RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 8:07:39 AM)

seems common sense eh?




mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 8:12:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

he completely missed that it was a resignation, not a death, and that is the whole difference!




Only to those who are scrambling to come up with reasons why it's so bad now, but wasn't back when their side did it.



Like republicans making the individual income tax constitutional, by amending it to be so, from the founding it was not. Oh, I see.




MrRodgers -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 9:28:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

he completely missed that it was a resignation, not a death, and that is the whole difference!




Only to those who are scrambling to come up with reasons why it's so bad now, but wasn't back when their side did it.



Like republicans making the individual income tax constitutional, by amending it to be so, from the founding it was not. Oh, I see.

.....and there is serious question as to even that amend. having passed the states.




mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 9:47:08 AM)

Well, lets not be accusing the party of fiscal responsibility and constitutional adherence, to have the properties of neither. After all, they did give us the unions, and public education.

They were for that before they were against that as well.




CreativeDominant -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 9:57:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, lets not be accusing the party of fiscal responsibility and constitutional adherence, to have the properties of neither. After all, they did give us the unions, and public education.

They were for that before they were against that as well.

Funny how much the parties resemble each other in that way.




WickedsDesire -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 12:37:14 PM)

You have been here six days, with barely a paragraph and no pictures of thee or she. wonderment never ceases me Indeed this very day when i saw a big orangey thing in the sky of Scotland.




BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 12:39:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Unfortunately DS you may be right and irrespective of any interpretation of the past battles or senate rules.
In that vain, I just think the repubs can do as they please but to do it this way...could bite them on the ass. Go ahead and be partisan but don't go out of your way to advertise it in such a way. Makes me chuckle to think they could have remained silent (a shocker in itself) and when the nominee comes up...vote him down. To do it this way, is just playing with fire politically and yep...could get burned come Nov.


Then again, the President could very well nominate a moderate or even a right-leaning person to call out McConnell. McConnell could, then, dutifully go through the process and the Senate could approve the nomination, blunting a left-ward swing on the court. The President and the Democrats could show the GOP won't stick to their guns, and the GOP can claim to have out-foxed the Democrats.


I suggested Jeff Sessions early on.
The Republicans would get a nominee they would like.
The Democrats would get caos in the Republican party in Alabama and get rid of a commitee head.




mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 12:47:30 PM)

Nobody would send sessions name up.




dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 7:29:39 PM)

quote:

And if you'll do more than skim, you'll find that Schemer said the...very...same...thing. As did Biden. That's why they keep saying "let's not talk about what was said in the past". Of course not...because they did...the...same...thing...and did it FIRST. Before Bush ever appointed ANYbody
.
Of course, they talked. Of course, they postured. That's what politicians do. If it makes you happy to dig up inconvenient quotes, have at it.

But once the blathering was done, did a Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee ever officially announce its refusal to vet a nominee, any nominee? To my eye, that crosses from talk into action. Or inaction-as-action in this case.

Ymmv, of course.




dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 7:34:08 PM)

quote:

.....and there is serious question as to even that amend. having passed the states.

Got a reliable source on that? I'm honestly curious. A cabbie mentioned the same thing the other night, but I figured it was just a strand in his web of conspiracy theories.




dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 7:57:27 PM)

FR

The editorial board of the New York Times put things better than I could:

Mr. Obama is once again the only adult in the room, carrying out his constitutional obligation while Senate Republicans scramble to dig up examples of Democrats trying to block nominees. But those examples show only that Democratic senators have pushed hard for Republican presidents to pick ideologically moderate nominees. Until now, neither party has ever vowed to shut down the nomination process entirely, even before it has begun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/opinion/senate-republicans-lose-their-minds-on-a-supreme-court-seat.html?_r=0


Of course, our conservative brethren will dismiss those seasoned journalists as "whiny liberals."

But this lady's a bit tougher to write off:


[Sandra Day] O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the court and a nominee of President Ronald Reagan, rejected the notion that the next president should be able to pick the next justice after the election.

“I don’t agree. I think we need somebody there now to do the job, and let’s get on with it,” she said.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sandra-day-oconnor-scalia-replacement-219416


Then there's this guy, not exactly a DNC pin-up:

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) broke with Republican Party leaders on Wednesday, saying that he would meet with President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

* * *

He wrote in a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed this week that it is "my duty as a senator to either vote in support or opposition to that nominee following a fair and thorough hearing along with a complete and transparent release of all requested information."


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/270627-kirk-would-meet-with-obama-scotus-nominee





Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 8:06:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The senate judicial committee made it official. And not only will they not vote, will not even convene a hearing, they won't even meet with any nominees.

I think the repubs here are taking a serious risk here and rolling the dice. Come November, they could come up snake eyes.


HERE

What's to stop them in January saying they won't convene a hearing for the next four years?

Some court should force them to do their jobs. They can still pout and obstruct. But on the job.

I hope voters send them a message and a pink slip. Replace them with people of whatever party wants to actually do the job.




dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 9:03:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, lets not be accusing the party of fiscal responsibility and constitutional adherence, to have the properties of neither. After all, they did give us the unions, and public education.

They were for that before they were against that as well.

Funny how much the parties resemble each other in that way.

True.

We'd all be spared a lot of tedium and noise if we accepted that people--both singly and in groups--evolve and change. It would be beyond bizarre if either party had remained in amber since its founding.

