Senate Republicans ready quick push on Trump's Supreme Court pick Barrett

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/28/2020 at 11:15 AM, plentyofnuttin said:

What's really hard to believe is that before an election Donald Trump - not the Republicans as you claimed - has nominated someone who has gone on the record as being strongly against Obamacare. She strongly criticized John Roberts for upholding the law in a 5-4 decision. And this with it being about to be reviewed again right after the election by the Supreme Court in a case challenging it's legitimacy and supported by the Trump administration. Republican senators up for reelection have been fleeing from their records of repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare. Now the prospect of that lawsuit actually succeeding thanks to the appointment of Barrett must be terrifying to them. 

Given that Trump wants to eliminate Obama care why is it hard to believe? Seems a good choice to me.

What is hard for me to believe is that anyone would think Trump wouldn't nominate a conservative justice to SCOTUS. Does anyone think he'd nominate someone that doesn't like him?

 

Luckily it only needs a simple majority in the senate to confirm.

 

Win or lose in November, with her nomination Trump cements his legacy for decades to come in a conservative majority SCOTUS.

Well done Trump.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Does nobody see what Trump prepares ?

If he loses the upcoming election , he will not accept the result .

In this case It will be the supreme court who decides in the final instance .

Hmmmmmm

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-election-advice-401641

Hillary Clinton to Biden: Don't concede if the election is close

"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out," Clinton warned.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And once again the people have spoken. Surveys show 62% say they want whoever is elected in November, to appoint a justice family. Why is that so hard for the devotees to comprehend? 

A majority of voters wanted HRC as president and they didn't get that either.

No way Trump and the GOP are going to take a chance on another liberal being on SCOTUS if they have the means to prevent it, IMO.

It's called politics.

[Damual Travesty]

9 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And once again the people have spoken. Surveys show 62% say they want whoever is elected in November, to appoint a justice family. Why is that so hard for the devotees to comprehend? 

We live in a Republic. What is the basic idea of a Republic that separates it from a pure Democracy? The minority in a Republic is protected from the fickle mentality of the mob that changes like the wind. This is the most important reason for having a Republic.  To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The central idea. I am saddened greatly that there are some Americans that do not understand the central core reasoning for a Republic. A Republic for only as long as we can keep it.

[Damual Travesty]

22 hours ago, Emdog said:

Mitch expects to get this done in a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, covid relief bills, those that help average Americans languish on his desk.

Why the rush? It took 14 months to get new justice when Mitch wouldn't even give a hearing to Obama's nominee. And that time period included presidential election.

It is purely about power and how minority can thwart the will of the public. 70% of electorate want abortion laws kept as they are. ACA is not great, but don't throw out baby with bath water.

Where is his health plan? Since before day 1 of his administration he has claimed to have one "cheaper, better & cover everyone"...

Why did Trump trumpet executive order to cover pre existing conditions? That is already in ACA.

If it was fair to delay Obama nomination, should be fair to delay Trump's.

But it is not about "fairness" or "norms". All about pure power plays

It's not about power plays, it's about WHO has the power, and currently the Republican party controls the Senate of the United States. Therefore, they are acting on behalf of their constituents who put them in office, doing exactly as they are supposed to do in accordance with the Constitution. This is exactly what the Democrats would be doing if the shoe were on the other foot.

 

Politics is never fair, other then to play on a fair field in accordance with the law and the structure that they work in which is the Constitution of the United States. The Republican party was likewise in control of the Senate when Obama tried nominated a Justice in 2016. A nominee that was not confirmed by the Senate, and they chose not even to take it up on the floor. That is called the Senate refusing to consent. That was also their duty. What is the issue here? There is none. The proof will be that we will have a new Supreme Court justice soon and there will be no serious legal challenge. The Republic is functioning as it is supposed to.

[Damual Travesty]

On 9/28/2020 at 5:15 AM, plentyofnuttin said:

What's really hard to believe is that before an election Donald Trump - not the Republicans as you claimed - has nominated someone who has gone on the record as being strongly against Obamacare. She strongly criticized John Roberts for upholding the law in a 5-4 decision. And this with it being about to be reviewed again right after the election by the Supreme Court in a case challenging it's legitimacy and supported by the Trump administration. Republican senators up for reelection have been fleeing from their records of repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare. Now the prospect of that lawsuit actually succeeding thanks to the appointment of Barrett must be terrifying to them. 

