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

[Mama Noodle]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not framing anything as a threat.

 

I’m observing the ongoing consequences of Trump’s haste and the apparent Senate backing to move forward with a nomination.

 

Influential Republicans moving across to back Biden, opposition to Trump enlivened, massive increase in individual citizen donations to the Democrats.

 

These are not ‘threats’ they are observed reality, though Trump and his dwindling base are probably right to regard them a threat.

 

So you should be happy about it then, not forming spittle laden rants all day. 

 

If true, then youll get biden and the senate, and can do what you want. 

[RANGER55]

2 hours 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.

And it is reasonable to assume that a person routinely described as pro abortion  and Catholic, even up to 9 months in the some instances is going to vote pro abortions. In fact, that is what the pro abortion crowd expects.

Edited September 23, 2020 by RANGER55

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I hate to tell you this, but your personal opinion of when a dissension is in support of or against the Constitution is of no importance to anyone but you.

 

Me, the majority opinion, and millions and millions of like minded Americans. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

 

So you should be happy about it then, not forming spittle laden rants all day. 

 

If true, then youll get biden and the senate, and can do what you want. 

If you don’t mind, I’ll decide what makes me happy.

 

I’ll also choose to pass on your baiting.

 

 

[RANGER55]

26 minutes ago, newnative said:

  I expected better of Romney.  Despicable that so many  other Republican senators have gone back on their word after declaring in 2016 that no Supreme Court nominee should be considered close to a Presidential election.  Beyond me how they can look at themselves in the mirror.   All total hypocrites.  All total scum.  

 

If the democrats wish to blame anybody, they can look no further then Harry Reid. Before December 2013 it took 60 votes in the senate to approve federal judges to include nominees on the supreme court. Reid had 55 votes but not 60. It worked great requiring 60. That way the majority had to work with the minority party. Reid and the democrats invoked what became known as the nuclear option that changed the rules to 50 votes to approve federal judges so he could get numerous liberal judges on the federal courts. Republicans and some Democrats warned the democrats and Read; it was not a good idea but Reid did it anyway. So here we are, only requiring 50 votes.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you ask for, you may get it!

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-harry-reid-changed-the-federal-courts

Edited September 23, 2020 by RANGER55

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

And it is reasonable to assume that a person routinely described as pro abortion  and Catholic, even up to 9 months in the some instances is going to vote pro abortions. In fact, that is what the pro abortion crowd expects.

Do you know of any nominees to the Supreme Court that were routinely described as pro-abortion?  Not just now, but any time in history?

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Me, the majority opinion, and millions and millions of like minded Americans. 

That too is your personal opinion, which you can not prove and is of no consequence.

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

That too is your personal opinion, which you can not prove and is of no consequence.

 

Good to know, and thats precisely why the right generally does not give a red cent to what the left wants. 

[heybruce]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

 

Good to know, and thats precisely why the right generally does not give a red cent to what the left wants. 

So circling back to what started this lovely exchange, you have no evidence of Justices you consider liberal deviating from the Constitution.  It is just your opinion that they do so.

[Mama Noodle]

Just now, heybruce said:

So circling back to what started this lovely exchange, you have no evidence of Justices you consider liberal deviating from the Constitution.  It is just your opinion that they do so.

 

That and the fact that they are the minority opinion, clearly dissenting to clear constitutional cases and openly going for the restrictions of free people. But sure, my "opinion"

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

That and the fact that they are the minority opinion, clearly dissenting to clear constitutional cases and openly going for the restrictions of free people. But sure, my "opinion"

But they are not always the minority opinion, and they aren't always going for restrictions of free people.  In fact when it comes to women's rights, voting rights, free speech, minority rights, etc., they are often lifting restrictions on free people.

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

In fact when it comes to women's rights, voting rights, free speech, minority rights, etc., they are often lifting restrictions on free people.

 

Abortion is not protected by the constitution. Free speech is often attempted to be limited by liberal justices, no such thing as minority rights - they are the same as everyone else. 

 

Liberal justices are against individual constitutional rights and liberty. 

[RANGER55]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

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.

