Romney, Senate Republicans pave way for vote on Trump Supreme Court pick

[Mama Noodle]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Can you give an example of liberal justices deviating from the Constitution?

 

Quote

DISSENT #1: Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

The Stevens dissent rests on four main points of disagreement:

1. that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended
2. that the "militia" preamble demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only
3. that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis
4. and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional.

 

https://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_Gun_Control.htm

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Any evidence that the person (who is yet to be even named) makes decisions based on religious convictions and not the constitution?

 

Or is this more hogwash from the sour grapes crew. 

I’ll let you know when the nominee is named.

 

[Mama Noodle]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ll let you know when the nominee is named.

 

This is now 2 threads now where you've put forward outlandish claims and when called on it, demand people wait for some future event like you're a psychic. 

[herfiehandbag]

48 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

I must confess that, from my cursory reading of the United States Constitution (many years ago) I did not realise that it stipulated wether liberal or conservative idealogies should be adhered to!

 

On a lighter note, your suggestion that any of Mr Trump's actions are moulding anything to adhere faithfully to the Constitution is really very funny indeed!

Edited September 23, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, Thailand said:

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

And impartiallity be damned!

The only partiality should be to adhere to the Constitution.  That would be true impartiality.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

This is now 2 threads now where you've put forward outlandish claims and when called on it, demand people wait for some future event like you're a psychic. 

Posting across threads is not permitted, so let’s keep it simple.

 

Please provide evidence, using my own words in a direct quotation, of where I have made an ‘outlandish claim’, in this thread.

 

1. Quotation

2. Explain how my quoted words are a ‘claim’ to anything, ‘outlandish’ or otherwise.

 

Over to you.

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

So, appointing a person who makes decisions based on their religious convictions wouldn’t be problematic to the idea of ‘adhering faithfully to the Constitution’?

I'm not in favour of inserting religious convictions into Supreme Court decisions.  But since all Justices are human then it would be unreasonable and irrational to think that personal beliefs never enter into any given Justice's decisions.  Be that as it may if personal convictions do enter in I would much prefer religious convictions over faulty liberal convictions.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The only partiality should be to adhere to the Constitution.  That would be true impartiality.

Apart from the fact the SCOTUS passes rulings based upon an interpretation of the Constitution.

 

For example:

 

The Constitution does not state that corporate donations to political campaigns are permitted/disallowed, nor does it state First Amendment rights apply to Corporations.

 

The SCOTUS has ruled Corporations have the right to make political donations and that this right is held under Corporation’s First Amendment rights.

 

There are many other such ‘interpretations’.

 

 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice to see Mitt come through and support President Trump (and the Constitution) for a change.

What he said does not support the president.

he intends to follow the constitution and precedent.

constitution is the president puts up a nominee.

precedent is that the senate does not appoint the nominee at this time.

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm not in favour of inserting religious convictions into Supreme Court decisions.  But since all Justices are human then it would be unreasonable and irrational to think that personal beliefs never enter into any given Justice's decisions.  Be that as it may if personal convictions do enter in I would much prefer religious convictions over faulty liberal convictions.

So long as it’s the right religion, eh?

[Mama Noodle]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What he said does not support the president.

he intends to follow the constitution and precedent.

constitution is the president puts up a nominee.

precedent is that the senate does not appoint the nominee at this time.

 

Thats.... Not what Mitt Romney is saying. Look at the precedent hes invoking. 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sure.  And a recent one, too.

 

Breitbart - Chief Justice John Roberts Sides with Liberal Justices as Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Restrictions on Religious Services

 

In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued that “comparable secular businesses” such as supermarkets, stores, hair salons, and marijuana dispensaries were not subject to the same restrictions as churches.

 

Kavanaugh sided with the Constitution.  The liberal justices allowed for the selective picking of winners and losers.

 

Breitbart, that ever lucid and impartial source of information.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Morch

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

 

Trump cares about the constitution. Sure.

Try harder.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Thats.... Not what Mitt Romney is saying. Look at the precedent hes invoking. 

 

 

 

 

Which doesnt say he will confirm.

[Tippaporn]

46 minutes ago, new2here said:

i have voted republican in the past; but in the past few electoral cycles i’ve found it harder to consistently do so... but that said.. my thought is a bad “past practice” was apparently set by the earlier handling of Garland... i do get or understand the logic as to not doing an appointment close to an election... but for me at least, i tend to see it a bit more simplistically.. i don’t support purposefully delaying, nor expediting an appointment... they happen when they happen and who ever is in control of the senate at that time gets to handle it.. that’s just how the ball bounces..  

 

i also don’t support ideas like trying to expand/dilute the court by adding  additional justices- as that to me just opens the door to the “other side” just trying to circumvent what the side who has/had the power, to do... i tend not to want to “tinker” too much with how the court operates and its overall structure.

Back in 2016 Mitch McConnell was quoted as saying:  "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."

 

The entire rationale behind the idea of delaying to "allow the people to choose" is flawed by the mere fact that the people are being allowed regardless of a delay or not.  Whether it's the peoples' voice which elected the current Congress and Administration or the peoples' voice which will elect the next government it's still the peoples' voice in either case.  Again, a completely illogical argument used for the sole purpose of achieving partisan motivations.

[Damual Travesty]

2 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

RBG's body not  yet buried. Shame on these people.

