You know he was recorded right?
I mean we know you don't care. And we know you'll lie about what he said. But he was recorded.
OT: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
- Thread starter mikemarc1
- Start date
- Status
You know he was recorded right?
I mean we know you don't care. And we know you'll lie about what he said. But he was recorded.
We should all listen to Barry Soetoro and Ginsberg’s words in 16 when Barry nominated white male Garland. He’s the constitutional scholar expert as we’ve been told. So was Ginsberg. They advised the seat to be filled.
Elections have consequences. So great!
Elections have consequences. So great!
Returning things at Home Depot isn't a Constitutional right.
I guess USPS couldn't handle all mail in elections despite the fact that several states have them for years. I guess all the Republicans elected in Utah which does all mail in elections were fraudulent.
In 2018, after Kavanaugh's perjury was outed, Dems won Senate seats in:
PA
MI
WI
AZ
NV
MN- 2 seats
Hey are any of those states of consequence in this election?
I saw your first sentence
And then I saw the rest of your comment, where you went to- as absolutely always- defend a hypocritical and non-conservative opinion because your party was the one taking it.
You can't help yourself. You refuse to make an unqualified criticism of the GOP, ever.
No wonder Trump plumped his nose into the Big Ten's business while not saying a word about the Pac 12. DUUUHHHH lol
Well he sure as well didn't have a job to get to, a family or friends to worry about, nor even a hobby. This board is it.
When Dems win in November, they'll pack the court.
And add Puerto Rico and DC as states.
Securing the Senate and SCOTUS away from the fascistic, white nationalist dung heap known as the GOP for years to come.
What matters most is that poorly educated men aged 45-70 will never matter again. The older Xers/young boomers, as this board demonstrates ever amply, will be the first generation in American history whose legacy will be nothing other than hatred and COVID spread. Pathetic.
And add Puerto Rico and DC as states.
Securing the Senate and SCOTUS away from the fascistic, white nationalist dung heap known as the GOP for years to come.
What matters most is that poorly educated men aged 45-70 will never matter again. The older Xers/young boomers, as this board demonstrates ever amply, will be the first generation in American history whose legacy will be nothing other than hatred and COVID spread. Pathetic.
Hey, Trump didn't mean what he said, or he didn't say what he meant. You know, the guy people voted for because he always means what he says.
He even got the B1G to play. There is nothing he can’t do!
I dont think the US would make the same money off of Puerto Rico as a state as it does with PR being a commonwealth. "Old Head Dems" (not the new bloods) will fight that as well. Look up Jones Act.
You are one stupid youngster...lol.. “ congress” ... no not Congress... working in conjunction with ... smart ass... and you called me a moron...lol
Now you care about the constitution? Busy am for you. You up to like 25 posts this am?
Cali, I enjoy your posts, but I'm confused on this one.
Do you see a difference between how the 2016 vacancy should have been handled and how the 2020 vacancy should be handled? If yes, can you explain it? Honestly, I don't think "Elections have consequences" condones different approaches between the two instances. Per the Constitution, the sitting president appoints, the Senate approves rejects. Period.
I think democratic government works best when the Constitution is followed robotically, without any political shading (that's naive and utopian, but nevertheless, we have veered drastically from anything approaching that for the past twenty years or so).
Republicans control the Senate and the WH. That’s the difference.
Okay, thanks for the clear answer. That's exactly what I wondering about.
Edited to add that I don't agree with the philosophy. The Constitution should be followed. There is nothing about "election year" or "lame duck" or who controls what executive branches or legislative bodies in the Constitution, when it comes to filling vacancies on the Supreme Court bench.
Last edited:
I agree with you 100% but you know if Roles were reversed what does Clinton do here?
Last edited:
C'mon now he just did it for the sake of the student athletes and fans?! ;-)
+1
McConnell's logic was that the WH and Senate were split between the two parties in 2016 who wanted different types of justices. In this situation, the voters got to decide what they wanted since it was an election year.
I said upthread that I think in the current political environment, both parties would bend the Constitution to advance their own personal preferences.
I think that's sad. Our system depends a lot on "doing the right thing."
No matter what happens with the election or the nomination process, I guarantee that the political climate in the country will only get worse. Sad, but true. It just keeps getting worse.
McConnel's comments (i.e. his will / voice) is the one that will be heard...not the American people.
Do the rules for selection of a supreme include a timetable?
"From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months)".
FYI here's what the constitution says about the process:
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
MO
He could cure cancer and you’d have a similar response. That hate ain’t heathy brother. Get rid of that anchor.
That’s exactly right. It’s the President’s job to nominate someone and the Senate’s job to either approve them or not. Which is exactly what happened in 16. The Senate happened to get to it when Obama was no longer President. There is no specific timeline in the Constitution.
It’s fully in their constitutional rights to approve someone immediately. The Dems didn’t wn the Senate. Had they, there would be a different outcome. As it is, they are just very sore losers. Instead of scampeachments, lying day after day opposing their President, falsifying information about a great man in Kavanaugh, etc etc etc, they should have been trying to legislate and win the hearts and minds of Americans. They simply can’t control themselves to do what’s necessary. It’s all just trickery. And they lose because of it.
Ginsberg doesn’t own that seat and neither do the Dems. It will be filled by President Trump immediately. As it can be, should be, and will be.
Dems play by the rules. If GOP had confirmed Garland I would have no problem with repugs replacing RBG before the election and neither should dems. But that's not what happened. i think dems would have played by the rules as they always do.
Again, I usually love your stuff, but I don't think you are coming clean on this one.
"the Senate happened to get to it when Obama was no longer President" does not square up with "It will be filled by President Trump immediately" . To me it is a cleaner explanation to say "We got the White House and we got the Senate, so you lose, chumps!" (which you also offered in a more civil way, LOL).
It's all good. I just believe (for myself, not judging anybody else) in being objective to the best of my ability. And it's easier for me since I have no political allegiances or pre-inclinations.
Play by the rules? Dems?
The reason any of this is at issue is because Dems changed the rules the last time they were in control of the senate.
Bingo.
Shumer started the judicial appointment flight with the first solely partisan filibuster during the GWB days and Harry Reid was the first to change the filibuster rules.
Nope, fake news, dems never changed any rules regarding supreme court justices.
Cali, I apologize if it seems like I am dogging you. I hope my comments are coming across as somebody talking Constitution in a bar with his buddy. I don't pretend to know that I am correct about anything...
Yup and mitch said we don't advise and consent in a election year, repugs refused to hold hearings on Garland, didn't do their constitutional duty.
I’m being very objective. R’s control the Senate. The Dems didn’t during Obama’s second term. He lost it in historic fashion. That’s the difference. President Trump didn’t.
Dems don’t have the power. So they are reduced to crying, trickery, and threats of violence. Like usual.
why is one justice and one judge lol???Justice Lagoa and Judge Barrett the front runners. Either would exceptional choices.
Trump's Supreme Court court pick likely to be Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa: reports
Two names have been emerging from the list of Supreme Court contenders President Trump is said to be considering following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to reports.www.foxnews.com
I’m sorry you’re allowed to post here after your last screen name got banned. Your new persona is comical though.
Because one sits on Florida’s SC and the other one doesn’t. Any other questions Gump?
- Status
