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
Quote: TigerWuI 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.
Quote: Gabes22I 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."
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....
Quote: SOOPOOIt 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/
Quote: aceofspadesThanks 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
Quote: TigerWuPlease 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.
Quote: AZDuffmanI 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?
Quote: AZDuffman
Among feminists the "fraction" is about 9/10. Your mileage may vary.
That makes a lot more sense.
Quote: darkozQuote: AZDuffmanI 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.
Quote: aceofspadesThanks 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.
Quote: beachbumbabsSo 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...
Quote: AZDuffman
Not really, more like infanticide.
Oh, we're talking about infanticide now? I thought the topic of discussion was abortion...
Quote: beachbumbabs
There should be no 50+VP option for SCOTUS approval.
Liberals foiled again! That darned Constitution! Every time!
Quote: TigerWuOh, 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.
Quote: AZDuffmanGo 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.
Quote: ThatDonGuyPedantic 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.
Quote: TigerWuAlready 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.
Quote: NokTangDespite 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?
Quote: SOOPOOIt 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?
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)
Quote: WizardI 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.
Quote: AZDuffmanFinished? 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.
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.
Quote: SOOPOOThanks 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
Quote: SOOPOOThanks 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
If forced to chose between two monarchs, don't.
.Quote: darkozHere 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?
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
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..
Quote: EvenBobI 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..
Quote: EvenBobI 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
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.
Quote: Gabes22Where 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.
Quote: SandybestdogI 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: wikiHaspel 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]
Quote: SandybestdogI 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
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.Quote: darkozIts 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
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.
Did I see it on a milk carton?
America's Most Wanted?
Yet another reason the average campus is a joke.
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.Quote: MrVHey EB, that new avatar of yours: your mug looks awfully familiar.
Did I see it on a milk carton?
America's Most Wanted?
Quote: AZDuffmanCollege 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
Of the four, Kavanaugh seems the most likely to side with trump on the Mueller case.
I'm sure that is completely coincidental.
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!