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

[Morch]

1 hour ago, 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/

 

Is the current roster, with RBG's death, a balanced one? The article you linked makes the case it is not so. Further, it details a clear legal procedure in case of a tie. So still unclear as to why you assume a tie would be likely or that it presents a legal/procedural problem.

 

[heybruce]

2 hours 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. 

When a candidate is routinely described as both anti-abortion and Catholic in the same sentence, it is reasonable to assume that person would make decisions regarding abortion based on religious convictions.  In fact, it's reasonable to assume that is what the anti-abortion crowd expects.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

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

 

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.

Two contradictory posts in rapid order.  Impressive.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

 

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

So no evidence of deviation from the Constitution.  Evidence that legal scholars deviate from your interpretation of the Constitution is not relevant.

[heybruce]

1 hour 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.

The Constitution of the United States does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices, or give any time restrictions on filling a vacancy.  Filling a vacancy this close to a Presidential election is unprecedented, and obviously politicizes the process.

[heybruce]

29 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.

"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."  ????

 

Are you already pretending McConnell's antics in 2016 didn't happen?

 

Can you find an instance since 1900 of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed by the Senate less than six weeks before a Presidential election?  How about six months?  Nine months?

[Mama Noodle]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So no evidence of deviation from the Constitution.  Evidence that legal scholars deviate from your interpretation of the Constitution is not relevant.

 

This legal scholars also deviate from the majority opinion, not just "my interpretation" 

[Mama Noodle]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

When a candidate is routinely described as both anti-abortion and Catholic in the same sentence, it is reasonable to assume that person would make decisions regarding abortion based on religious convictions.  In fact, it's reasonable to assume that is what the anti-abortion crowd expects.

 

No, that is an assumption and it is not reasonable. Looking at a persons previous court rulings is how to tell what they are about. Assuming their position on a matter is unfair. 

 

The anti-abortion crowd is full of non religious people too, BTW

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes 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. 

I’ve never expressed annoyance or an opinion that this should be ‘stopped’.

 

My expressed view is very clear, the Constitution allocates to the President the power to nominate appointees to the SCOTUS and the appointment with the consent of the Senate.

 

The timing is, as you point out also entirely at the discretion of the President and the Senate.

 

The appointment and timing are political matters and come with political consequences.

 

Trump’s decision to nominate now and the Senate’s ‘voiced’ backing to move forward are political decisions that are having the political consequence of energizing opposition to Trump and what the GOP has become.

 

That ‘energized opposition’ is, as we see in the news, drawing in former Republican voters.

 

Neither the President nor the Senate acts without political consideration and the attending political consequences.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Neither the President nor the Senate acts without political consideration and the attending political consequences.

 

What consequences would those be?

[Phoenix Rising]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

  Be that as it may if personal convictions do enter in I would much prefer religious convictions over faulty liberal convictions.

Would that apply equally to all religious convictions? Like Islam's convitions of death to non-muslims, Christianity's death to adulterers and gays, Hinduism's .......(hopefully you get the drift by now) as opposed to the liberal convictions that that's wrong?

Here's a sincere suggestion; try to actually think before putting finger to keyboard.

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed. 

[Damual Travesty]

47 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. Stop pretending that you do. Please. Just stop. I find it distasteful that you pretend to know the US form of Government. Clearly, you do not. Why would a political party fail to do the duty they were elected to do? They have the votes and the President will make a pick. They have a responsibility to confirm. Now let's address you comment about the Republicans in 2016. At that time - the Senate was not controlled by the President's party. They did not have the votes to get a candidate confirmed. Therefore they did not hold the vote. The history of the USA supports this. NO better case can be made then here:

A United States Senator lays out both the historical precedent and the law on the matter. This clips is from his website speaking before the US Senate. I suggest that you listen all the way through.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Damual Travesty
sp

[Phoenix Rising]

5 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

What consequences would those be?

Well, obviously you will find out if you're still around after the election.

[Damual Travesty]

1 minute ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Well, obviously you will find out if you're still around after the election.

Sounds like some sort of threat to me.

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, Damual Travesty said:

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. Stop pretending that you do. Please. Just stop. I find it distasteful that you pretend to know.....

