Jump to content

RIP RBG


RoadyRunner

Recommended Posts

 

It will be the Cuban female. Florida.

I think that is the smart choice. It's harder for the Dems to smear a Hispanic woman than a white woman, plus the Florida bonus. Not that they won't smear whoever it is anyway.

 

 

I have come to understand in the last 3 3/4 years that there is no boundary that a liberal politician/activist will not blow by without a second thought.

It took me awhile.

Every time I thought they reached the bottom rung of the scum barrel ladder, they kept going. My levels of reaction have diminished to the point that I now just expect something bizzaro.

The Republican in congress don't seem to understand that yet, and they work elbow to elbow with them. Their families are hiding behind the curtains while mobs are forming outside their gates.

 

Who would have believed the events of 2016-2019 would occur 4 years ago?

 

FWIW, they could nominate Tim Scott, Candace Owens, Hershel Walker, Kim Klacik, heck Bruce Jenner (if he was a conservative) and it wouldn't matter. Nancy, Shiff and gang would just retract into the shadows and have their african american attack dogs do their work for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure who would be the best choice. Barrett is proven. Logoa might help with Florida and hispanic populations. My concern there is if she might feel kinship and side sometimes with Sotamayor. That Rushing is so young might indicate she'd have a greater chance of serving a long time on SCOTUS which is attractive; but I'm not that knowledgeable about her past. I have to assume that all of them are solid or they wouldn't be at the point they are.

 

I'm impressed that Romney is supporting the vote and not the delay. Surprised me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The democrats say if Trump selects the next justice, then they will pack the court. How exactly is that done? Is it done by the President, by the House, the Senate? Can Trump just pack the court himself now?

 

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

FTA:

The answer is that under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President.

 

We've been at 9 since 1869.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The democrats say if Trump selects the next justice, then they will pack the court. How exactly is that done? Is it done by the President, by the House, the Senate? Can Trump just pack the court himself now?

Probably not enough time, fortunately. We don't want that. Having the top seat and majority in senate is what it takes to get er done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The democrats say if Trump selects the next justice, then they will pack the court. How exactly is that done? Is it done by the President, by the House, the Senate? Can Trump just pack the court himself now?

 

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

FTA:

The answer is that under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President.

 

We've been at 9 since 1869.

 

Yes to the above, but it also has to pass Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can rule it “Unconstitutional”. The checks and balance of the Constitution is still in play. If SCOTUS allows it then yes the number can increase. If they do not then it is just declared “Unconstitutional”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes to the above, but it also has to pass Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can rule it “Unconstitutional”. The checks and balance of the Constitution is still in play. If SCOTUS allows it then yes the number can increase. If they do not then it is just declared “Unconstitutional”.

 

 

That is actually an interesting concept, as Congress manipulationg the courts makeup for thier own self serving interest sure does smack checks and balances in the face, and it brings up the question if they can pack it for political gain, what is to stop them from abolishing the court and creating a new one in their image? The Constitution is essentially silent on this and thus the answer would come from a Supreme Court ruling and interpretation of seperation of powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The democrats say if Trump selects the next justice, then they will pack the court. How exactly is that done? Is it done by the President, by the House, the Senate? Can Trump just pack the court himself now?

 

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

FTA:

The answer is that under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President.

 

We've been at 9 since 1869.

 

Yes to the above, but it also has to pass Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can rule it “Unconstitutional”. The checks and balance of the Constitution is still in play. If SCOTUS allows it then yes the number can increase. If they do not then it is just declared “Unconstitutional”.

 

I can't imagine on what grounds a suit could be brought (anything, I suppose) or by what party. And I can't imagine on what grounds it could be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. The number of Justices and length of terms is not addressed in The Constitution, as far as I know, but are set by Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes to the above, but it also has to pass Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can rule it “Unconstitutional”. The checks and balance of the Constitution is still in play. If SCOTUS allows it then yes the number can increase. If they do not then it is just declared “Unconstitutional”.

 

 

That is actually an interesting concept, as Congress manipulationg the courts makeup for thier own self serving interest sure does smack checks and balances in the face, and it brings up the question if they can pack it for political gain, what is to stop them from abolishing the court and creating a new one in their image? The Constitution is essentially silent on this and thus the answer would come from a Supreme Court ruling and interpretation of separation of powers.

 

In a very real way, the Republicans are packing the court by moving ahead (with a nomination and near certain partisan confirmation) now, and by refusing to move ahead in 2016. There are few Republicans calling either move illegitimate while it works in their favor. Should the Senate and White House change parties after this election and expand the court, I expect Republicans and Conservatives to cry foul as loudly as Democrats are now. Packing the court next year would be no less legitimate than packing the court before this election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The democrats say if Trump selects the next justice, then they will pack the court. How exactly is that done? Is it done by the President, by the House, the Senate? Can Trump just pack the court himself now?