Truth of the matter is that no one really knows how a Justice is going to vote on any given case that comes before a Court. Both sides may do their best to select Justices, but it comes down to interpretation of the law and history shows that Justices vote in ways which surprise and anger those who helped put them on the bench. The scream event over each new Conservative Justice has gotten way out of control.

[simple1]

48 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

We live in a Republic. What is the basic idea of a Republic that separates it from a pure Democracy? The minority in a Republic is protected from the fickle mentality of the mob that changes like the wind. This is the most important reason for having a Republic.  To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The central idea. I am saddened greatly that there are some Americans that do not understand the central core reasoning for a Republic. A Republic for only as long as we can keep it.

In current circumstances it's the minority subjecting the majority to 'tyranny'. Hopefully trump and his enablers will be removed from power in both Chambers as a result of 03/11. The next four years look very bleak for Western democracies should a trump administration remain in power.

Edited September 29, 2020 by simple1

[Damual Travesty]

43 minutes ago, simple1 said:

In current circumstances it's the minority subjecting the majority to 'tyranny'. Hopefully trump and his enablers will be removed from power in both Chambers as a result of 03/11. The next four years look very bleak for Western democracies should a trump administration remain in power.

The Republican Senate is doing the job they were elected to do. We Americans would say 11/3. I understand that you are here to advocate for China as you have said you live in Australia, but oppose Trump because you fear that he is infecting Australia with an anti-China outlook in policy, but to say that Trump casts a bleak outlook upon Western Democracies - really now? Your propaganda is rapidly losing its opacity.

[Damual Travesty]

23 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Does nobody see what Trump prepares ?

If he loses the upcoming election , he will not accept the result .

In this case It will be the supreme court who decides in the final instance .

God Bless America, God Bless Donald J Trump, God keep our Constitution intact, God keep our Republic safe. Amen

[Chiphigh]

On 9/28/2020 at 2:53 AM, Puchaiyank said:

It is hard to believe in this day and age Republicans still insist on nominating to the Supreme Court Constitutional scholars to interpret the Constitution of the US.

 

We need judges that will use the bench to promote a liberal social agenda and legislate social engineering methods to suit the people in Hollywood and undocumented minorities.

 

This is a tragedy!

Awesome sarcasm sir... ????????

[Damual Travesty]

11 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And once again the people have spoken. Surveys show 62% say they want whoever is elected in November, to appoint a justice family. Why is that so hard for the devotees to comprehend? 

I understand perfectly what your view is. You are quite clear. This is your view: Despite the Constitution of the USA saying that the President of the USA is to nominate a Justice upon a created vacancy, you believe that a survey should be the deciding factor (and evidently a Justice dying wish), instead of the Constitution of the USA.

 

Likewise, you believe that the Senate should ignore their constituents and not give consent to the President's choice despite having a current majority. This clearly stated is what your position is. "C'mon man" your position is easily comprehended. But, alas, I was raised to be a "devotee" to the Constitution of the United States of America, to hold this document to be only one notch below the Bible in terms of its importance.

 

You weren't? When did this change for you? What caused you to reject the constitution of the United States? Can you come up with an answer without casting blame, that shows the logical progression that changed your view, away from one that loves and admires the Republic, to one that wishes to cast it away?

[rebekkahr]

7 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

I understand perfectly what your view is. You are quite clear. This is your view: Despite the Constitution of the USA saying that the President of the USA is to nominate a Justice upon a created vacancy, you believe that a survey should be the deciding factor (and evidently a Justice dying wish), instead of the Constitution of the USA.

 

Likewise, you believe that the Senate should ignore their constituents and not give consent to the President's choice despite having a current majority. This clearly stated is what your position is. "C'mon man" your position is easily comprehended. But, alas, I was raised to be a "devotee" to the Constitution of the United States of America, to hold this document to be only one notch below the Bible in terms of its importance.

 

You weren't? When did this change for you? What caused you to reject the constitution of the United States? Can you come up with an answer without casting blame, that shows the logical progression that changed your view, away from one that loves and admires the Republic, to one that wishes to cast it away?

While the President has the right to nominate someone to a vacant post on the Supreme Court, please share with us that clause from the Constitution which says it's an obligation.

