Thread Rating:

Gabes22
Gabes22
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 1427
Joined: Jul 19, 2011
June 29th, 2018 at 1:32:05 PM permalink
I think in cable news the reason they ramp up hysteria is to fill time. There literally is not enough stuff happening in 24 hours to talk about 24 hours a day without creating a little news yourself.

The only way the Roe v Wade changes is if it someone challenges it on the grounds to make it a "states rights" issue but i still see that as highly improbable
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 3540
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
June 29th, 2018 at 1:34:08 PM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

I agree. Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere. Neither is gay marriage.


I don’t think so either.

But Trump literally said during the campaign that he was going to appoint judges with the goal of overturning Roe V. Wade.

So, contrary to what some here are saying, that is not some crazy notion that liberals are just making up.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 30th, 2018 at 7:50:01 AM permalink
Quote: Gabes22

I agree with you whole-heartedly AZ! I think the fact the court has become politicized is a fairly recent phenomenon when looking at the 242 year history of the US. I think you nailed the timing on the head.



I did not realize this, but Ginsberg got nominated 96-3. The history is interesting.

The last Democrat to have a nominee rejected was Grover Cleveland. It appears that the no-action on the last Obama nominee was the only time since that a Democrat POTUS did not get his nominee. 2 withdrew under LBJ. GOP POTUSes had 6 refused or no action in the same time period. 1900-1970 it was very rare for the POTUS not to have his pick approved.

Quote:

Every Supreme Court nomination a Republican has brought up in my adult life has sent Libs to the nearest microphone clamoring that (insert nominee's name here) will just overturn Roe v. Wade. At what point do we conservatives call out the Chicken Little's of the Democrat Party? Every other day it seems, they foresee a new problem which is unprecedented and will lead to the world as we know it crumbling from under our feet. How can these people keep up such high volumes of hysteria for such long periods of time? As some point, you gotta wear out don't you?



For liberals, Roe is their life. To the point of demanding a half-delivered baby be allowed to legally be killed. But it goes deeper. Anything but a liberal justice will "bring back segregation." They are afraid of justices who will actually apply the Constitution as it is written and was intended to be understood.

I even saw one article where the liberal was crying about justices who were "inflexible on the Constitution."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
TigerWu
TigerWu
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 5509
Joined: May 23, 2016
June 30th, 2018 at 8:04:40 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman


For liberals, Roe is their life. To the point of demanding a half-delivered baby be allowed to legally be killed. But it goes deeper. Anything but a liberal justice will "bring back segregation."



Please tell me you understand that only a fraction of liberals feel that way....
aceofspades
aceofspades
  • Threads: 366
  • Posts: 6506
Joined: Apr 4, 2012
June 30th, 2018 at 9:12:44 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

It is not enough to 'keep the Senate'. The filibuster rules allow the Dems to block the nominee as long as there aren't 60 Repubs. I have seen no prediction that the Repubs will get that many.



Thanks to the Dems (Harry Reid) there is no longer a filibuster rule of 60 - now it is 51
http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/
darkoz
darkoz 
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
Thanked by
aceofspadespetroglyph
June 30th, 2018 at 9:18:50 AM permalink
Quote: aceofspades

Thanks to the Dems (Harry Reid) there is no longer a filibuster rule of 60 - now it is 51
http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/



It wasnt the dropping of the filibuster rule that was egregious imo. The democrats did it. So the republicans should also have that choice

It was the refusal to consider a scotus nominee for almost an entire year under obama that is egregious
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 30th, 2018 at 9:23:06 AM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

Please tell me you understand that only a fraction of liberals feel that way....



Yet again, we are not going thru the phone book, name by name, discussing positions. I am looking at liberal reactions and positions over about 3 decades of my adult life.

Among feminists the "fraction" is about 9/10. Your mileage may vary.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
darkoz
darkoz 
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
June 30th, 2018 at 9:26:56 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I did not realize this, but Ginsberg got nominated 96-3. The history is interesting.

The last Democrat to have a nominee rejected was Grover Cleveland. It appears that the no-action on the last Obama nominee was the only time since that a Democrat POTUS did not get his nominee. 2 withdrew under LBJ. GOP POTUSes had 6 refused or no action in the same time period. 1900-1970 it was very rare for the POTUS not to have his pick approved.



