Thread Rating:

Gabes22
Gabes22
Joined: Jul 19, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 1426
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
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
  • Threads: 48
  • Posts: 3157
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 donít 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
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 12163
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
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 4022
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
Joined: Apr 4, 2012
  • Threads: 366
  • Posts: 6506
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
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 244
  • Posts: 7481
Thanks for this post from:
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
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 12163
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
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 244
  • Posts: 7481
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
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 4022
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
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 12163
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

  • Jump to: