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

[Damual Travesty]

1 hour ago, Thailand said:

Lets hope this is among one of the final acts Trump gets to perpetrate before he and his cronies are stripped of their power. 

It is not the perpetration of an act. It is simply following what the Constitution of the United States demands. It is very clear what the President is required to do. Likewise the Senate has a duty to do. The nominee will have the votes and there will be a new Supreme Court Justice, even if the Democrat party attempts to accuse her of committing gang rape.

[Mama Noodle]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The last one lied under oath during his confirmation hearing.

 

We’ll come back to that later.

 

No, lets get to that right now. 

 

What did he lie about?

[sucit]

I don't see what everyone is on about. 

 

Mconnel got a republican president to pick a justice instead of Obama. Good on him! He is elected to do stuff like that by the people who elected him. 

 

Same thing is going on now, if they pull it off, good on them. 

 

If you have a problem, direct it towards the constitution, which should make it impossible to do what they did, or toward the democrats, who seem to be unable to stop any of this and use any of their own effective tactics. 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Poet said:

Absolutely.

All this sanctimonious nonsense about RBG, including the laughable "Her dying wish" meme is a cynical abuse of the dead by politicians who know that there is no provision in the constitution for judges to select their successors.

I am not political, I am simply pointing out that the Republicans did not create this situation, and any informed Democrat knows that.

 

No, he was blocked by the senate, which happened to be majority Republican at that time.

A party that does not retain the senate does not have the clear mandate of the people, or the right to appoint their choice without somehow gaining the senate's agreement.

 

Your suggestion would somewhat reduce the problem as judges would be less likely to die before 70. You would also, however, miss out on the wisdom that these great minds have to offer in their 70s. Better to solve the problem by having judges selfless enough to accept that their number is up and grab their opportunity to resign under a Democrat president when diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at the age of 82, instead of clinging on grimly until the middle of a Republican presidency.

There is, however, no exploitation in this case. If you have the presidency and the senate, you have the pick, the constitution is clear on that. The current drama is manufactured.

 

Okay, at this point I have to conclude that you are definitely not American. The U.S.A. is a federation of states. The terms under which those states agreed to join underpin the whole structure. Provisions such as the senate and the electoral college ensure that the more populated states cannot simply override the concerns of less-populated states. This is most vitally the case when it comes to Supreme Court judges who determine the rules under which all Americans operate.

No, I'm not an American, but I have read some US States elect their judges by a voting process, why can't the same be applied for Supreme Court judges? In politics, nothing is cemented forever as demonstrated by amendments to the Constitution. There are movements afoot to transition away from the Electoral College, timeline, plausibility, don't know. For some of us non-US citizens it's peculiar a political party not receiving the majority of votes can dictate the future society tone, possible for decades.  For the meantime I whole heartedly agree with the words posted by a member above...

 

"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.

 

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."

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

There are movements afoot to transition away from the Electoral College as it's both antiquated and probably no longer truly reflects the demographics of the US.

 

This is about a half step away from being completely impossible, just so you know. 

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, sucit said:

I don't see what everyone is on about. 

 

Mconnel got a republican president to pick a justice instead of Obama. Good on him! He is elected to do stuff like that by the people who elected him. 

 

Same thing is going on now, if they pull it off, good on them. 

 

If you have a problem, direct it towards the constitution, which should make it impossible to do what they did, or toward the democrats, who seem to be unable to stop any of this and use any of their own effective tactics. 

 

Exactly. Its all politics, plain and simple. If the Democrats had the chance, then would do the exact same thing. 

[Tippaporn]

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1 hour 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’.

I doubt many would disagree that the intention of a law has often been perverted and subverted through purposely flawed interpretations using clever legalese.  The greater the intention is understood the less interpretations would arise.  Appointing Supreme Court Justices who adhere to the Constitution and well understand the intentions which wrote it would ensure it's faithful impartiality would be executed.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1 hour 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?

You're trying to reinterpret and add to my meaning.  Fail.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

No, lets get to that right now. 

 

What did he lie about?

Here, this will help you out with your problem recalling Kavanaugh’s widely reported lies:

 

https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I doubt many would disagree that the intention of a law has often been perverted and subverted through purposely flawed interpretations using clever legalese.  The greater the intention is understood the less interpretations would arise.  Appointing Supreme Court Justices who adhere to the Constitution and well understand the intentions which wrote it would ensure it's faithful impartiality would be executed.

I agree, so let’s have nominees who are basing their judgement on the Constitution and law and not appoint those who base rulings on personal beliefs.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

57 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

1 hour 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. 

 

 

 

 

Beware of people claiming that precedence is to delay nomination and confirmation until after the election.

 

The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Beware of people claiming that precedence is to delay nomination and confirmation until after the election.