Let’s be real here, if the situation was reversed and the Democrats held the senate and presidency. A SC Judge that adhered to the strict wording of the constitution died, you don’t think the democrats would hesitate one second to fill the seat. Get real, you know they would.

[Tippaporn]

37 minutes ago, heybruce said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

No contradiction.

Right.  On the subject of Supreme Court Justices you posted:

 

"The only partiality should be to adhere to the Constitution."

 

then moments later posted:

 

"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."

 

You don't find a contradiction in stating that Justices should follow the Constitution, but it's to be expected that their religious beliefs will influence their judgment?

No contradiction.  I recognize that what "should be" isn't always what is due to our humanness.  I believe in an ideal while not denying actual reality.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Abortion is not protected by the constitution. Free speech is often attempted to be limited by liberal justices, no such thing as minority rights - they are the same as everyone else. 

 

Liberal justices are against individual constitutional rights and liberty. 

There is more to women's rights than abortion, but that is definitely one of them. 

 

When have liberal justices attempted to limit free speech?

 

Minorities should have the same rights as everyone else, but have often been denied them.  Remember segregation and Jim Crow voting laws? 

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

Let’s be real here, if the situation was reversed and the Democrats held the senate and presidency. A SC Judge that adhered to the strict wording of the constitution died, you don’t think the democrats would hesitate one second to fill the seat. Get real, you know they would.

Once again with the fiction that only conservative Justices adhere to the strict wording of the Constitution.  Can you give an example of Justices you consider liberal deviating from the Constitution?  Please give clear, defensible examples, don't do like Mama Noodle and rely on your opinions.

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, heybruce said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Which I corrected.

 

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?

As I explained in other posts, confirming a Supreme Court Justice less than six weeks before an election makes the process of selecting "neutral" parties even more political than it already is.

 

The Constitution also doesn't prohibit Justices from meeting in clown suits, but it, and this rushed appointment, are still bad ideas.

Sorry to have to inform you but the Founders didn't see it your way.  You can always lobby to have the Constitution changed to fit your partisan prerogatives, though.  Call your Senator or Congressman today.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

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?

 

I do not have to explain any 'overall reasoning' for posting here. That's simply you out trolling again. I do note that you do not ask such explanations from posters with views aligning to yours, nor do you seem to care about their nationality. 

 

You frame things as Trump simply doing his job. Many posters, including myself, feel that this more about cementing political advantage, playing up for the home crowd, and related to his own interests rather than what you claim it to be.

 

You may claim that there is no issue. Obviously, if things were reversed, you find a whole lot that's wrong with the current scenario - if not on legalities alone, then on what's proper and right.

 

Could you kindly stop beating the drum about anyone not seeing things your way being Anti-American this or that? There are plenty of Americans, both on here and out there who do not approve of Trump's moves, of the Republican's moves or of whatever policy, institution or way of doing things in America. Accepting all your views, or singing out of your own hymn book is not required as permit to post or to get approval as to being an American.

 

As much as you push this nonsense, views in topics discussing USA politics are often not really against the American system, so much as the ways this system is abused and those who engage in it. Try as you may posit yourself as such, you are not the arbiter of what's American, what posters may post about and all the rest of the crapola.

 

If you somehow imagine that things in the USA do not have global effects, or that people do not have to be American in order to be effected by them, you're being either enormously uninformed, or famously trolling.

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Me, the majority opinion, and millions and millions of like minded Americans. 

 

What 'majority opinion' are you on about? And them 'millions and millions'? There are at least an equal number of Americans (if not more) who disagree.

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

What 'majority opinion' are you on about? And them 'millions and millions'? There are at least an equal number of Americans (if not more) who disagree.

 

Jumping in on page 12, biting my ankles and demanding to know what we are talking about eh?

 

Smooth. 

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Jumping in on page 12, biting my ankles and demanding to know what we are talking about eh?

 

Smooth. 

A simple answer would suffice. What majority opinion?

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry to have to inform you but the Founders didn't see it your way.  You can always lobby to have the Constitution changed to fit your partisan prerogatives, though.  Call your Senator or Congressman today.