A memoir in Notre Dame magazine once recounted a beloved prof's reaction to a student seeking a "gotcha" moment. "What you said this afternoon," the young man said, "contradicts what you wrote on page 245 in your book."

"Ah, yes," the prof genially replied. "I wrote that book ten years ago, and I've learned plenty more since," whereupon he took the book, smiled, tore out the offending page, smiled, and handed the book back.

I'd love to see one of our leaders have the conviction and confidence to do likewise.




DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/25/2016 12:47:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
FR
In all honesty I see nothing different between a death and a resignation. Either way a seat is empty, and either way it needs to be filled. The government needs to go through the process listed in its legislation for appointing a new judge. The fact that the cons won't even participate in the process is simply shameful, even if they were going to vote no on every person until the election.

well a resignation can be postponed, a death cant?


Either through resignation or death, there is still an opening on the bench that needs to be filled. Perhaps Biden should have made some comment towards no Justice resigning until the next Administration was elected?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

And if you'll do more than skim, you'll find that Schemer said the...very...same...thing. As did Biden. That's why they keep saying "let's not talk about what was said in the past". Of course not...because they did...the...same...thing...and did it FIRST. Before Bush ever appointed ANYbody
.
Of course, they talked. Of course, they postured. That's what politicians do. If it makes you happy to dig up inconvenient quotes, have at it.
But once the blathering was done, did a Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee ever officially announce its refusal to vet a nominee, any nominee? To my eye, that crosses from talk into action. Or inaction-as-action in this case.
Ymmv, of course.


At this point, it's still just talk from the GOP, too. Once the President nominates someone (if for no other reason than to call the GOP's bluff), if the GOP backs up their words, then it's action (even though, technically, it's inaction).




MrRodgers -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/25/2016 5:03:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

.....and there is serious question as to even that amend. having passed the states.

Got a reliable source on that? I'm honestly curious. A cabbie mentioned the same thing the other night, but I figured it was just a strand in his web of conspiracy theories.

Since 36 states were required to ratify, the failure of 13 to ratify was fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the first three defects, arguably the most serious. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.

Note that in the above we are counting Ohio as a state, even though it was not admitted into the Union until 1953 (retroactively, which is expost facto, and unconstitutional).

HERE

Backgound: Philander Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, the Vanderbilts, the Mellons, and others. He had created for them the largest cartel in the world, then was appointed, at their request, as the Attorney General in the McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, where he refused to enforce the Sherman anti-trust laws against the cartel he had just created.

The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D Rockefeller Jr, and grandfather and namesake of Nelson A Rockefeller, and would not have been ratified if Knox had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.

Example: Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Knox counted Kentucky as having approved it.

Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it meant just the opposite of what was [as] submitted to the states by Congress, but Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment.

Minnesota did not submit any results or copy of their vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as
approving the amendment.}

HERE




MrRodgers -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/25/2016 5:14:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The senate judicial committee made it official. And not only will they not vote, will not even convene a hearing, they won't even meet with any nominees.

I think the repubs here are taking a serious risk here and rolling the dice. Come November, they could come up snake eyes.


HERE

What's to stop them in January saying they won't convene a hearing for the next four years?

Some court should force them to do their jobs. They can still pout and obstruct. But on the job.

I hope voters send them a message and a pink slip. Replace them with people of whatever party wants to actually do the job.

Even still, as of the 3rd of Jan., a new senate will be sworn in and I am thinking by then they will have either gotten the message or will soon thereafter. I am thinking by then, the public will have forced their hand or at least enough repubs should they amazingly still have a majority having refused a nominee, plus all of the other drama, will cross over and force a nominee to the floor.




CreativeDominant -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/25/2016 6:51:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

You have been here six days, with barely a paragraph and no pictures of thee or she. wonderment never ceases me Indeed this very day when i saw a big orangey thing in the sky of Scotland.

6 Days?? Barely a paragraph? No pictures?

I don't know who you meant this for, you space cadet but IF you meant it for me, you might want to read my profile again.




Phydeaux -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/25/2016 10:24:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The senate judicial committee made it official. And not only will they not vote, will not even convene a hearing, they won't even meet with any nominees.

I think the repubs here are taking a serious risk here and rolling the dice. Come November, they could come up snake eyes.


HERE

What's to stop them in January saying they won't convene a hearing for the next four years?

Some court should force them to do their jobs. They can still pout and obstruct. But on the job.

I hope voters send them a message and a pink slip. Replace them with people of whatever party wants to actually do the job.

Even still, as of the 3rd of Jan., a new senate will be sworn in and I am thinking by then they will have either gotten the message or will soon thereafter. I am thinking by then, the public will have forced their hand or at least enough repubs should they amazingly still have a majority having refused a nominee, plus all of the other drama, will cross over and force a nominee to the floor.


As of today - thats not going to happen. Republicans have way more enthusiasm than dems this time, and trump attracts way more dems than vice versa.

Kirk is in a close reelection campaign in a moderate state. He can pander to the moderate voters without it mattering one iota. The nomination never gets out of judiciary committee.




mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/25/2016 11:41:36 AM)

This was over before it began, and still is. Hillary will appoint the next SCOTUS.




Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/25/2016 3:19:02 PM)

At least, that's what she believes.

It won't be Trump.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625