Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Sept 19, 2020 13:56:22 GMT -8
That is a bluff, I'd call immediately and scoop the pot. The last thing these weak lefties want is an all out war, they will lose & lose quickly. People who know how to fight and are willing to don't go around making those kinds of unprovoked threats. They understand that threats have consequences, whether or not you follow through on them. I believe the lefts response to the next Supreme Court nominee will start a quick collapse of their ideology as well as the Democratic party. Contrary to some opinion, I believe a significant number of buildings have already burned in Democrat run cities that should act as a fire break when they riot again. Instead of forest management, Dems practice city management? |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Sept 19, 2020 14:05:20 GMT -8
Luca is one of the more intelligent people I know. That said, if he tries to remove a video from a post, there is a good chance he will do something that deletes the entire Internet. Technology is not his strong suit. When it comes to tech, Luca is like an old Amish man trying to program a DVR. After 20 years of posting, he still thinks he has to sign his posts so we know who wrote them. Deleting a video is something he will master in his next life.So you are confirming there is an after life! The one in which you return as the transfer QB to Faber College...!  |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 19, 2020 14:08:33 GMT -8
I don't think we can wait four and half years to fill her empty seat. Remember when the SCOTUS was supposed to be impartial? I remember when the court was supposed to be impartial, and sometimes it still may be, but the truth is the nomination and confirmation process never has been. |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Sept 19, 2020 18:44:37 GMT -8
My thinking is, sure Trump has a big part in all this, but the Senate really has no choice if the President does nominate someone. it is their constitutional responsibility to provide advise and consent to the president on his nominations <period> But that’s exactly what the Senate did when Obama wanted to nominate someone for the Supreme Court..................Luca I foresee them trying to pull the same stunt, however, back then, it was a Republican senate and a lame-duck President. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 20, 2020 3:42:57 GMT -8
My thinking is, sure Trump has a big part in all this, but the Senate really has no choice if the President does nominate someone. it is their constitutional responsibility to provide advise and consent to the president on his nominations <period> Well too bad the Republicans are too corrupt to care. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 20, 2020 3:46:06 GMT -8
I don't think we can wait four and half years to fill her empty seat. Remember when the SCOTUS was supposed to be impartial? Remember when Scalia died and the corrupt Republicans refused to do their jobs for 8 MONTHS? |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Sept 20, 2020 3:48:17 GMT -8
My thinking is, sure Trump has a big part in all this, but the Senate really has no choice if the President does nominate someone. it is their constitutional responsibility to provide advise and consent to the president on his nominations <period> But that’s exactly what the Senate did when Obama wanted to nominate someone for the Supreme Court..................Luca Yep...and now the same Republicans are defending trump for nominating someone in record time, and they plan to hold a vote...hypocrisy much? Check out Lindsay's statement: |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 20, 2020 4:02:32 GMT -8
Remember when the SCOTUS was supposed to be impartial? Remember when Scalia died and the corrupt Republicans refused to do their jobs for 8 MONTHS? They didn’t refuse to do their jobs. It was a Republican Senate and a Democrat president. Obama’s nominee would have never been approved. |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 20, 2020 4:06:29 GMT -8
But that’s exactly what the Senate did when Obama wanted to nominate someone for the Supreme Court..................Luca Yep...and now the same Republicans are defending trump for nominating someone in record time, and they plan to hold a vote...hypocrisy much? Check out Lindsay's statement: Trump has every right to nominate someone and expect the Senate to vote for or against the nominee. The Democrats would do the same thing under the same circumstances. Remember, Obama said that elections have consequences. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 20, 2020 6:07:22 GMT -8
