ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 5
< 12 345 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>If you knew...
tyecopeland 05:56 PM 10-17-2020
That ACB gets voted through to the Supreme Court before the election and Biden then wins that it would definitely result in the dems packing the court would you

Wish Trump had left the spot open until after election?

Or be happy that he forced her through even though it means less because of court packing?
[Reply]
Taco John 07:54 PM 10-17-2020
What Democrats did:
Put a lot of effort in winning the House in 2018.

What they should have did:
Put a lot of effort in winning the Senate in 2018.

This is actually a theme...

What Obama should have did:
Put a lot of effort in winning the Senate in 2014.

What Obama did:
Concede the Senate to Republicans in 2014 and leave his SC Nominee as a footnote in history.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 07:54 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
I won't be voting.



Ok. Didn't answer the question though.

Would you rather have taken your chances on Trump getting reelected and not have him push a nomination through or have the court get packed by the dems?
The Dems were planning to pack the court even before Ginsburg died, so you're not really offering an either/or.

Vote for Barrett = theoretical 6-3 and court packing
Vote against Barrett = Theoretical 5-4 and court packing
[Reply]
tyecopeland 08:08 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Knock yourself out.

But, McConnell had it handled back then, thanks to Harry Reid giving him the rules to play by.
Not about to. Just wondering if you were being honest with yourselves.

Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Has anyone anywhere complained that Obama tried to fill an empty seat?
I dont actually know the full story, just that liberals are complaining that Republicans didn't let them fill a seat 4 years ago.
[Reply]
tyecopeland 08:10 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
The Dems were planning to pack the court even before Ginsburg died, so you're not really offering an either/or.

Vote for Barrett = theoretical 6-3 and court packing
Vote against Barrett = Theoretical 5-4 and court packing
Fair enough.

Would you take 6-3 with guaranteed court packing or 5-4 with guaranteed no court packing?
[Reply]
mlyonsd 08:18 PM 10-17-2020
Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 183536 and 198788.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.
...
Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas as chief justice in 1968.
...
The bottom line: If a president and the Senate agree on a Supreme Court nominee, timing has never stopped them. By tradition, only when the voters have elected a president and a Senate majority from different parties has the fact of a looming presidential election mattered. When there is no dispute between the branches, there is no need to ask the voters to resolve one.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news...t-vacancy-2020

Republicans are following precedent. End of story.

To pretend democrats wouldn't pack the court if it was 5-4 is idiocy because they are lunatics.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 08:38 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
I dont actually know the full story, just that liberals are complaining that Republicans didn't let them fill a seat 4 years ago.
Short story short, an opening appeared due to the unexpected death of Scalia.
Justices are sworn for a duration of 'good behavior' meaning only removed by own choice, impeachment or death.
Justices are nominated by President and their confirmation is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
The subtext of advice and consent in the instance of the President and Senate in opposing parties is that confirmation depends on the goodwill of the Senate [ie, power to block].

Any opening grants the President the authority to nominate. That is a separate proceeding from advice [hearing] and consent [Senate vote].
No one questions Obama's right to nominate, nor should they question Trump's.

Now, there is an extensive and detailed history over decades of the erosion of the notion of good will, and the presumption that a President's nomination should be confirmed, but as it stood in the final year of Obama's final term, the Sentate had the power to vote against confirmation.

Rather than extend to that level of confrontation, the Senate made the argument that a vacancy in the final term of a President of the party opposite the Senate, proceedings should be stayed until the next election where there will be a definite new administration, and possible new Senate [there is precedent for this in the extensive history above].

Here, Trump is in his first term, and the Senate holds a majority in his party, so they have the power to confirm, [This is a salient distinction, the power to deny versus the power to confirm, held by the Senate] but the minority Democrats think this is a hypocritical and unfair turn of events.
[Reply]
Lex Luthor 08:52 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
That ACB gets voted through to the Supreme Court before the election and Biden then wins that it would definitely result in the dems packing the court would you

Wish Trump had left the spot open until after election?

Or be happy that he forced her through even though it means less because of court packing?
That wouldn't be packing the court. That would be UNPACKING the court. The GOP has been packing the court ever since they refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland's nomination because the election was 8 MONTHS away, and yet they rush to confirm ACB when the election is a few WEEKS away.

The hypocrisy here is so blatant that only a complete ****ing moron would deny the hypocrisy.

Unpacking the court is EXACTLY what Biden and the Democrats should do when they capture the Presidency and control of Congress.
[Reply]
Lex Luthor 08:56 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Short story short, an opening appeared due to the unexpected death of Scalia.
Justices are sworn for a duration of 'good behavior' meaning only removed by own choice, impeachment or death.
Justices are nominated by President and their confirmation is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
The subtext of advice and consent in the instance of the President and Senate in opposing parties is that confirmation depends on the goodwill of the Senate [ie, power to block].

Any opening grants the President the authority to nominate. That is a separate proceeding from advice [hearing] and consent [Senate vote].
No one questions Obama's right to nominate, nor should they question Trump's.