 

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

FTA:

The answer is that under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President.[/size]

 

We've been at 9 since 1869.[/size]

Yes to the above, but it also has to pass Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can rule it “Unconstitutional”. The checks and balance of the Constitution is still in play. If SCOTUS allows it then yes the number can increase. If they do not then it is just declared “Unconstitutional”.

 

I can't imagine on what grounds a suit could be brought (anything, I suppose) or by what party. And I can't imagine on what grounds it could be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. The number of Justices and length of terms is not addressed in The Constitution, as far as I know, but are set by Congress.

 

The argument can be made that even RGB said packing the court for partisan would not muster. Also it just boils down to precedent. Elections have consequences. It depends on which party has the power. The Democrats when that happens will have their turn. McConnell told this to Reid when Reid abolished the filibuster for judicial appointments. You cannot possibly believe the Democrats would do anything different after a sham impeachment, Obamacare rammed thru, etc. It boils down to elections have consequences and which party has the power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes to the above, but it also has to pass Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can rule it “Unconstitutional”. The checks and balance of the Constitution is still in play. If SCOTUS allows it then yes the number can increase. If they do not then it is just declared “Unconstitutional”.

 

That is actually an interesting concept, as Congress manipulationg the courts makeup for thier own self serving interest sure does smack checks and balances in the face, and it brings up the question if they can pack it for political gain, what is to stop them from abolishing the court and creating a new one in their image? The Constitution is essentially silent on this and thus the answer would come from a Supreme Court ruling and interpretation of separation of powers.

In a very real way, the Republicans are packing the court by moving ahead (with a nomination and near certain partisan confirmation) now, and by refusing to move ahead in 2016. There are few Republicans calling either move illegitimate while it works in their favor. Should the Senate and White House change parties after this election and expand the court, I expect Republicans and Conservatives to cry foul as loudly as Democrats are now. Packing the court next year would be no less legitimate than packing the court before this election.

Did you say that when Obama nominated Garland as a TRUE lame duck? Are you saying that even if they held hearings, the Republican senate was OBLIGATED to APPROVE him??? Do you not remember the name BORK?

 

NO PARTY has any justification to pack the SCOTUS with activist, partisan judges.

 

I also find it ridiculous that the Dems term true jurists -- those appointed to apply the true language of the Constitution and statutes to the cases at hand -- as partisans with political agendas. Projection at its finest from the party which forum shops to enact policies they can't or shy from passing in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a very real way, the Republicans are packing the court by moving ahead (with a nomination and near certain partisan confirmation) now, and by refusing to move ahead in 2016.

 

I would not say 'in a very real way' they are simply following the Constitution, the refusal to give consent in 2016 was their perogative agree or not, nothing mandates the Senate take a vote to confirm or deny a nomination in fact BOTH parties have traditionally refused to have hearings en masse for nominations over the years, refusing to have hearings and take a vote on a nomination is as valid of a denial as anything else. The Constitution doesn't mandate a vote or prescribe how a denial or approval of the nomination is made by the Senate, a lack of consideration is as valid as a voted denial in that respect.

 

Gong back to 2016 the Senate/House/President didn't attempt to restructure the entire court makeup and they didn't attempt to change any long standing laws on the structure of the Supreme Court like the Democrats are proposing to do, the Senate simply refused to give it's advice and consent to a nomination, something that is hardly unheard of, it's night and day difference from what the Democrats are threatening to do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a very real way, the Republicans are packing the court by moving ahead (with a nomination and near certain partisan confirmation) now, and by refusing to move ahead in 2016. There are few Republicans calling either move illegitimate while it works in their favor. Should the Senate and White House change parties after this election and expand the court, I expect Republicans and Conservatives to cry foul as loudly as Democrats are now. Packing the court next year would be no less legitimate than packing the court before this election.

 

You're re-defining "packing the court". The GOP is not proposing to add more seats, merely to fill an empty seat. No equivalencies here. If this is equivalent, why doesn't Biden answer the question: "If elected, will you expand the court?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not promoting ACB. I don't really have a clear favorite among the possibles, but I thought this might be informative for some concerning the 2A.

 

http://youtu.be/j0ZN532f9d0?t=1687

 

If you changed gun rights to voting rights in the above the Democrats would 100% agree, kind of proves some believe the 2nd is a 2nd class right or not a right at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Elections have consequences.

 

The Republicans have power now. If they played a “fair game” with this SCOTUS nomination, fair game as loosely defined by the Republicans in 2016, there would be no guarantee the Democratic Party would play fair should the have both houses an the Presidency in 2021. Every elected official from the President on down should be representing all of us. Instead, they are all representing those who voted for them. This will unfortunately continue.

 

I can’t imagine what will come if the Dems take the Senate and the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes to the above, but it also has to pass Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can rule it “Unconstitutional”. The checks and balance of the Constitution is still in play. If SCOTUS allows it then yes the number can increase. If they do not then it is just declared “Unconstitutional”.