Sorry to have to inform you but the Founders didn't write the Constitution with the intent of specifically forbidding every conceivable act of stupidity that elected officials might commit.  They assumed elected officials would behave in a reasonable and responsible manner.  That definitely doesn't describe Trump, McConnell, and the other Republican leaders.

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Sorry to have to inform you but the Founders didn't write the Constitution with the intent of specifically forbidding every conceivable act of stupidity that elected officials might commit.  They assumed elected officials would behave in a reasonable and responsible manner.  That definitely doesn't describe Trump, McConnell, and the other Republican leaders.

Then you agree that the 2016 McConnell rule was wise.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Then you agree that the 2016 McConnell rule was wise.

He actually said the opposite.

[Morch]

51 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

If the democrats wish to blame anybody, they can look no further then Harry Reid. Before December 2013 it took 60 votes in the senate to approve federal judges to include nominees on the supreme court. Reid had 55 votes but not 60. It worked great requiring 60. That way the majority had to work with the minority party. Reid and the democrats invoked what became known as the nuclear option that changed the rules to 50 votes to approve federal judges so he could get numerous liberal judges on the federal courts. Republicans and some Democrats warned the democrats and Read; it was not a good idea but Reid did it anyway. So here we are, only requiring 50 votes.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you ask for, you may get it!

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-harry-reid-changed-the-federal-courts

 

Yeah, elections have consequences, be careful what you wish for, etc. Agree.

 

I think that's the point some are trying to make with regard to the current move aimed to fill the SC roster. It might be a smart move in the short run - getting the SC stacked with more conservatives, having it that way even if the elections are lost. Fine.

 

But here's the rub - it might not be a wise move. For one thing, it further politicizes SC issues, and takes away from the institutes credibility and regard. On another level, it ups the ante, making more likely such controversial moves as expanding the SC being taken by the other side.

 

IMO, there are less and less institutes, bodies, policies and issues Americans can find common ground on, or mutually trust. The SC is one of them. Making moves which might negatively impact its status will not be in the best interests of the USA, as a whole.

[newnative]

1 hour ago, RANGER55 said:

If the democrats wish to blame anybody, they can look no further then Harry Reid. Before December 2013 it took 60 votes in the senate to approve federal judges to include nominees on the supreme court. Reid had 55 votes but not 60. It worked great requiring 60. That way the majority had to work with the minority party. Reid and the democrats invoked what became known as the nuclear option that changed the rules to 50 votes to approve federal judges so he could get numerous liberal judges on the federal courts. Republicans and some Democrats warned the democrats and Read; it was not a good idea but Reid did it anyway. So here we are, only requiring 50 votes.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you ask for, you may get it!

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-harry-reid-changed-the-federal-courts

      Yes.  There were good reasons to require 60 votes and that shouldn't have been changed. Too many folks on both sides of the aisle who have forgotten that politics is the art of compromise.   

[Rimmer]

A couple of off topic posts have been removed

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Jumping in on page 12, biting my ankles and demanding to know what we are talking about eh?

 

Smooth. 

 

I have not 'jumped in'. There is no requirement to post in each and every page of the topic in order to take part. You're just doing that 'majority' nonsense bit again, and cannot support it with anything much, hence the deflections and trolling.

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Then you agree that the 2016 McConnell rule was wise.

Of course not.  Three times in the last century there have been confirmations of Supreme Court Justices in January or February of a Presidential election year.  There was no reason not to consider Merrick Garland's nomination when it was received in March 2016.  Considering a Supreme Court nomination nine months before a Presidential election is very different from considering such a nomination less than six weeks before an election.

 

Of course I've already explained this many times.  You're just being deliberately obtuse.

[RANGER55]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again with the fiction that only conservative Justices adhere to the strict wording of the Constitution.  Can you give an example of Justices you consider liberal deviating from the Constitution?  Please give clear, defensible examples, don't do like Mama Noodle and rely on your opinions.

You have conservative judges that adhere to the strict wording of the constitution. You have liberal judges that have a more open view of the constitution. That’s another subject.

 

That was not the subject of my post. The post stated. If the circumstances were reversed. The democrats would not hesitate to fill that vacancy to swing the court to a liberal majority. You know they would.