For liberals, Roe is their life. To the point of demanding a half-delivered baby be allowed to legally be killed. But it goes deeper. Anything but a liberal justice will "bring back segregation." They are afraid of justices who will actually apply the Constitution as it is written and was intended to be understood.

I even saw one article where the liberal was crying about justices who were "inflexible on the Constitution."



A half-delivered baby?

Is that like being half-pregnant?
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
TigerWu
TigerWu
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 5509
Joined: May 23, 2016
June 30th, 2018 at 9:28:03 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman


Among feminists the "fraction" is about 9/10. Your mileage may vary.



That makes a lot more sense.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 30th, 2018 at 9:28:06 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Quote: AZDuffman

I did not realize this, but Ginsberg got nominated 96-3. The history is interesting.

The last Democrat to have a nominee rejected was Grover Cleveland. It appears that the no-action on the last Obama nominee was the only time since that a Democrat POTUS did not get his nominee. 2 withdrew under LBJ. GOP POTUSes had 6 refused or no action in the same time period. 1900-1970 it was very rare for the POTUS not to have his pick approved.



For liberals, Roe is their life. To the point of demanding a half-delivered baby be allowed to legally be killed. But it goes deeper. Anything but a liberal justice will "bring back segregation." They are afraid of justices who will actually apply the Constitution as it is written and was intended to be understood.

I even saw one article where the liberal was crying about justices who were "inflexible on the Constitution."



A half-delivered baby?

Is that like being half-pregnant?



Not really, more like infanticide.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
June 30th, 2018 at 9:31:07 AM permalink
Quote: aceofspades

Thanks to the Dems (Harry Reid) there is no longer a filibuster rule of 60 - now it is 51
http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/



Dropping the filibuster rule (which personally I opposed but who cares what I think) for lower court judges is VERY different from dropping it (which Reid did NOT do) for SCOTUS. Lower court decisions can be appealed, including for judicial bias. SCOTUS decisions can't be appealed.

So a SCOTUS appointment should be 60%, to a higher standard, just as the justices themselves should be held to a higher standard. And just as laws need 50%+1, but Constitutional amendments must be 2/3 of states for ratification.

There should be no 50+VP option for SCOTUS approval.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6218
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
June 30th, 2018 at 9:40:02 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

So a SCOTUS appointment should be 60%, to a higher standard, just as the justices themselves should be held to a higher standard. And just as laws need 50%+1, but Constitutional amendments must be 2/3 of states for ratification.


Pedantic mode: 3/4 of the states - it's 2/3 of each house of Congress to get it to the states.

The supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment wish it was only 2/3 of the states...
TigerWu
TigerWu
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 5509
Joined: May 23, 2016
June 30th, 2018 at 10:13:35 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman


Not really, more like infanticide.



Oh, we're talking about infanticide now? I thought the topic of discussion was abortion...
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 30th, 2018 at 10:19:32 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs


There should be no 50+VP option for SCOTUS approval.



Liberals foiled again! That darned Constitution! Every time!
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 30th, 2018 at 10:20:37 AM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

Oh, we're talking about infanticide now? I thought the topic of discussion was abortion...



Go read up on partial birth abortion. Then explain why it is not infanticide.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
TigerWu
TigerWu
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 5509
Joined: May 23, 2016
June 30th, 2018 at 10:47:49 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Go read up on partial birth abortion. Then explain why it is not infanticide.



Already did before I posted. That's how I know they are legally distinct actions.

But here's a few links for you to browse, since it sounds like YOU are the one who needs to read up on it:

Infanticide

Infanticide law and legal definition

Intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion")

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act

You're welcome.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
June 30th, 2018 at 10:50:40 AM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Pedantic mode: 3/4 of the states - it's 2/3 of each house of Congress to get it to the states.

The supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment wish it was only 2/3 of the states...



Thanks. I didn't doublecheck. Should have.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
June 30th, 2018 at 10:54:24 AM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

Already did before I posted. That's how I know they are legally distinct actions.

But here's a few links for you to browse, since it sounds like YOU are the one who needs to read up on it:

Infanticide

Infanticide law and legal definition

Intact dilation and extraction ("partial birth abortion")

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act

You're welcome.



