RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

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

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

seems common sense eh?

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 41

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

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to thishereboi)

Profile

Post #: 42

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

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 43

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

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 44

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

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 45

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

WickedsDesire

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Profile

Post #: 46

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

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 47

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

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Nobody would send sessions name up.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to BamaD)

Profile

Post #: 48

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

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Profile

Post #: 49

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

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 50

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

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 51

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

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 52

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

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Profile

Post #: 53

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

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

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).

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 54

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

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 2/25/2016 5:16:07 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 55

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

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 56

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

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to WickedsDesire)

Profile

Post #: 57

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

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 58

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

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 59

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

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

At least, that's what she believes.

It won't be Trump.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 60