Stop telling people to stop. Please. Just stop. I find almost everything you write distasteful and utterly wrong but will not tell you to stop posting and you should extend the same courtesy to other posters.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

What consequences would those be?

I already explained in my post you truncates.

 

If you need more attention read my post first.

[Damual Travesty]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Would that apply equally to all religious convictions? Like Islam's convitions of death to non-muslims, Christianity's death to adulterers and gays, Hinduism's .......(hopefully you get the drift by now) as opposed to the liberal convictions that that's wrong?

Here's a sincere suggestion; try to actually think before putting finger to keyboard.

I do not know of a single Christian religious sect that calls for a death penalty to be applied to adulterers or homosexuals. Please name one - just a single one.

[Damual Travesty]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Stop telling people to stop. Please. Just stop. I find almost everything you write distasteful and utterly wrong but will not tell you to stop posting and you should extend the same courtesy to other posters.

I will continue to find it distasteful when non-Americans pretend to know something about MY form of Government and create posts which are absolutely untrue. And are so wrong as to strain the eye that reads them. I will continue to ask people who post untruths to cease. Further your response to me is an example of what is TROLLING. Which is to jump in on conversations to make no valid argument at all. So you too. Please just stop.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Damual Travesty

[Phoenix Rising]

2 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Sounds like some sort of threat to me.

If you consider that a threat then you really need to dial down your paranoia. We're living in a time of Covid-19, which affects older people the most. This forum primarily consists of older guys and some of those guys are trump base supporters. Now we know that this group is adverse to medical advice and common sense (wearing a mask) so it stands to reason that the life expectancy of that group is far lower than the average population.

Get it now?

[Damual Travesty]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Is the current roster, with RBG's death, a balanced one? The article you linked makes the case it is not so. Further, it details a clear legal procedure in case of a tie. So still unclear as to why you assume a tie would be likely or that it presents a legal/procedural problem.

 

Can you explain what your overall reasoning for posting here is? Are you opposed to the President of the United States simply doing his duty and picking a new Justice for the Supreme Court? Are you opposed to the Senate doing their duty and confirming? That is how our system works. What exactly is the issue here sir?  You come from a land that has a better process? Good for you. You wish to argue against the US system? Good for you. Exactly what reasons would you have - a non-American - for the US President not to act? Is there some US policy that you think this would affect? Some policy that would affect you personally in your own life? That would effect your own Country? Is there skin you have in the game? A reason that would benefit you personally if the Republican controlled Senate decided to simply ignore those who put them in office to elect Constitutionalist Justices when given the opportunity? Please explain to me what this is all about for you. I ask because if something was going on in the UK or China for example, that would effect me personally I perhaps would argue against that particular policy or person. So please what exactly is your argument here with the US system that troubles you so much?

[Phoenix Rising]

10 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

I do not know of a single Christian religious sect that calls for a death penalty to be applied to adulterers or homosexuals. Please name one - just a single one.

My apologies, Judaism:

""If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

 

No, since we've covered your diversion maybe you can answer to question and the point it raises (if you indeed get it)?

[Tippaporn]

55 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

The word has other meanings:

 

Priority claimed or received because of greater importance.

[Mama Noodle]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I already explained in my post you truncates.

 

If you need more attention read my post first.

 

Why is it you guys make weird little subtle threats of "consequences" but when called out on it to be specific, you never do? 

 

 

[Mama Noodle]

21 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Well, obviously you will find out if you're still around after the election.

 

What do you mean? Should I be fearful of some sort of consequence? 

 

Like what exactly? 

[Damual Travesty]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

You consider it appropriate to speak ill of the dead before they are buried? You omit the fact Obama was blocked by republicans to appoint a Supreme Court judge to have a balanced Court. Moving along, IMO, it would make sense to legislate a judge for future should automatically retire, e.g. at 70, in order to minimise the exploitation of the Supreme Court appointment process for political advantage close to national elections. In addition, I understand some judges in US States are elected by the voters, given the impact of Supreme Court decisions on US society would it not make sense, though expensive, to have Supreme Court judges elected by a majority vote by the people?