 

That is actually an interesting concept, as Congress manipulationg the courts makeup for thier own self serving interest sure does smack checks and balances in the face, and it brings up the question if they can pack it for political gain, what is to stop them from abolishing the court and creating a new one in their image? The Constitution is essentially silent on this and thus the answer would come from a Supreme Court ruling and interpretation of separation of powers.

 

The nomination being partisan has been going on for decades. The nomination process became ugly only when the Democrats inventing Borking with Bork. Elections has consequences. We got rammed Obamacare with Democrats in power. Whether we like it or not partisan is not going anywhere. Democrats are the party most hungry for power. They already rule in Hollywood, Academia, MSM, Social Media, and made legislating from the bench a thing. I honestly think we lost against the Democrats. We are just holding them stopping the flood slowly. The leak never gets plugged.

 

For now R’s have some leeway. Power always flips then we get it the other way. The Dems have ruled the House foe Decades. Have always been partisan.

 

In a very real way, the Republicans are packing the court by moving ahead (with a nomination and near certain partisan confirmation) now, and by refusing to move ahead in 2016. There are few Republicans calling either move illegitimate while it works in their favor. Should the Senate and White House change parties after this election and expand the court, I expect Republicans and Conservatives to cry foul as loudly as Democrats are now. Packing the court next year would be no less legitimate than packing the court before this election.

 

Did you say that when Obama nominated Garland as a TRUE lame duck? Are you saying that even if they held hearings, the Republican senate was OBLIGATED to APPROVE him??? Do you not remember the name BORK?

NO PARTY has any justification to pack the SCOTUS with activist, partisan judges.

I also find it ridiculous that the Dems term true jurists -- those appointed to apply the true language of the Constitution and statutes to the cases at hand -- as partisans with political agendas. Projection at its finest from the party which forum shops to enact policies they can't or shy from passing in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Elections have consequences.

The Republicans have power now. If they played a “fair game” with this SCOTUS nomination, fair game as loosely defined by the Republicans in 2016, there would be no guarantee the Democratic Party would play fair should the have both houses an the Presidency in 2021. Every elected official from the President on down should be representing all of us. Instead, they are all representing those who voted for them. This will unfortunately continue.

I can’t imagine what will come if the Dems take the Senate and the White House.

Mitch did warn Reid when he did away with the filibuster for judicial appointments on the Senate Floor and here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Elections have consequences.

The Republicans have power now. If they played a “fair game” with this SCOTUS nomination, fair game as loosely defined by the Republicans in 2016, there would be no guarantee the Democratic Party would play fair should the have both houses an the Presidency in 2021. Every elected official from the President on down should be representing all of us. Instead, they are all representing those who voted for them. This will unfortunately continue.

I can’t imagine what will come if the Dems take the Senate and the White House.

Mitch did warn Reid when he did away with the filibuster for judicial appointments on the Senate Floor and here we are.

 

 

Yes...He...Did.

 

Reid made a point at the time of saying that the filibuster was still in play for SCOTUS appointments. As if he (Reid) wouldn't have nuked that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This court packing business won't be quite as necessary for Dems if Biden wins.

 

With Thomas up in years and not in great physical shape, it's a fair bet Biden could move things back left during his term. We all know Roberts can't be depended on for consistent, solid conservative votes, so that would restore the status quo ante.

 

On the other hand, Democrat retribution could take the form of packing anyway. All the more reason it's vital for the Republicans to hold the Senate.

 

Rich Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This court packing business won't be quite as necessary for Dems if Biden wins.

 

With Thomas up in years and not in great physical shape, it's a fair bet Biden could move things back left during his term. We all know Roberts can't be depended on for consistent, solid conservative votes, so that would restore the status quo ante.

 

On the other hand, Democrat retribution could take the form of packing anyway. All the more reason it's vital for the Republicans to hold the Senate.

 

Rich Phillips

 

You mean Kamala don't you ? Biden , if elected , won't be in office very long till Kamala just has to take over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(CNN) - GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah signaled on Tuesday that he is on board with the Senate's taking up a new Supreme Court nominee during the current election year, an announcement that all but ensures a nominee put forward by President Donald Trump will be confirmed barring any potential missteps by the nominee during the confirmation process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(CNN) - GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah signaled on Tuesday that he is on board with the Senate's taking up a new Supreme Court nominee during the current election year, an announcement that all but ensures a nominee put forward by President Donald Trump will be confirmed barring any potential missteps by the nominee during the confirmation process.

 

When Romney sides with the GOP and Trump you know the Democrats and Left have went WAY too far!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tucker on Fox just showed a reportedly 1-yr-old clip of RBG saying that it would be totally wrong for any party to ever pack the court. I'm sure the dumbocrats will respect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...