My thinking is, sure Trump has a big part in all this, but the Senate really has no choice if the President does nominate someone. it is their constitutional responsibility to provide advise and consent to the president on his nominations <period> But that’s exactly what the Senate did when Obama wanted to nominate someone for the Supreme Court..................Luca Lets get something clear here, at least from my perspective: The Senate (and McConnell, specifically) erred when they refused to set hearings for Merrick Garland. And Garland was nominated in March, so several months prior to this point in Trumps tenure. The only significant (if you can call it that) difference was Obama was definitely out the door being at the end of his 2nd term and we don’t know yet if Trump is... but nevertheless, Garland should have gotten an up or down vote. But, now, there are those who complained that the Senate wouldn’t hold those hearings, and also are complaining that they WILL hold hearings for whomever Trump nominates. Which makes this not so much an argument (with them) over what is right or wrong, but who do they believe they want to have what is right or wrong: It’s just more of the “Orange man-bad” syndrome. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 20, 2020 6:10:27 GMT -8
Remember when Scalia died and the corrupt Republicans refused to do their jobs for 8 MONTHS? They didn’t refuse to do their jobs. It was a Republican Senate and a Democrat president. Obama’s nominee would have never been approved. I believe you are right, Oakley. His nominee would not have been confirmed. but they STILL had a duty to hold the hearings, just like they have a duty to hold them today for Trumps nominee. there is nothing in the Constitution that even hits at anything similar to “lame duck presidential nominations.” |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Sept 20, 2020 6:12:42 GMT -8
Actually the entire thing is moot if you simply look to HARRY REID and his making this a MAJORITY 51% ruling as opposed to the original 66% that it took to confirm a judge, this alone scream "PAYBACK IS A BITCH". The day Reid pulled this I said one day that ruling will come back to haunt you. It has. His entire party. I say spike the ball in the end zone!
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 20, 2020 6:28:35 GMT -8
It also has been argued that the Democrats caved to McConnell's pressure tactics in the Garland case. They should have found a way to force a vote or "shut down the Senate" to light a spark. So it was safer, in the judgments of spring and summer 2016, to let the Republicans look intransigent and unfair and hope somebody noticed. Perhaps the injustice to Garland would help Democrats win seats in supposedly blue states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and even red ones such as Missouri and North Carolina. Instead, the country moved on. There were highly contentious primaries in both parties and plenty of other news to preoccupy everyone. Besides, and lest we forget, the Senate Democrats and most everyone else thought they had an insurance policy on the Scalia vacancy. The assumption was that Hillary Clinton would be elected. Clinton, who did, after all, win the popular vote by several million votes, might even have helped carry in a Democratic Senate. And then she could have renominated Garland, or someone younger and more liberal. As it sorted out, the Democrats were cautious, overconfident and misinformed about the mood of the country. They lost in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Missouri and North Carolina, winding up still in the minority. That left them powerless to stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017, paving the way to confirmation of Trump's first choice and probably his second. And that is the predicament in which they find themselves today. www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Sept 20, 2020 8:42:31 GMT -8
But that’s exactly what the Senate did when Obama wanted to nominate someone for the Supreme Court..................Luca Yep...and now the same Republicans are defending trump for nominating someone in record time, and they plan to hold a vote...hypocrisy much? The true hypocrisy is your failure to note that both sides have changed positions twice, both times based on who was president & therefore who would get nominated for the position. In 1992, Biden served as chairman of the judiciary committee. There was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time, but Biden took the Senate floor for a speech. “Once the political season is under way … action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,”. Biden used this invention to kill the nomination of Justice Roberts to the Federal Court of Appeals as well as 31 other nominations. Then in 2016, the two sides switched. The Republicans flipped and followed the precedent set by Biden, stopping the nomination of Merrick Garland for the same reason. The Democrats also changed positions and now claimed that the precedent that Biden set should not be applied. Fast forward to 2020, and once again, both sides are back to their positions from 1992. The only difference is that McConnell has precedent on his side, in that since 1888, if one party held both the Senate & the Presidency, the nominations moved forward. This has happened 15 other times. The Democrats argument has no such precedent. So stop acting like the fake news and reporting only half the story. |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Sept 20, 2020 21:10:41 GMT -8
This is what Lindsey Graham had to say about Democrats today.
“Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department.
Democrats chose to set in motion rules changes to stack the court at the Circuit level and they chose to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life to keep the Supreme Court seat open.
You reap what you sow.”
|
|