Now, there is an extensive and detailed history over decades of the erosion of the notion of good will, and the presumption that a President's nomination should be confirmed, but as it stood in the final year of Obama's final term, the Sentate had the power to vote against confirmation.

Rather than extend to that level of confrontation, the Senate made the argument that a vacancy in the final term of a President of the party opposite the Senate, proceedings should be stayed until the next election where there will be a definite new administration, and possible new Senate [there is precedent for this in the extensive history above].

Here, Trump is in his first term, and the Senate holds a majority in his party, so they have the power to confirm, [This is a salient distinction, the power to deny versus the power to confirm, held by the Senate] but the minority Democrats think this is a hypocritical and unfair turn of events.
The tortured logic that you and the other Republican assholes use to deny the hypocrisy of this is disgusting. You guys don't give a shit about anything other than getting power and keeping it. Stop pretending otherwise. Nobody's buying it. You're not fooling anybody.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 09:07 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
That ACB gets voted through to the Supreme Court before the election and Biden then wins that it would definitely result in the dems packing the court would you

Wish Trump had left the spot open until after election?

Or be happy that he forced her through even though it means less because of court packing?

Let's use a little logic here. Trump gets his nominee in - the spoiled ass fascists "stack the court" with fascist judges.

Trump waits and loses the election and the fascist nominate and approve a fascist judge.

My bet? The fascist pack nothing.
[Reply]
Lex Luthor 09:14 PM 10-17-2020
Republicans claim that Democrats want to "pack the court".

Republicans blocked 110 Obama nominees, wouldn't give Garland a hearing because it was an election year, then confirmed 218 Trump judges. Now, they're rushing to confirm Barrett as millions vote.

The Republicans are packing the courts. They are completely shameless when doing so, and they blatantly lie when they deny doing so.

I realize this argument won't resonate with the Republican hypocrites who don't give a shit about anything other than getting power and keeping it. I just felt like repeating it one more time for the record.
[Reply]
Randallflagg 09:22 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by Lex Luthor:
Republicans claim that Democrats want to "pack the court".

Republicans blocked 110 Obama nominees, wouldn't give Garland a hearing because it was an election year, then confirmed 218 Trump judges. Now, they're rushing to confirm Barrett as millions vote.

The Republicans are packing the courts. They are completely shameless when doing so, and they blatantly lie when they deny doing so.

I realize this argument won't resonate with the Republican hypocrites who don't give a shit about anything other than getting power and keeping it. I just felt like repeating it one more time for the record.

You slay me...... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
[Reply]
mlyonsd 09:24 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by Lex Luthor:
Republicans claim that Democrats want to "pack the court".

Republicans blocked 110 Obama nominees, wouldn't give Garland a hearing because it was an election year, then confirmed 218 Trump judges. Now, they're rushing to confirm Barrett as millions vote.

The Republicans are packing the courts. They are completely shameless when doing so, and they blatantly lie when they deny doing so.

I realize this argument won't resonate with the Republican hypocrites who don't give a shit about anything other than getting power and keeping it. I just felt like repeating it one more time for the record.
Some fucking retard somewhere said elections have consequences. Game on.
[Reply]
Taco John 09:27 PM 10-17-2020
There is no doubt that I want to see a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court. Also, this is what people have voted for.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 09:36 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
That ACB gets voted through to the Supreme Court before the election and Biden then wins that it would definitely result in the dems packing the court would you

Wish Trump had left the spot open until after election?

Or be happy that he forced her through even though it means less because of court packing?
The left was talking about the packing the SC—before RBG even died.

And it's not optional for Trump to not pick someone. Constitution says he "shall." It is required of any president, just as Obama chose Garland. It was the Senate that did not confirm him. It's the Senate that makes the rules on how they "advise or consent." If they decide they're not going to bother confirming that's them—not Trump!

You teach school children right?
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 09:41 PM 10-17-2020
Originally Posted by Lex Luthor:
Republicans claim that Democrats want to "pack the court".

Republicans blocked 110 Obama nominees, wouldn't give Garland a hearing because it was an election year, then confirmed 218 Trump judges. Now, they're rushing to confirm Barrett as millions vote.
That's a half-truth. You want the primary document to see the full statement by McConnell including where he quotes Biden trying to do the same thing under Bush during an election year?
It's in the Congressional Record and someone linked it.

Your folks borked, Bork. So GTFO.

Originally Posted by :
The Republicans are packing the courts. They are completely shameless when doing so, and they blatantly lie when they deny doing so.
Nice communist Newspeak you got there. That is not "court-packing." No wonder you accuse Republicans of blatant lies. JHC can't make it up!

Originally Posted by :
I realize this argument won't resonate with the Republican hypocrites who don't give a shit about anything other than getting power and keeping it. I just felt like repeating it one more time for the record.
Projection. Who used the nuclear option?
[Reply]
Page 2 of 5
< 12 345 >
Up