(12-05-2016 07:54 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 07:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Pat gave it up. Glad it is over.

Forget his name but the Republican AG candidate conceded today too.

Buck Newton

State Auditor still undecided, Wood is in the lead but it is closer than the others.

Gotta love North Carolina. The top 3 state races go blue while the 2 federal races went red along with the state legislature maintaining it's GOP veto proof majority

(12-05-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you provide a link as to anyone of note who agrees that 2000 is a precedent for 2016? the only person who thinks that is you. no offense but you are just a random internet commentator whose opinion I don't value as the basis for something like this.

the only google result I found was a law school link saying it wasn't relevant.

how are they different, outside of being at different levels of the judicial system?

I hate to jump into the middle of a John v. 200 battle but..... the assumption has been made by 200 that this was a court packing effort by the Democrats back in 2000. I haven't seen any evidence to point to that. If I'm not mistaken the Appeals Court workload had been increasing rapidly and the increase in the number of judges was an effort to relieve that congestion. Bear in mind that the Appeals Court hears cases in groups of three. The Supreme Court does not. Adding judges to the State Supreme Court does not serve to reduce the backlog. That is the major difference here.

(12-05-2016 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Gotta love North Carolina. The top 3 state races go blue while the 2 federal races went red along with the state legislature maintaining it's GOP veto proof majority

We won the Governorship and Attorney General. We lost Lt. Governor.

(12-05-2016 08:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Gotta love North Carolina. The top 3 state races go blue while the 2 federal races went red along with the state legislature maintaining it's GOP veto proof majority

We won the Governorship and Attorney General. We lost Lt. Governor.

Sorry should have clarified I was referring to the supreme court

(12-05-2016 12:29 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Not sure if true, but I read last week he was the first governor to lose re-election in nc.

It is true but not really that significant. The governor of NC could only serve one term until the constitution was changed in 1971. There have only been 8 governors since then. Three governors, Martin, Hunt, and Easley served two terms. Hunt did it twice.

Since we won our independence North Carolinians have always been wary of giving one person too much power. So the NC governor has always been one of the weakest. He never even got the veto until 1996.

(12-05-2016 08:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Gotta love North Carolina. The top 3 state races go blue while the 2 federal races went red along with the state legislature maintaining it's GOP veto proof majority

We won the Governorship and Attorney General. We lost Lt. Governor.

Sorry should have clarified I was referring to the supreme court

I follow now. Yes that Supreme Court spot was big. I imagine if party affiliation had been listed by the names it would have been a different story.

The biggest loss for the Ds in the grand scheme of things is Insurance commissioner. He did a great job and was a true advocate for consumers. I fear the victory will be in the pocket of the industry. I hope I am wrong.

(12-05-2016 08:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Gotta love North Carolina. The top 3 state races go blue while the 2 federal races went red along with the state legislature maintaining it's GOP veto proof majority

We won the Governorship and Attorney General. We lost Lt. Governor.

Sorry should have clarified I was referring to the supreme court

I follow now. Yes that Supreme Court spot was big. I imagine if party affiliation had been listed by the names it would have been a different story.

The biggest loss for the Ds in the grand scheme of things is Insurance commissioner. He did a great job and was a true advocate for consumers. I fear the victory will be in the pocket of the industry. I hope I am wrong.

Our insurance commissioner ran a great office. I used their expertise this year and they were very kind, prompt, and helpful. I agree with you that was a big loss

(12-05-2016 06:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It's invalid because you can't defend it

I don't know why you think I have to defend it any more than I already have. If you want to refute my opinion, or cite something that clearly states there would be no precedent for McCrory appointing two more judges ,feel free. Otherwise stop complaining.

(12-05-2016 08:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:29 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Not sure if true, but I read last week he was the first governor to lose re-election in nc.

It is true but not really that significant. The governor of NC could only serve one term until the constitution was changed in 1971. There have only been 8 governors since then. Three governors, Martin, Hunt, and Easley served two terms. Hunt did it twice.

Since we won our independence North Carolinians have always been wary of giving one person too much power. So the NC governor has always been one of the weakest. He never even got the veto until 1996.

Ah thanks. I had no idea that was the case.

I still think if the NCAA and ACC don't do anything, he probably wins.

(12-06-2016 09:51 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I still think if the NCAA and ACC don't do anything, he probably wins.

Don't you touch dem 'eels Mac-Roy! God bless dem 'eels!