You can call it "legally distinct" all you want. I am talking realistically and morally. There is something very wrong with someone who is OK with PBA. I don't need to read up on it at all. I know all about it. It is sick.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
NokTang
NokTang
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
June 30th, 2018 at 8:48:28 PM permalink
Despite some posts on here, Roe vs Wade making abortion legal is finished. Once again it will be the rich who can afford real doctors getting clinical abortions and the poor left behind mini marts being permanently scared. I wish you guys would just bag the thing and stop blaming the women.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2018 at 4:37:05 AM permalink
Quote: NokTang

Despite some posts on here, Roe vs Wade making abortion legal is finished. Once again it will be the rich who can afford real doctors getting clinical abortions and the poor left behind mini marts being permanently scared. I wish you guys would just bag the thing and stop blaming the women.



Finished? Really? How do you figure? What will be the legal hitch that overturns it?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
July 1st, 2018 at 5:24:07 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

It is not enough to 'keep the Senate'. The filibuster rules allow the Dems to block the nominee as long as there aren't 60 Repubs. I have seen no prediction that the Repubs will get that many.



I thought they tried that to block Neil Gorsuch but the GOP invoked the nuclear option to need a simple majority only. Why can't they simply do that again, before the election, to not take any chances losing the majority?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
SOOPOO
SOOPOO 
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10941
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
July 1st, 2018 at 5:31:53 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz



It was the refusal to consider a scotus nominee for almost an entire year under obama that is egregious



Thanks for telling me what is egregious and what is not. So under King Dark Oz's rules, if a president nominates a SCJ one day before the end of the President's term, is that egregious? 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? ALL 4 years? Please enlighten us since YOU apparently know what the cutoff is and the rest of us don't.

(King SOOPOO says the nominee should get a hearing if nominated on the last day of a Presidency, so my above point is more Devil's advocate as I agree with you that the Repubs should have brought Garland to a vote)
SOOPOO
SOOPOO 
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10941
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
July 1st, 2018 at 5:35:16 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I thought they tried that to block Neil Gorsuch but the GOP invoked the nuclear option to need a simple majority only. Why can't they simply do that again, before the election, to not take any chances losing the majority?



Apparently they will if needed and ABLE. The Dems will lean on the few pro abortion Repub Senators to block an anti Roe v Wade nominee. They only need to Repubs to vote no if all 49 Dems vote no.

I am strongly for abortion rights. I just find it is not the most important issue of our time, and feel sad for all the one issue people who think it is the most important thing since Al Gore invented the internet.
NokTang
NokTang
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
July 1st, 2018 at 5:51:29 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Finished? Really? How do you figure? What will be the legal hitch that overturns it?



Once the next Justice is seated, a case will be found which can in essence as I mentioned, put abortion back to a rich vs poor issue, and the rich usually win.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2018 at 5:52:24 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO



I am strongly for abortion rights. I just find it is not the most important issue of our time, and feel sad for all the one issue people who think it is the most important thing since Al Gore invented the internet.



This is both amazing and scary. Their lives seem to revolve around it. So much that the whole issue has frozen a great deal of other politics for over 40 years now, closer to 50. Same as several slavery rulings did in the 1800s.

Result might one day end up the same.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
darkoz
darkoz 
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
July 1st, 2018 at 7:37:37 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Thanks for telling me what is egregious and what is not. So under King Dark Oz's rules, if a president nominates a SCJ one day before the end of the President's term, is that egregious? 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? ALL 4 years? Please enlighten us since YOU apparently know what the cutoff is and the rest of us don't.

(King SOOPOO says the nominee should get a hearing if nominated on the last day of a Presidency, so my above point is more Devil's advocate as I agree with you that the Repubs should have brought Garland to a vote)



Good. Glad we agree

Its always good when a king has agreeable subjects
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
darkoz
darkoz 
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
July 1st, 2018 at 7:47:23 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Thanks for telling me what is egregious and what is not. So under King Dark Oz's rules, if a president nominates a SCJ one day before the end of the President's term, is that egregious? 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? ALL 4 years? Please enlighten us since YOU apparently know what the cutoff is and the rest of us don't.