 

The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.

2016

[Eric Loh]

After losing the chance to repeal and replace Obamacare, this opportunity to replace Ginsburg is do or die attempt to placate their base and maintain their brand. Left to be seen whether it will energize the Rep base or the liberals base. This leave Biden with no choice but to expand the judges to preserve the Dem's brand if he win. Judges should be independent, non partisan and impartial to protect the rights of everyone to the fundamental promise of the justice system. To see this turning up to be another political circus is just so disappointing. We seen this kind of political expediency much in Thailand. USA should be better alas worse.  

[Sujo]

31 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

It is not the perpetration of an act. It is simply following what the Constitution of the United States demands. It is very clear what the President is required to do. Likewise the Senate has a duty to do. The nominee will have the votes and there will be a new Supreme Court Justice, even if the Democrat party attempts to accuse her of committing gang rape.

Which the senate failed to do in 2016. The reversed their decision now.

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

2016

Win elections. 

[Sujo]

48 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.

No the constitution does not require it. The constitution on allows for the president to nominate. If what you say is correct then the senate acted against the constitution in 2016.

 

The constitution says nothing about timing, so it can wait until after the election, according to what repubs have said.

[Mama Noodle]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here, this will help you out with your problem recalling Kavanaugh’s widely reported lies:

 

https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

 

That is the weakest, opinionated hogwash article ive read in a long time, and the hilarity of it being written by Mari Uyehara, a known virulent feminist, is off the charts. 

 

But yeah, Kavanaugh is such a baddie ????

 

[Ireland32]

Romney always been a POS but when he lost election his wife’s face was Priceless, she thought she was Queen 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

That is the weakest, opinionated hogwash article ive read in a long time, and the hilarity of it being written by Mari Uyehara, a known virulent feminist, is off the charts. 

 

But yeah, Kavanaugh is such a baddie ????

 

What specifically in it is hogwash.

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, Ireland32 said:

Romney always been a POS but when he lost election his wife’s face was Priceless, she thought she was Queen 

 

I see Romney is a POS again. One day ago he was a hero of the left for going against trump, but, back to baddie again. 

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Beware of people claiming that precedence is to delay nomination and confirmation until after the election.

 

The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.

2016

I was reading from a Feb. 2016 article so you are correct.  Which means that it's happened only once and therefore confirms it is not the precedence.

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

What specifically in it is hogwash.

How about the first one? The whole thing is a feminist dog poo opinion rant.

 

Quote

"No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."

Date: July 9, 2018
Under Oath: Nope, just in front of his wife, two daughters, and the American people!

 

To kick off his nomination to the highest court in the land, Kavanaugh introduced himself to the American public with this preposterously fantastical and unknowable pronouncement as an obsequious gesture to Trump. There may seem to be pressure to genuflect to a wannabe authoritarian who exchanges love letters with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and whose sycophantic cabinet members shower him with effusive praise in meetings. But Gorsuch did no such thing in his nomination speech, instead maintaining an appropriately respectful manner. File this one under: Come the <deleted> on.

 

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I was reading from a Feb. 2016 article so you are correct.  Which means that it's happened only once and therefore confirms it is not the precedence.

You dont know the meaning of precedent. It only needs to happen once, then it becomes the precedent.

 

thats also how courts work, a judge gives a ruling, once, that ruling is then the precedent for future rulings.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

How about the first one? The whole thing is a feminist dog poo opinion rant.

 

 

The first one you posted is true.

[Chomper Higgot]

46 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

It is not the perpetration of an act. It is simply following what the Constitution of the United States demands. It is very clear what the President is required to do. Likewise the Senate has a duty to do. The nominee will have the votes and there will be a new Supreme Court Justice, even if the Democrat party attempts to accuse her of committing gang rape.

The Constitution allocates these powers and duties, it says nothing about the timing.

 

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

The first one you posted is true.

 

Sure bro, sure. 

[Mama Noodle]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Constitution allocates these powers and duties, it says nothing about the timing.

The White House and Senate have all the say in the timing, the constitution sets the general rules and requirements. 

 

Being annoyed about it is not a valid argument and isnt going to stop anything from happening. 

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Sure bro, sure. 

What is not true

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

The White House and Senate have all the say in the timing, the constitution sets the general rules and requirements. 

 

Being annoyed about it is not a valid argument and isnt going to stop anything from happening. 

Which is not what was being said.

[geriatrickid]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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

He has all along.  Hardcore Trump fans criticize anyone who isn't blindly obedient to Trump as wrong or bad.  I don't agree with Senator Romney, nor do I care much for his political beliefs. However, I do recognize that he is a decent, honourable and honest man who  follows his convictions and is not a hypocrite. He  represents the constituents who sent him to congress.