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

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, newnative said:

      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.   

True.  But ever since Newt Gingrich showed that demonizing Democrats and refusing to compromise was a vote winner it has been the preferred governing approach of Republicans, even though it makes governing almost impossible. 

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

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.

If you are going to state that conservative judges adhere to strict wording and liberal judges don't, you should be able to give specific examples supporting your claim.  Otherwise you should not make such an unsupportable claim.

 

We'll never know if Democrats would have acted that way had the Republicans been more responsible and less hypocritical.  However we can assume that in future Democrats will also do whatever they can to obstruct Republican Supreme Court nominees and confirm they're own regardless of circumstances.  Once one side has shown they will fight without honor, it would be suicidal for the other side to not respond in kind.

Edited September 23, 2020 by heybruce

[Mama Noodle]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

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.

You have no idea what we were talking about, yet you wrongly accuse me of deflecting and trolling, even though you are patently wrong about what we were talking about. 

 

Real smooth. 

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

You have no idea what we were talking about, yet you wrongly accuse me of deflecting and trolling, even though you are patently wrong about what we were talking about. 

 

Real smooth. 

I disagree.  Our discussion was about evidence of "liberal" Justices not adhering to the US Constitution.  Not a difficult concept to grasp.  Morch's comments seem informed and in context.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

You have no idea what we were talking about, yet you wrongly accuse me of deflecting and trolling, even though you are patently wrong about what we were talking about. 

 

Real smooth. 

You could of course simply answer the question and say which majority opinion.

 

You know, the one you have referred to.

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

47 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.

But the election cycle had already started by March 2016.  And many are saying that if a vacancy opens up during an election year it should be postponed until after the election.  Like this guy.  So McConnell did do right by the guy in the video, correct?  Are you being deliberately confusing?

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581754/user-clip-biden-senate-hearings-scotus-vacancy-election-year

 

So what is the cut-off date according to you?

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Tippaporn

[RANGER55]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If you are going to state that conservative judges adhere to strict wording and liberal judges don't, you should be able to give specific examples supporting your claim.  Otherwise you should not make such an unsupportable claim.

 

We'll never know if Democrats would have acted that way had the Republicans been more responsible and less hypocritical.  However we can assume that in future Democrats will also do whatever they can to obstruct Republican Supreme Court nominees and confirm they're own regardless of circumstances.  Once one side has shown they will fight without honor, it would be suicidal for the other side to not respond in kind.

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution. Founded in 1982, it is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations.^[4][5]

In January 2019, The Washington Post Magazine wrote that the Federalist Society had reached an "unprecedented peak of power and influence." Of the nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, five (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito) are current or former members of the organization.^[2] Politico Magazine wrote that the Federalist Society "has become one of the most influential legal organizations in history—not only shaping law students' thinking but changing American society itself by deliberately, diligently shifting the country's judiciary to the right."^[6]

 

 

But we do know what Reid and the Democrats done in 2013 that changed the vote to 50. BOOM, now deal with it. Be real, you know the Democrats would fill that seat.

 

Now do I have to look up what organizations the 4 liberals are members of. 

 

Sometimes posting on TV is like trying to argue with a fence post!

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

You have no idea what we were talking about, yet you wrongly accuse me of deflecting and trolling, even though you are patently wrong about what we were talking about. 

 

Real smooth. 

 

So again, you deflect instead of addressing a direct point made regarding your own post and words.

 

[Mama Noodle]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So again, you deflect instead of addressing a direct point made regarding your own post and words.

 

 

I don't have to reply to your demand to know what we are debating when we've been debating it for several pages and you're too lazy to go back and look at them, opting instead for a confrontation and accusations of trolling. 

 

Later gater, if you wanna know, just go back and read. 

[Tippaporn]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I disagree.  Our discussion was about evidence of "liberal" Justices not adhering to the US Constitution.  Not a difficult concept to grasp.  Morch's comments seem informed and in context.

Linked to Breitbart twice with the same news but didn't realize that Breitbart is not approved here.  In any case, third time is a charm.

 

Newsweek - Chief Justice Roberts Sides With Liberal Justices, as Supreme Court Rules Against Challenge to State Limits on Church Attendance

 

In a 5-4 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, a request from a California church that challenged the state restrictions on attendance at religious services during the coronavirus pandemic was rejected. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals, turning away the appeal brought by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California.

 

The Supreme Court liberal Justices are picking winners and losers.  Some folks have more rights than others when a pandemic can be used as the excuse to usurp some people's rights.  That's not what the Constitution says.  I believe Pennsylvania U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV had a different opinion.

 

The Hill - Federal judge rules Pennsylvania's coronavirus orders are unconstitutional

 

A federal judge ruled on Monday that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) coronavirus orders, which shut down the state, closed businesses and limited gatherings, were unconstitutional.

 

This includes religious gatherings.