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, Damual Travesty said:

I understand perfectly what your view is. You are quite clear. This is your view: Despite the Constitution of the USA saying that the President of the USA is to nominate a Justice upon a created vacancy, you believe that a survey should be the deciding factor (and evidently a Justice dying wish), instead of the Constitution of the USA.

 

Likewise, you believe that the Senate should ignore their constituents and not give consent to the President's choice despite having a current majority. This clearly stated is what your position is. "C'mon man" your position is easily comprehended. But, alas, I was raised to be a "devotee" to the Constitution of the United States of America, to hold this document to be only one notch below the Bible in terms of its importance.

 

You weren't? When did this change for you? What caused you to reject the constitution of the United States? Can you come up with an answer without casting blame, that shows the logical progression that changed your view, away from one that loves and admires the Republic, to one that wishes to cast it away?

Yes, I can.

 

Mitch McConnell. Back in 2016. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed again Wednesday to block President Obama's Supreme Court nomination, saying the American people should have a "voice" in the process. "I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president," McConnell said.

"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," McConnell said.

 

And Lindsay Graham. Back in 2016. "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,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right." What changed, exactly. Please break that down for me. 

 

So, what changed? Besides political expedience?

[simple1]

4 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

The Republican Senate is doing the job they were elected to do. We Americans would say 11/3. I understand that you are here to advocate for China as you have said you live in Australia, but oppose Trump because you fear that he is infecting Australia with an anti-China outlook in policy, but to say that Trump casts a bleak outlook upon Western Democracies - really now? Your propaganda is rapidly losing its opacity.

We Americans would say 11/3 - so what, thankfully US standards do not extend to TVF. Just as a reminder living in Thailand you drive on the UK side of the road and there is no such thing as the American language, it's English, I'm proud to say I was born and educated in the UK. In summary, get back in your box!

 

you are here to advocate for China

 

You keep making false statements, though being a trump supporter it's par for course. I am not an advocate for PRC, but for Oz to have a balanced trade and foreign policy which is not dictated to by the trump administration due to their loser trade war with PRC. Pacific Rim trade would be a lot better off had not trump made the strategic error of rejecting TPP.

 

Trump casts a bleak outlook upon Western Democracies - really now?

 

trump has repeatedly attempted to undermine Western allies, unilaterally withdrawn from agreements and so on. due to his America First policy; IMO, isolationism is a strategic error of judgement. 

 

Back on topic, the further politisation of the US Justice system by the trump's administration, against the wish of the majority, comes across as another flaw in today's American. IMO the Constitution is overdue for a refresh by way of Amendments voted on by the people to stop further abuse by the minority

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, rebekkahr said:

While the President has the right to nominate someone to a vacant post on the Supreme Court, please share with us that clause from the Constitution which says it's an obligation.

Does anyone think that the Dems would not do exactly the same if the situation was reversed?

The GOP/ Trump would, IMO, be mad if they passed up the opportunity to create a majority of conservatives on  the SCOTUS.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Yes, I can.

 

Mitch McConnell. Back in 2016. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed again Wednesday to block President Obama's Supreme Court nomination, saying the American people should have a "voice" in the process. "I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president," McConnell said.

"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," McConnell said.

 

And Lindsay Graham. Back in 2016. "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,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right." What changed, exactly. Please break that down for me. 

 

So, what changed? Besides political expedience?

Political expedience rules.

[spidermike007]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Political expedience rules.

Especially when morality, ethics, honor, promises, my word is my bond, and dignity mean nothing. Win at any cost. 

[nobodysfriend]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmmm

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-election-advice-401641

Hillary Clinton to Biden: Don't concede if the election is close

"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out," Clinton warned.

The rep's are well prepared in case they lose , they have been sowing doubt about the mail-in votes , citing possible irregularities .

Trump's allies have said widespread mail-in voting would lead to a logistical mess that could botch the election.

If they lose they will do everything that would enable Trump to take his 2nd term , that includes the supreme court ...

[Morch]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmmm

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-election-advice-401641

Hillary Clinton to Biden: Don't concede if the election is close

"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out," Clinton warned.

 

Quoting out of context. What she obviously implies is not conceding before votes are in and defeat cannot be denied. That's all.