The Constitution of the United States requires the seat be filled, and should their be numerous cases that arise from the general election it will be important to have a full court. I do not like you casting shame upon the American people by the way. Look no further then your own if you wish to throw stones.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Back in 2016 Mitch McConnell was quoted as saying:  "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."

 

The entire rationale behind the idea of delaying to "allow the people to choose" is flawed by the mere fact that the people are being allowed regardless of a delay or not.  Whether it's the peoples' voice which elected the current Congress and Administration or the peoples' voice which will elect the next government it's still the peoples' voice in either case.  Again, a completely illogical argument used for the sole purpose of achieving partisan motivations.

Partisan motivations. Priceless 

[Sujo]

Just now, Damual Travesty said:

The Constitution of the United States requires the seat be filled, and should their be numerous cases that arise from the general election it will be important to have a full court. I do not like you casting shame upon the American people by the way. Look no further then your own if you wish to throw stones.

Apparently the constitution didnt matter in 2016.

[Damual Travesty]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

Perhaps a Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of justice, non partisan, unbiased, untainted by political considerations, rather than a reflection of any particular political point of view.

 

I rather thought that was  the point?

 

Selecting a judiciary to reflect political views effectively removes the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branched of government; separation of those powers is absolutely central to any democracy.

The Constitution of the United States of America is quite clear the manner in which a Supreme Court Justice is to be chosen. It has worked fine for 250 years or so. If you would like to point to your own Country as an example of a better way, and show such examples, I would love to hear it. Justices that behave as interpreters of the law is what Republicans want. They do NOT want Justices that behave in a political manner or making rulings that in effect create new law in the manner of a legislature. That is what the legislature is for to create law.

[Scott]

Post from an unapproved source has been reported and removed.  

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

The Constitution of the United States requires the seat be filled, and should their be numerous cases that arise from the general election it will be important to have a full court. I do not like you casting shame upon the American people by the way. Look no further then your own if you wish to throw stones.

 

But no such issues with filling the seat back in 2016.

How is a full SC roster essential? Elections or not elections? As I understand it there's a legal procedure in place dealing with cases of a tie. Moreover, there is no reason to assume there will be a such a standoff.

[Damual Travesty]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Partisan motivations. Priceless 

The constitution of the United States is quite clear on the matter. There is no ambiguity. The President selects and the senate consents via a vote. If there are not enough votes there are not enough votes and that is the end of the nominee. The Senate can likewise decide as, McConnell previously decided, not to hold a vote in a lame duck session knowing that their will not be enough votes to confirm and therefore not go through the dog and pony show.  It has most always worked this way, and always will.

 

A Justice has passed away, the President's party is in power in the Senate, the seat will be filled, the Constitution requires it to be so.

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

I must confess that, from my cursory reading of the United States Constitution (many years ago) I did not realise that it stipulated wether liberal or conservative idealogies should be adhered to!

 

On a lighter note, your suggestion that any of Mr Trump's actions are moulding anything to adhere faithfully to the Constitution is really very funny indeed!

Congratulations as you were able to ascertain the correct conclusion from your cursory reading of the Constitution.  And my reply to you is unambiguous in my sentiment that only Constitutional principles should be adhered to and not any particular ideology.

 

And on a lighter note, too, your suggestion that President Trump does not adhere faithfully to the Constitution is, unfortunately and in my opinion, misplaced.

[Damual Travesty]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

But no such issues with filling the seat back in 2016.

 

How is a full SC roster essential? Elections or not elections? As I understand it there's a legal procedure in place dealing with cases of a tie. Moreover, there is no reason to assume there will be a such a standoff.

Because, it is not the time for a tie is it? There is reason to assume that a stand-off could develop. Not assuming that a standoff would develop - only that it could. That is reason enough.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justices-function-after-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death/

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

The constitution of the United States is quite clear on the matter. There is no ambiguity. The President selects and the senate consents via a vote. If there are not enough votes there are not enough votes and that is the end of the nominee. The Senate can likewise decide as, McConnell previously decided, not to hold a vote in a lame duck session knowing that their will not be enough votes to confirm and therefore not go through the dog and pony show.  It has most always worked this way, and always will.

 

A Justice has passed away, the President's party is in power in the Senate, the seat will be filled, the Constitution requires it to be so.

So by your own interpretation the senate acted against the constitution in 2016.

[Sujo]

Just now, Damual Travesty said:

Because, it is not the time for a tie is it? There is reason to assume that a stand-off could develop. Not assuming that a standoff would develop - only that it could. That is reason enough.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justices-function-after-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death/

Why would you assume what a court may decide on something that may not happen.

[Mama Noodle]

20 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Which doesnt say he will confirm.

 

Goalpost shift. 

[Isaan sailor]

Get ready for more hysterical behavior by the Left.  Remember the last one?  And Senator Kamala Harris will lead the comedy.

[Damual Travesty]

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Apparently the constitution didnt matter in 2016.

The Constitution was followed in 2016. Please do not make such statements like this that are untrue. You do not understand the US system obviously. There is a history of what happens when the President's party is in power in the Senate and one in which the President's party is NOT that precedent was followed. If you do not understand my history, or form of Government, please stop making claims that you do that are filled with disparaging remarks about one political party. Your statement is false.

 

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Isaan sailor said:

Get ready for more hysterical behavior by the Left.  Remember the last one?  And Senator Kamala Harris will lead the comedy.

The last one lied under oath during his confirmation hearing.

 

We’ll come back to that later.