 

Edit:  On May 13, 2019, President Trump nominated Stickman to the seat vacated by Judge Joy Flowers Conti, who took senior status on December 6, 2018.  Confirmation that Trump's choices are pro-Constitution.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Tippaporn

[RANGER55]

44 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If you are going to state that conservative judges adhere to strict wording and liberal judges don't, you should be able to give specific examples supporting your claim.  Otherwise you should not make such an unsupportable claim.

 

We'll never know if Democrats would have acted that way had the Republicans been more responsible and less hypocritical.  However we can assume that in future Democrats will also do whatever they can to obstruct Republican Supreme Court nominees and confirm they're own regardless of circumstances.  Once one side has shown they will fight without honor, it would be suicidal for the other side to not respond in kind.

That boat with everyone singing Kumbaya sailed a long time ago.

 

Remember when Harry Reid put out that Romney had not payed any taxes for 10 years during the election in 2012. After the election a reporter ask him why he said that knowing it was not true. Reid laughed and said (We WON DIDN"T WE).

 

That was a very deciding factor in Romneys lose to Obama. The liberals are just P--- now that Trump and the Republicans are starting to fight back. For so many years you would see democrats go to the microphone and call the republicans on the other side of the isle every thing in the book. Then the republicans would go to the microphone and say how much they wish to work with the Dems and I hope we can work together. It was like (COME ON GROW A PAIR).

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harry-reid-is-proud-he-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes

Edited September 23, 2020 by RANGER55

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

I don't have to reply to your demand to know what we are debating when we've been debating it for several pages and you're too lazy to go back and look at them, opting instead for a confrontation and accusations of trolling. 

 

Later gater, if you wanna know, just go back and read. 

 

I did not 'demand to know' what the debate was about. There was a direct point made regarding a claim you raised without apparent support. You cannot do so, hence the ongoing nonsense accusations and wiggling for several posts now.

[maqui]

6 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

 

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

So your definition of deviation from the constitution is: "Any reasoned opinion I happen to disagree with?"

[Mama Noodle]

6 minutes ago, maqui said:

So your definition of deviation from the constitution is: "Any reasoned opinion I happen to disagree with?"

 

That is called a straw man. 

 

Who did you used to be? 

[maqui]

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

That is called a straw man. 

 

Who did you used to be? 

Can you explain why the interpretation of 4 judges of "well-regulated militia" was unconstitutional? 

After more than 200 years of discussion, it seems the interpretation was not self-evident.

 

[RANGER55]

19 minutes ago, maqui said:

Can you explain why the interpretation of 4 judges of "well-regulated militia" was unconstitutional? 

After more than 200 years of discussion, it seems the interpretation was not self-evident.

 

Not quite sure of your question but here’s a quick and simple answer maybe. Don’t have time to research.

It comes down to where the Founding Fathers put the comma separating the rights of the individual to keep and bare arms and the right of the Government to form a militia.  They made it two different/ separate right in the constitution. That comma drives liberals Bat S___ Craze. 

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Edited September 23, 2020 by RANGER55

[maqui]

11 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

Not quite sure of your question but here’s a quick and simple answer maybe. Don’t have time to research.

It comes down to where the Founding Fathers put the comma separating the rights of the individual to keep and bare arms and the right of the Government to form a militia.  They made it two different/ separate right in the constitution. That comma drives liberals Bat S___ Craze. 

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes, that is an interpretation, after 200 years of discussion.

My question to Mama Noodle was: Why is any dissenting interpretation unconstitutional? 

Is any minority dissent unconstitutional after the majority has voted? Then any of the Supremes who will vote against Roe v Wade in 2021 will violate the constitution?

Or is it only unconstitutional if it drives conservatives crazy?

[FlyingThai]

9 hours ago, nattaya09 said:

Three SCOTUS confirmations in four years. He will probably get to fill Breyer's in his 2nd term.

Breyer and Thomas. Clarence Thomas will certainly retire in a second Trump term.

[FlyingThai]

Mittens Romney better do his job or he'll be chased out of Utah and pretty much any constituency.

[AndyFoxy]

I’m feeling tired from too much winning.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, RANGER55 said:

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution. Founded in 1982, it is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations.^[4][5]

In January 2019, The Washington Post Magazine wrote that the Federalist Society had reached an "unprecedented peak of power and influence." Of the nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, five (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito) are current or former members of the organization.^[2] Politico Magazine wrote that the Federalist Society "has become one of the most influential legal organizations in history—not only shaping law students' thinking but changing American society itself by deliberately, diligently shifting the country's judiciary to the right."^[6]

 

 

But we do know what Reid and the Democrats done in 2013 that changed the vote to 50. BOOM, now deal with it. Be real, you know the Democrats would fill that seat.

 

Now do I have to look up what organizations the 4 liberals are members of. 

 

Sometimes posting on TV is like trying to argue with a fence post!

"Now do I have to look up what organizations the 4 liberals are members of."

 

No, you have to give examples of Justices you deem liberal going against the Constitution. 

 

We don't know that Democrats would fill the seat in these circumstances.  You can't prove a counter-factual.  All we know is what the Republicans are doing now and how it conflicts with their words and actions in 2016.