(12-05-2016 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you provide a link as to anyone of note who agrees that 2000 is a precedent for 2016? the only person who thinks that is you. no offense but you are just a random internet commentator whose opinion I don't value as the basis for something like this.

the only google result I found was a law school link saying it wasn't relevant.

how are they different, outside of being at different levels of the judicial system?

I hate to jump into the middle of a John v. 200 battle but..... the assumption has been made by 200 that this was a court packing effort by the Democrats back in 2000. I haven't seen any evidence to point to that. If I'm not mistaken the Appeals Court workload had been increasing rapidly and the increase in the number of judges was an effort to relieve that congestion. Bear in mind that the Appeals Court hears cases in groups of three. The Supreme Court does not. Adding judges to the State Supreme Court does not serve to reduce the backlog. That is the major difference here.

That wasn't the issue at all. The dems were worried about potentially losing the majority since elections had been trending Republican. It was a preemptive move ahead of the election. Only difference between then and now is that if McCrory does it, it will be after the election.

Judges used to be partisan races too until GOP judges started winning more often than not

McCrory will meet with Trump on Wednesday.

McCrory/Trump

When one door closes, another one opens. Pat did right by North Carolina and left it in better shape than he found it. Hope Trump gives him a position!

(12-06-2016 01:49 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  McCrory will meet with Trump on Wednesday.

McCrory/Trump

When one door closes, another one opens. Pat did right by North Carolina and left it in better shape than he found it. Hope Trump gives him a position!

McRoy is a Duke Power employee. Dark horse DoEnergy candidate?

Another unsourced assertion by 200. When will he learn?

(12-06-2016 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you provide a link as to anyone of note who agrees that 2000 is a precedent for 2016? the only person who thinks that is you. no offense but you are just a random internet commentator whose opinion I don't value as the basis for something like this.

the only google result I found was a law school link saying it wasn't relevant.

how are they different, outside of being at different levels of the judicial system?

I hate to jump into the middle of a John v. 200 battle but..... the assumption has been made by 200 that this was a court packing effort by the Democrats back in 2000. I haven't seen any evidence to point to that. If I'm not mistaken the Appeals Court workload had been increasing rapidly and the increase in the number of judges was an effort to relieve that congestion. Bear in mind that the Appeals Court hears cases in groups of three. The Supreme Court does not. Adding judges to the State Supreme Court does not serve to reduce the backlog. That is the major difference here.

That wasn't the issue at all. The dems were worried about potentially losing the majority since elections had been trending democrat. It was a preemptive move ahead of the election. Only difference between then and now is that if McCrory does it, it will be after the election.

If elections were trending Democrat then why would the Democrats do this? I guess you meant to say trending Republican. The work load had been increasing significantly and the increase in Appeals Court judges did serve to relieve that overload. Agree or disagree?

(12-06-2016 01:49 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  McCrory will meet with Trump on Wednesday.

McCrory/Trump

When one door closes, another one opens. Pat did right by North Carolina and left it in better shape than he found it. Hope Trump gives him a position!

Those two were made for one another. The quicker we get McCrory out of NC the better.

(12-06-2016 06:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you provide a link as to anyone of note who agrees that 2000 is a precedent for 2016? the only person who thinks that is you. no offense but you are just a random internet commentator whose opinion I don't value as the basis for something like this.

the only google result I found was a law school link saying it wasn't relevant.

how are they different, outside of being at different levels of the judicial system?

I hate to jump into the middle of a John v. 200 battle but..... the assumption has been made by 200 that this was a court packing effort by the Democrats back in 2000. I haven't seen any evidence to point to that. If I'm not mistaken the Appeals Court workload had been increasing rapidly and the increase in the number of judges was an effort to relieve that congestion. Bear in mind that the Appeals Court hears cases in groups of three. The Supreme Court does not. Adding judges to the State Supreme Court does not serve to reduce the backlog. That is the major difference here.

That wasn't the issue at all. The dems were worried about potentially losing the majority since elections had been trending democrat. It was a preemptive move ahead of the election. Only difference between then and now is that if McCrory does it, it will be after the election.

If elections were trending Democrat then why would the Democrats do this? I guess you meant to say trending Republican. The work load had been increasing significantly and the increase in Appeals Court judges did serve to relieve that overload. Agree or disagree?

It was a typo. I just fixed it.

Look, I never made an attempt to defend or promote the validity of McCrory potentially adding seats to the SC. I merely drew attention to the fact that not only is the action permissible, but democrats have expended the court (appeals court in that case) in the past. You brought up the workload of the appeals court, and while it had been increasing year over year during the 90's, it actually declined from 98-99 to 99-00.