May I ask you what exactly is the reason that you have so much interest in the course of US society? The USA is not run of your opinions it is run off of your Constitution. If we wish to change it we amend it. A long process. Never the less, I am not from Australia. I would be concerned perhaps if Australia was going to begin a trade policy hostile to the USA, or purchase weapon systems on loan from China or some other crazy thing, but other then that I have no skin in the game of Australian life. So what exactly is your worry about the USA and how it functions. I mean you regularly argue with Americans and insult them and their Country. I do not do this with the English or the Australians or French, so what is your reason? Do you have one?  You just wrote an entire paragraph about how YOU think the American system should work. Why would anyone do that?  You do not understand our history when it comes to the appointment of Justices. Obama was not blocked, the Senate was of the opposition party, and he did not have the votes, so no confirmation hearing was put forward to waste our time. It has worked that way 17 of 19 times. But who cares, why is that so important to YOU? What is this about, your caring so much about which party is in control in the USA? Do you think it affects you in Australia? Or affects some other Country you have affinity with ? Is there some Democrat party policy you admire coming out of the USA or anticipate would come? I don't get it please explain.  I am all ears.

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, heybruce said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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

 

2 hours 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.

Two contradictory posts in rapid order.  Impressive.

No contradiction.

[spidermike007]

4 hours ago, Poet said:

The Republicans can still get their nomination passed if three of their senators refuse to follow precedent, but not four. We already know that two, facing extremely tough re-elections, are lost. Romney, with a great deal of personal animus against the president, was a worry, but clearly sees the bigger picture. What he says about the constitution and precedent is correct.

I am amazed that more Democrats aren't angry about the astonishing selfishness of RBG. Since 1999, she has had five bouts of cancer. She was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the extremely aggressive condition that eventually killed her, at the age of 82 and during the presidency of Barack Obama. It is mind-blowing that she failed to take the simple, obvious step of resigning so that he could safely pass her seat on to another Democrat. That is why Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018 despite being in good health, so that another conservative could take his place. That is how this is meant to work.

The same goes for Stephen Breyer, now 82. Why on Earth didn't he resign at some point during Obama's second term? Can you imagine the hysteria if he now dies before the election, gifting Trump with a 4th Supreme Court judge?

All these Democrat judges presumably understand the constitution. They presumably understand that most humans don't live past their eighties. They also presumably know that most presidents get to serve two terms. So, why do they allow their egos to override the wider interests of their parties?

 

Good point. Thanks for that. That decision would have made alot of sense, had she done it while Obama had at least a year to go in office.

 

However, that does not negate the sheer hypocrisy and extreme lack of integrity of republicans, for pushing this through with barely seven weeks to go, when they insisted 9 months to go was too short a period in 2016. That does reek. But, that is what 14 foot crocodiles do! 

 

"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," Graham said at the time, The Hill reported. "We're setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year, that you're not gonna fill a vacant seat of the Supreme Court based on what we're doing here today. That's gonna be the new rule," he added, according to the Independent.

Edited September 23, 2020 by spidermike007

[Tippaporn]

50 minutes ago, heybruce said:

1 hour 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.

"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."  ????

 

Are you already pretending McConnell's antics in 2016 didn't happen?

 

Can you find an instance since 1900 of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed by the Senate less than six weeks before a Presidential election?  How about six months?  Nine months?

Which I corrected.

 

1 hour 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.

As to your argument that Supreme Court vacancies should not be filled six weeks before an election there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.  If you wish to say it should be prohibited then that would be unconstitutional.  Are you arguing for the Constitution or against it?

[Damual Travesty]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

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.  

This has nothing to do with legislation of any kind. The Constitution of the USA is quite clear on the matter and that is all the President and Senate is using as a model. This is how it has always been done when their is a Senate in Power of the same party as the President of the United States. As for energizing anyone's base that simply does not matter. The expectation of all Republican voters would be that the seat be filled. That is obvious to all. If Biden (should he win) were to attempt to expand Judges it would not end well for him. Likely could start an Amendment process. It did not work for FDR either. This has nothing to do with Thailand nor is it similiar to Thailand. The USA Constitution has withstood the test of time for over 200 years. Justices who are impartial, and interpret law, rather then create law, that is all the GOP want, and for that matter what the framers of the Constitution wanted. Justices who interpret the law as created by the legislature in accordance with the Constitution. As opposed to Justices who believe they are legislators.