[rebekkahr]

7 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

God Bless America, God Bless Donald J Trump, God keep our Constitution intact, God keep our Republic safe. Amen

Maybe your prayer should be directed to the Mother of God. Because Trump is going to need a Hail Mary pass to get out of this one.

[Pattaya Spotter]

The Senate should bypass having hearings and move directly to a vote on the President's nomination of Judge Barrett. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The Senate should bypass having hearings and move directly to a vote on the President's nomination of Judge Barrett. 

 

Better get on the phone and tell Mitch.

[Damual Travesty]

10 hours ago, rebekkahr said:

While the President has the right to nominate someone to a vacant post on the Supreme Court, please share with us that clause from the Constitution which says it's an obligation.

That would be Article II Section II clause 2 of the US Constitution. The Appointments clause.

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The language is very clear it says he SHALL as in he WILL , as in YOU WILL DO THIS or YOU WILL DO THAT!

HE SHALL NOMINATE  which means the same as HE WILL NOMINATE and by and with the advice and consent (meaning they concur and affirm his choice) SHALL APPOINT Judges of the Supreme court.....

 

I think its about as clear as it can be - and this is how it has always been done. I am 62 Political Science Degree, USN retired. Thank you. I am an American Citizen. Brought up to believe that the Constitution of the USA is a great Document. I am a conservative. I believe in Justices who apply the law, and are not legislators of policy.

 

And how about you? Why are you so interested in having an argument about this? What's the motivation? I know mine. What is yours?

[coolhand555]

59 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

That would be Article II Section II clause 2 of the US Constitution. The Appointments clause.

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The language is very clear it says he SHALL as in he WILL , as in YOU WILL DO THIS or YOU WILL DO THAT!

HE SHALL NOMINATE  which means the same as HE WILL NOMINATE and by and with the advice and consent (meaning they concur and affirm his choice) SHALL APPOINT Judges of the Supreme court.....

 

I think its about as clear as it can be - and this is how it has always been done. I am 62 Political Science Degree, USN retired. Thank you. I am an American Citizen. Brought up to believe that the Constitution of the USA is a great Document. I am a conservative. I believe in Justices who apply the law, and are not legislators of policy.

 

And how about you? Why are you so interested in having an argument about this? What's the motivation? I know mine. What is yours?

So there's a timetable included in that clause? Because if that's the case, Trump is massively in violation of the Constitution. He has left a huge number of these offices unfilled. Impeachment anyone?

[coolhand555]

1 hour ago, Damual Travesty said:

That would be Article II Section II clause 2 of the US Constitution. The Appointments clause.

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The language is very clear it says he SHALL as in he WILL , as in YOU WILL DO THIS or YOU WILL DO THAT!

HE SHALL NOMINATE  which means the same as HE WILL NOMINATE and by and with the advice and consent (meaning they concur and affirm his choice) SHALL APPOINT Judges of the Supreme court.....

 

I think its about as clear as it can be - and this is how it has always been done. I am 62 Political Science Degree, USN retired. Thank you. I am an American Citizen. Brought up to believe that the Constitution of the USA is a great Document. I am a conservative. I believe in Justices who apply the law, and are not legislators of policy.

 

And how about you? Why are you so interested in having an argument about this? What's the motivation? I know mine. What is yours?

Funny. I'm beginning to think that you do protest too much. Now you've got me wondering about your bona fides.

[Scott]

Post from unapproved source removed.  

[Damual Travesty]

10 hours ago, coolhand555 said:

So there's a timetable included in that clause? Because if that's the case, Trump is massively in violation of the Constitution. He has left a huge number of these offices unfilled. Impeachment anyone?

The time table would be that for the Senate to not act would be that the Senate is refusing the President's choice. For the Republican Senate to refuse the President's choice would be for them to fail to their duty that they were elected to do. Can you imagine a Republican Senate refusing to act? The rest of your post postulates a question which seems nonsensical, and the offer for impeachment likewise. It is clear to me you are a non-American because of these two questions. This is not a slight but if I were to comment on your countries Government out of ignorance I suppose my questions would come across the same way. And now the debate. See ya.

[Damual Travesty]

9 hours ago, coolhand555 said:

Funny. I'm beginning to think that you do protest too much. Now you've got me wondering about your bona fides.

More then willing to provide in Private conversation if I am taking up to many of your thoughts.