(King SOOPOO says the nominee should get a hearing if nominated on the last day of a Presidency, so my above point is more Devil's advocate as I agree with you that the Repubs should have brought Garland to a vote)



Here is my more serious answer to your post

There have been TWENTY-NINE (29) supreme court justices NOMINATED in the final year of a presidency in our US history

ELEVEN (11) of those were CONFIRMED

Please explain to King DarkOz why King Soopoo thinks US history is not worthy of setting precedent
Last edited by: darkoz on Jul 1, 2018
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2018 at 8:46:14 AM permalink
To quote Ollie Cromwell, the only good kings are dead ones.
If forced to chose between two monarchs, don't.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO 
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10941
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
July 1st, 2018 at 8:52:31 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Here is my more serious answer to your post

There have been TWENTY-NINE (29) supreme court justices NOMINATED in the final year of a presidency in our US history

ELEVEN (11) of those were CONFIRMED

Please explain to King DarkOz why King Soopoo thinks US history is not worthy of setting precedent

.

It is not relevant if they were confirmed. What is relevant is if the Senate had hearings and voted. If the Repubs did not confirm Garland after hearings and a vote that would be fine. Not having the hearing and the vote is what was wrong. Of the 18 not confirmed, did any not have a hearing and/or vote?
darkoz
darkoz 
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
July 1st, 2018 at 9:29:31 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

.

It is not relevant if they were confirmed. What is relevant is if the Senate had hearings and voted. If the Repubs did not confirm Garland after hearings and a vote that would be fine. Not having the hearing and the vote is what was wrong. Of the 18 not confirmed, did any not have a hearing and/or vote?



Here is a link that should answer current and future questions

https://www.afj.org/myths-vs-facts-on-scotus-vacancy

There have even been lame duck period confirmations

If you are saying its egregious no hearing was conducted for garland then we are in agreement. Yippee!!

Of the 18 not confirmed some were withdrawn for whatever reason. We are talking politics of 200+ years

Also I think it fair to point out that only in the last half of the previous century were presidents limited to 2 terms. I.e. Obamas 8th year was definitively his last but any president in their 4th year is subject to that being his last
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 1st, 2018 at 9:38:50 AM permalink
As far as I am aware, no President ever challenged the two term tradition, until 1939. Teddy Roosevelt ran for what might have been a third term, but he was elevated to President, not elected, and the attempt came four years after leaving office.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
Thanked by
aceofspades
July 1st, 2018 at 11:13:39 AM permalink
I remember in 2016 during the
campaigning, I heard a bajillion
times that the next president
would probably choose as many
as 4 new SCOTUS judges. Too
many of them have an expiration
date approaching.

Nobody in the media was upset
by this, they were happy, in fact.
So now, when what they were all
saying is coming true, the media
is beside itself with hysteria.

It's like the idea of this is totally
new to them. Wait till Clarence
Thomas resigns later this year,
or early next year. He's 70 and has
said for years that's the cutoff date
for him. The media will have to
be hospitalized..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
aceofspades
aceofspades
  • Threads: 366
  • Posts: 6506
Joined: Apr 4, 2012
Thanked by
RogerKintRS
July 1st, 2018 at 11:41:11 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I remember in 2016 during the
campaigning, I heard a bajillion
times that the next president
would probably choose as many
as 4 new SCOTUS judges. Too
many of them have an expiration
date approaching.

Nobody in the media was upset
by this, they were happy, in fact.
So now, when what they were all
saying is coming true, the media
is beside itself with hysteria.

It's like the idea of this is totally
new to them. Wait till Clarence
Thomas resigns later this year,
or early next year. He's 70 and has
said for years that's the cutoff date
for him. The media will have to
be hospitalized..




Gabes22
Gabes22
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 1427
Joined: Jul 19, 2011
July 2nd, 2018 at 7:08:40 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I remember in 2016 during the
campaigning, I heard a bajillion
times that the next president
would probably choose as many
as 4 new SCOTUS judges. Too
many of them have an expiration
date approaching.

Nobody in the media was upset
by this, they were happy, in fact.
So now, when what they were all
saying is coming true, the media
is beside itself with hysteria.

It's like the idea of this is totally
new to them. Wait till Clarence
Thomas resigns later this year,
or early next year. He's 70 and has
said for years that's the cutoff date
for him. The media will have to
be hospitalized..