Edited September 23, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

But the election cycle had already started by March 2016.  And many are saying that if a vacancy opens up during an election year it should be postponed until after the election.  Like this guy.  So McConnell did do right by the guy in the video, correct?  Are you being deliberately confusing?

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581754/user-clip-biden-senate-hearings-scotus-vacancy-election-year

 

So what is the cut-off date according to you?

 

You can stretch the election cycle to the point that it is non-stop, beginning as soon as each Presidential election ends.

 

However in March there is no significant campaigning, candidates are still competing for name recognition.  Biden's speech was made in June, shortly before the Democratic Convention.  We are now in the final weeks before the Presidential elections. 

 

You know all this.  You are being intentionally obtuse.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Linked to Breitbart twice with the same news but didn't realize that Breitbart is not approved here.  In any case, third time is a charm.

 

Newsweek - Chief Justice Roberts Sides With Liberal Justices, as Supreme Court Rules Against Challenge to State Limits on Church Attendance

 

In a 5-4 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, a request from a California church that challenged the state restrictions on attendance at religious services during the coronavirus pandemic was rejected. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals, turning away the appeal brought by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California.

 

The Supreme Court liberal Justices are picking winners and losers.  Some folks have more rights than others when a pandemic can be used as the excuse to usurp some people's rights.  That's not what the Constitution says.  I believe Pennsylvania U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV had a different opinion.

 

The Hill - Federal judge rules Pennsylvania's coronavirus orders are unconstitutional

 

A federal judge ruled on Monday that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) coronavirus orders, which shut down the state, closed businesses and limited gatherings, were unconstitutional.

 

This includes religious gatherings.

 

Edit:  On May 13, 2019, President Trump nominated Stickman to the seat vacated by Judge Joy Flowers Conti, who took senior status on December 6, 2018.  Confirmation that Trump's choices are pro-Constitution.

 

My answer to your Breitbart link was also deleted.

 

As I wrote before, limiting attendance to indoor church services is not an unreasonable restriction of people's rights, just as making it illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater is not an unreasonable restriction of free speech.  Rights come with responsibilities, and irresponsible people need to be restrained. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/coronavirus-churches-outbreaks.html

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/05/health/ohio-church-coronavirus-spread/index.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/03/california-church-coronvirus-outbreak-sacramento

 

I can also find some links about how churches are major sources of Covid 19 spread in South Korea if you're interested.

 

The fact that a Trump appointed Federal Judge puts business interests ahead of public safety doesn't surprise or impress me.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, RANGER55 said:

That boat with everyone singing Kumbaya sailed a long time ago.

 

Remember when Harry Reid put out that Romney had not payed any taxes for 10 years during the election in 2012. After the election a reporter ask him why he said that knowing it was not true. Reid laughed and said (We WON DIDN"T WE).

 

That was a very deciding factor in Romneys lose to Obama. The liberals are just P--- now that Trump and the Republicans are starting to fight back. For so many years you would see democrats go to the microphone and call the republicans on the other side of the isle every thing in the book. Then the republicans would go to the microphone and say how much they wish to work with the Dems and I hope we can work together. It was like (COME ON GROW A PAIR).

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harry-reid-is-proud-he-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes

I don't in any way condone what Harry Reid did, it was an embarrassment for the party.  However I seriously doubt it had a significant impact on the 2012 election.  Certainly no more than accusations Hillary Clinton was part of a child prostitution ring run out of pizza restaurants (which many people were stupid enough to believe) had on the 2016 election.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

But the election cycle had already started by March 2016.  And many are saying that if a vacancy opens up during an election year it should be postponed until after the election.  Like this guy.  So McConnell did do right by the guy in the video, correct?  Are you being deliberately confusing?

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581754/user-clip-biden-senate-hearings-scotus-vacancy-election-year

 

So what is the cut-off date according to you?

 

the Difference is that this isnt just an election year or election cycle. People have already voted.

There should no appointments once conventions are held, thats when both parties confirm the nominees.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Sujo

[racket]

Trump 2020! YEAAAH

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, racket said:

Trump 2020! YEAAAH

I always appreciate an eloquently worded opinion.

[racket]

40 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

I always appreciate an eloquently worded opinion.

Triggered. Get over it, she’s dead. Here’s a better one: he deserves 8 more years. 

[Mama Noodle]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

We don't know that Democrats would fill the seat in these circumstances.  You can't prove a counter-factual. 

 

You and about 3, maybe 4 other people on planet earth believe this. 

 

The rest of us, we all know the Democrats would have done exactly what republicans did, or worse. 

 

I mean they accused Kavanaugh of being a gang rapist and serial woman abuser for crying out loud, and did it proudly, in front of the whole world. 

 

But sure, if you want to believe that they would have followed some sort of 'norm' and deny it, go for it. 

[Mama Noodle]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

As I wrote before, limiting attendance to indoor church services is not an unreasonable restriction of people's rights,

 

The very first amendment says otherwise. 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

 

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Rights come with responsibilities, and irresponsible people need to be restrained. 

 

Precisely why people like you, and people who think like you, should never, ever see legitimate power.