't act to seat a Supreme Court Justice given the same scenario is either foolish or a liar. In fact, no one is denying that the Democrats would act do the same thing that Trump and GOP is saying they will do in this case. The Democrats are being honest, however, warning us that their loyalists will resort to riots, violence and intimidation if the GOP does act as they would.
Given the new normal of Democrat conspired vandalism, violence, intimidation, racial animus, lawlessness, etc. offered by Democrat loyalists, to be bedevilled only by such horrors as given to us by the Tea Party protestors, for example, would be a God send.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 23, 2020 8:22:15 GMT -8
Anyone who says that the Democrats wouldn't act to seat a Supreme Court Justice given the same scenario is either foolish or a liar. In fact, no one is denying that the Democrats would act do the same thing that Trump and GOP is saying they will do in this case. The Democrats are being honest, however, warning us that their loyalists will resort to riots, violence and intimidation if the GOP does act as they would. Given the new normal of Democrat conspired vandalism, violence, intimidation, racial animus, lawlessness, etc. offered by Democrat loyalists, to be bedevilled only by such horrors as given to us by the Tea Party protestors, for example, would be a God send. Yawn. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 23, 2020 8:28:51 GMT -8
On that, you and I are 100% in agreement. The 2016 Republicans should have had the backbone to say Merrick Garland was so unacceptable as a nominee that he couldn't get out of committee so they aren't moving forward on him. Instead, they made a bunch of statements that are now being weaponized. In my view, those statements were abhorrent when they spoke them because the Supreme Court was specifically designed to NOT be swayed by the political process and the American people should NEVER have a say on them. That said, politicians making dumb and spineless statements don't change the Constitution. Also doesn't change the fact that in the fall of an election year, a new Justice has never been confirmed. Ever. Have you noticed that Democrats have suddenly gone quiet on the idea of stuffing the court, adding states, and threatening riots? It turns out the ideas you expressed earlier in this thread make people nervous. Biden is supposed to be running on a platform of 'A Return to Normalcy'. Even Americans who vote Democrat don't like when Democrat politicians act like toddlers and terrorists. You should try sticking to decisions or expressed ideology made by the specific nominee being considered rather than threats and tantrums over what the Constitution says should be done paired with who the electorate put in the positions to carry out those duties. |
|