I don't think there will be hysteria if Trump gets to replace Thomas. It will be conservative for a conservative. Where they will lose their stuff will be if Ginsberg retires
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
Sandybestdog
Sandybestdog
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 328
Joined: Feb 3, 2015
Thanked by
BozaceofspadesRS
July 4th, 2018 at 1:10:55 PM permalink
I don’t even understand why we have Senate hearings. It seems that the result is pretty much decided before the hearing even begins, sometimes even before the nominee is announced. Trump could nominate Mother Teresa and it wouldn’t matter. Kamela Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker are going to oppose everything Trump does because they’re gearing up for a run in 2020. As soon as the recent CIA nominee was annnounced, they slammed her for supporting torture. I believe in her hearing she repeatedly said she had no role in that. Yet that continued to be what the haters clung too as their excuse. I could be mistaken, I didn’t watch the whole thing.

On the other hand, much disliked people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are confirmed with over 90 votes. This was because Obama was popular and there was no chance of blocking the nominee, so everyone just went along with it.

I’ll admit, the right does the same thing. I think Obama’s nominee should have gotten a vote. But it seems the left always plays dirtier. Look at how misleading they’re being about people crossing the border. It’s time for Republicans to rally hard with Trump and play dirty. It’s not like we’re going to win over Democrats by being nice. With the influx of immigrants and more Millenials voting, this will be the last Republican president for awhile.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 4th, 2018 at 2:54:08 PM permalink
Quote: Gabes22

Where they will lose their stuff will be if Ginsberg retires



She'll never retire. They'll find her mummified
at her desk one morning and let her serve
10 more years in that condition.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
July 4th, 2018 at 5:49:52 PM permalink
Quote: Sandybestdog

I don’t even understand why we have Senate hearings. It seems that the result is pretty much decided before the hearing even begins, sometimes even before the nominee is announced. Trump could nominate Mother Teresa and it wouldn’t matter. Kamela Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker are going to oppose everything Trump does because they’re gearing up for a run in 2020. As soon as the recent CIA nominee was annnounced, they slammed her for supporting torture. I believe in her hearing she repeatedly said she had no role in that. Yet that continued to be what the haters clung too as their excuse. I could be mistaken, I didn’t watch the whole thing.

On the other hand, much disliked people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are confirmed with over 90 votes. This was because Obama was popular and there was no chance of blocking the nominee, so everyone just went along with it.

I’ll admit, the right does the same thing. I think Obama’s nominee should have gotten a vote. But it seems the left always plays dirtier. Look at how misleading they’re being about people crossing the border. It’s time for Republicans to rally hard with Trump and play dirty. It’s not like we’re going to win over Democrats by being nice. With the influx of immigrants and more Millenials voting, this will be the last Republican president for awhile.



I believe you're wrong about the CIA post.

Quote: wiki

Haspel has attracted controversy for her role as chief of a CIA black site in Thailand in 2002 in which prisoners were tortured[10][11][12] with so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques", including waterboarding.[10][12][13][11][14] At that time, the George W. Bush administration considered the techniques legal based on a set of secret, now-rescinded legal opinions that expansively defined executive authority and narrowly defined torture.[15][16]

If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
darkoz
darkoz 
  • Threads: 296
  • Posts: 11419
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
July 4th, 2018 at 8:12:26 PM permalink
Quote: Sandybestdog

I don’t even understand why we have Senate hearings. It seems that the result is pretty much decided before the hearing even begins, sometimes even before the nominee is announced. Trump could nominate Mother Teresa and it wouldn’t matter. Kamela Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker are going to oppose everything Trump does because they’re gearing up for a run in 2020. As soon as the recent CIA nominee was annnounced, they slammed her for supporting torture. I believe in her hearing she repeatedly said she had no role in that. Yet that continued to be what the haters clung too as their excuse. I could be mistaken, I didn’t watch the whole thing.

On the other hand, much disliked people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are confirmed with over 90 votes. This was because Obama was popular and there was no chance of blocking the nominee, so everyone just went along with it.

I’ll admit, the right does the same thing. I think Obama’s nominee should have gotten a vote. But it seems the left always plays dirtier. Look at how misleading they’re being about people crossing the border. It’s time for Republicans to rally hard with Trump and play dirty. It’s not like we’re going to win over Democrats by being nice. With the influx of immigrants and more Millenials voting, this will be the last Republican president for awhile.



Its funny how repubs lump millenials with immigrants(as if they are not americans or consider young people a threat)

If the millenials dont support right wingers maybe right wingers should ask why?

