|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 22, 2020 14:41:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 22, 2020 14:47:07 GMT
Hogwash from Romney about precedent, but unsurprising.
There now seems to be no good argument against the Democrats packing the court should they win the Presidency and the Senate.
|
|
|
|
Post by unclejunior on Sept 22, 2020 19:55:49 GMT
The BBC seems to keep going on, these days, about the ‘sheer gall’ of Donald Trump in defying the precedent of a President not being able to appoint, in a Presidential Eelection year, a new Member of the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS).
BBC fails to point out, ever, that this ‘informal rule’ has a codicil attached (defined, it would appear, originally by the Democrats) that there should be no appointments to SCOTUS in a Presidential Election year ‘where the President and the Senate majority are of different parties’.
2016, where Democrats keep blaming the Republicans for not electing a Democrat member of Scotus was where Obama (who wanted to nominate Merrick Garland, a left-winger), and the Senate Majority, were of different parties, and the Republicans, with a majority of the Senate, perfectly within their rights, said that they would not agree to his nomination to the SCOTUS.
This year, the President and the Senate, who have the final say, are from the same party – so the ‘exclusionary rule’ does not apply.
There have been many SCOTUS members appointed in Presidential Election Years, and in far less time than exists before the current Presidential Election (one such beneficiary, was, of course, Ruth Bader Ginsberg).
Ah, well, don’t depend on the BBC to give you anything but a slanted view….and, of course, bias by omission.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,990
|
Post by mids on Sept 22, 2020 19:57:37 GMT
The left are arses.
|
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,222
|
Post by voice on Sept 22, 2020 20:03:37 GMT
That rider was added 3 days ago UJ, Moscow Mitch and the rest of the rank hypocrites on the right said no such thing 4 years ago. Its all on record you know, parroting the latest party lie does not change that you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by unclejunior on Sept 22, 2020 20:05:23 GMT
That rider was added 3 days ago UJ, Moscow Mitch and the rest of the rank hypocrites on the right said no such thing 4 years ago. Its all on record you know, parroting the latest party lie does not change that you know. So you agree with me ....good 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Sept 22, 2020 20:27:24 GMT
There now seems to be no good argument against the Democrats packing the court should they win the Presidency and the Senate.
except for 200+ years of history, nine is not written in constitution, but it has been law for 200+years, if every president could simply pack the court then it becomes just another political agency, besides you must first win President and Senate
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 22, 2020 20:32:08 GMT
There have been many SCOTUS members appointed in Presidential Election Years, and in far less time than exists before the current Presidential Election (one such beneficiary, was, of course, Ruth Bader Ginsberg). It's bizarre how few SCOTUS openings have come up in Presidential election years, actually. I guess most justices resign rather than wait to die, and tend to resign at non-controversial times. Of the last 44, only 2 were in election years, and neither got through (I've no idea where you got RBG from - she was nominated and confirmed in 1993) Garland - 2016 Abe Fortus - 1968. Also the guy who was going to fill Fortus's seat, but that never opened up And a couple more before that did get confirmed in the last 100 years: Murphy - Jan 1940 (at the very beginning of an election year, not in the midst of a campaign) Cardozo - Feb 1932 (at the very beginning of an election year) |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 22, 2020 20:40:26 GMT
There now seems to be no good argument against the Democrats packing the court should they win the Presidency and the Senate. except for 200+ years of history, nine is not written in constitution, but it has been law for 200+years, if every president could simply pack the court then it becomes just another political agency, besides you must first win President and Senate Yep. Given that the Republicans have completely politicised it, it's already delegitimised. And there's no harm to Democrats packing it. The new 6-3 court with oldest of them at 72 means that there's a guaranteed extremist conservative court for the next 20 years plus. Therefore, the biggest harm that could come from the Republicans packing the court themselves is that we return to where we'd be anyway, so no different to now but we'd have had a moderate court in the meantime. And that would require them to win both the Senate and Presidency. And during the years before the Republicans get to pack the court, the new centrist court could finally un-do all the anti-democratic measures, the gerrymandering and the campaign finance and the voter-suppression stuff, that have been put in place down the years. So the Republicans would have to actually try and appeal to the majority in the country to win an election where they'd get to switch the court, rather than their current super-narrow appeal to billionaires, racist old people, extremist god-botherers and gun-obsessed yokels. |
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Sept 22, 2020 21:15:11 GMT
|
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Sept 22, 2020 21:28:03 GMT
trump is not packing the court. he is filling a vacancy.
Constitution:
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.”
thats it. period.
show me where it says a president can be impeached for filling a vacancy.
show me where it says a president can only fill a vacancy during such and such time periods.
show me where it says a president of one party can only fill a vacancy with someone the opposing party wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 22, 2020 21:29:54 GMT
Before she died there was a chance of a possible slow transition to the court becoming a centrist, moderate court. If she gets replaced in the next 30 days, there's no other reasonable route in the next 20 years to having a court that's not packed with extremists.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 22, 2020 21:30:34 GMT
show me where it says a president can only fill a vacancy during such and such time periods. show me where it says a president of one party can only fill a vacancy with someone the opposing party wants. And yet, somehow, Merrick Garland... |
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Sept 22, 2020 21:44:08 GMT
Funny to see the left losing their utter sh*t over something they also did 4 years ago. Hilarious, really. if the donks had the wh and senate right now, ginsburgs replacement would already be sitting in her chair. |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,222
|
Post by voice on Sept 22, 2020 23:29:36 GMT
That rider was added 3 days ago UJ, Moscow Mitch and the rest of the rank hypocrites on the right said no such thing 4 years ago. Its all on record you know, parroting the latest party lie does not change that you know. So you agree with me ....good 😊 You really do need to work on your inability to comprehend basic English UJ, this comes up quite often, apply yourself man. |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,222
|
Post by voice on Sept 23, 2020 0:29:13 GMT
All Hypocritical LiL B!tches!🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R -S.C.): “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."
.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): “I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President."
.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”
.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.”
.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”
.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
.
Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”
.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.”
.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 23, 2020 2:59:14 GMT
if the donks had the wh and senate right now, ginsburgs replacement would already be sitting in her chair. If they had the WH and Senate, the country would be infinitely less f**k*d up in all kinds of ways, And Kennedy and Scalia’s seats would be held by centrists. |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,222
|
Post by voice on Sept 23, 2020 3:33:35 GMT
And you almost certainly would not have 200k dead and facing that being easily a quarter million by the end of October and closing in on half a million dead americans come the one year anniversary of this outbreak.
|
|
|
|
Post by unclejunior on Sept 23, 2020 9:23:36 GMT
Do you really believe that an 87 year old women was on her deathbed with her family and her last words were about who was taking her job at the office ?
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 23, 2020 9:38:22 GMT
There was quite an interesting coincidence on Wiki this morning: an article about a female murderer who was executed in the US. She was guilty as sin but only two supreme court judges dissented when it came to the final appeal. Both women. One of them RGB. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Lewis |
|