And if they are going to keep the repubs from having another president for awhile stop moaning about how old you are and let the new generation run things. Its called natural progression

The repubs are fully in power and still whining. What a bunch of sore winners. No wonder they cant understand why America was and is already great
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Sandybestdog
Sandybestdog
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 328
Joined: Feb 3, 2015
July 5th, 2018 at 8:22:11 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Its funny how repubs lump millenials with immigrants(as if they are not americans or consider young people a threat)

If the millenials dont support right wingers maybe right wingers should ask why?

And if they are going to keep the repubs from having another president for awhile stop moaning about how old you are and let the new generation run things. Its called natural progression

The repubs are fully in power and still whining. What a bunch of sore winners. No wonder they cant understand why America was and is already great

No I’m just grouping them together because they both seem to be becoming larger blocks of voters and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Meanwhile the typical middle class white Republican voters that have been the core of the Republican party for so long seem to be dying off.

It is a question the Republicans should ask themselves. I think people like Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens are great for attracting young people. All you need to to do is watch one of the videos of college kids being asked questions. Do you like it when Bernie said this and that? Oh yea he’s awesome. Well that was actually Trump who said that. Oh really, but the media, my professors, and society all told me Trump is a mean racist, so that’s what I’m going to go with. Somebody go get them their participation trophy.
MrV
MrV
  • Threads: 364
  • Posts: 8158
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
July 5th, 2018 at 8:28:12 AM permalink
Hey EB, that new avatar of yours: your mug looks awfully familiar.

Did I see it on a milk carton?

America's Most Wanted?
"What, me worry?"
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
July 5th, 2018 at 11:28:05 AM permalink
If Trump really wanted to confound everybody, he would name Merrick Garland. THAT would be a maelstrom worth watching.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 9th, 2018 at 4:23:43 AM permalink
College students discuss why they dislike Trump's SCOTUS nominee-----but just one problem!

Yet another reason the average campus is a joke.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
July 9th, 2018 at 4:41:09 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

Hey EB, that new avatar of yours: your mug looks awfully familiar.

Did I see it on a milk carton?

America's Most Wanted?

I must say, I don't like it. Bring back the cat. I don't want to think about Trump every time I read an Evenbob post, Trump ruins the Evenbob brand.
I am a robot.
Sandybestdog
Sandybestdog
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 328
Joined: Feb 3, 2015
July 9th, 2018 at 6:06:42 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

College students discuss why they dislike Trump's SCOTUS nominee-----but just one problem!

Yet another reason the average campus is a joke.


I was literally just going to post this and you beat me to it.

Here you go America, this is your future generation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKWXyznS9s
VCUSkyhawk
VCUSkyhawk
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 644
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
July 9th, 2018 at 6:21:09 PM permalink
Ill be honest, of the top 3 contenders, Kavanugh was the last one I thought he would pick.
I got a plan, we take all your picks we reverse them like one of those twilight zone episodes where everything is the opposite. You say "black" we go white.
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 3540
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
July 9th, 2018 at 6:31:01 PM permalink
Delete
Last edited by: gamerfreak on Jul 9, 2018
Boz
Boz
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 5701
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
July 9th, 2018 at 6:36:10 PM permalink
If Ann Coulter is happy with the pick, I’m happy.
VCUSkyhawk
VCUSkyhawk
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 644
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
July 9th, 2018 at 6:36:58 PM permalink
He pushed for the impeachment of Clinton based on obstruction. That will be sure to be brought up during confirmation.
I got a plan, we take all your picks we reverse them like one of those twilight zone episodes where everything is the opposite. You say "black" we go white.
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
July 9th, 2018 at 6:48:09 PM permalink
If you asked me which of the final four might end up accused of being a Rino, it would be Kavanaugh.
Of the four, Kavanaugh seems the most likely to side with trump on the Mueller case.
I'm sure that is completely coincidental.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
Paradigm
Paradigm
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2226
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
July 9th, 2018 at 6:49:15 PM permalink
Let the hand wringing & spinning from the Left begin...it won't be quite as good as Election Night 2016 (I mean Rachel was priceless that night).

Kavanaugh is confirmed on a 51/50 to 49 vote depending on McCain's health and will be installed just in time for the mid terms. Should rally both sides voters to get out there in November particularly for States with Senatorial Elections.

If Ginsburg or Breyer step down or...........and one of those two options is gonna happen before Jan of 2020, the Dems aren't going to get a majority in the Senate before then and the tears that will flow from Rachel & the Left with a 3rd Trump Scotus Nomination....oh my!
  • Jump to: