(11-27-2017 08:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

explain if you can (rhetorical.....simply b/c you cannot)

Do you really not grasp the possible ramifications of refusing to address a sitting Presidents SC nominee like was done with Obama? What do you think happens if the situation is reversed? Of course the Dems will do the same, and it will be the GOP President whose nominees are ignored, leaving the court without 9 members and unable to function properly. This isnt about winning, it's about the integrity of the system.

(11-27-2017 09:20 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

Please. Apparently, you've never taken a history class and studied the hero of the Democrats, FDR. This isn't even minor league stuff compared to what he tried to pull.

Cool, so because a politician of one political party tried to do something really bad in the past, we should allow a politician of another political party to do a bad thing? Do you realize how mindlessly partisan and nonsensical that is?

(11-27-2017 10:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

explain if you can (rhetorical.....simply b/c you cannot)

Do you really not grasp the possible ramifications of refusing to address a sitting Presidents SC nominee like was done with Obama? What do you think happens if the situation is reversed? Of course the Dems will do the same, and it will be the GOP President whose nominees are ignored, leaving the court without 9 members and unable to function properly. This isnt about winning, it's about the integrity of the system.

Dems would've done the same thing in the same circumstance. If I recall during the waiting period, the Supreme Court still heard cases with fewer than 9 members and made decisions. And alas the Republic endured and survived in spite of the Court not being at full strength.

BTW For most of the Courts existence it has functioned with the number of justices other than nine.

http://www.history.com/news/history-list...reme-court

I fail to see what the problem is with the seating of a Justice who rules by the letter of the law rather than trying to legislate from the bench. Garland is a Constitutionalist and considering teh fact that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of laws I would think that anyone with half a functioning brain would want someone like that.

The only reason this is an issue for the leftists is the fact that the Republicans finally gathered up enough stones to use the dim's tactics against them and we don't don't have a leftist majority on the Supreme Court. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate must seat a President's nominee. Garland wasn't going to be seated anyway because other than maybe leftist Lindsey and the chick from Maine none of the Republicans was going to vote for him. Perhaps if sometime in the past Obama, Harry Reid, etc would have shown a willingness for bipartisanship it would have happened but they came into power in 2008 with a "Screw you guys, we won" attitude and they reaped it in spades.

9 is not a sacrosanct number.

Per: http://www.history.com/news/history-list...reme-court

In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court.

So Congress has every right to restrain the President in terms of Supreme Court appointments

(11-27-2017 11:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I fail to see what the problem is with the seating of a Justice who rules by the letter of the law rather than trying to legislate from the bench. Garland is a Constitutionalist and considering teh fact that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of laws I would think that anyone with half a functioning brain would want someone like that.

The only reason this is an issue for the leftists is the fact that the Republicans finally gathered up enough stones to use the dim's tactics against them and we don't don't have a leftist majority on the Supreme Court. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate must seat a President's nominee. Garland wasn't going to be seated anyway because other than maybe leftist Lindsey and the chick from Maine none of the Republicans was going to vote for him. Perhaps if sometime in the past Obama, Harry Reid, etc would have shown a willingness for bipartisanship it would have happened but they came into power in 2008 with a "Screw you guys, we won" attitude and they reaped it in spades.

completely agree....

I never had a problem with Garland....he simply got caught up in the politics of it....

dems made a YUGE mistakes by setting that precedent....they doubled down on 2-2 and hit another 2....

(11-27-2017 07:56 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:The 50-year-old justice has been almost exactly what conservatives hoped for and liberals dreaded when he joined the court in April. He has consistently, even aggressively, lined up with the court’s most conservative justices. He has even split with Chief Justice John Roberts, viewed by some as insufficiently conservative because of his two opinions upholding President Barack Obama’s health law.

Liberals’ despair about Gorsuch goes beyond his judicial actions. He occupies a seat once held by Justice Antonin Scalia which they thought Obama would get to fill. But Senate Republicans refused to consider Obama’s nominee, a strategy that paid off when Donald Trump unexpectedly won the White House.

While his confirmation was pending, the liberal Alliance for Justice worried that Gorsuch would often embrace the most conservative outcome on the high court.

“Our concerns were confirmed,” said Nan Aron, the group’s president.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...35616.html

#winning

Tying. He simply replaced Scalia.

Now replacing Ginsburg or Kennedy would be winning.

(11-28-2017 09:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 07:56 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:The 50-year-old justice has been almost exactly what conservatives hoped for and liberals dreaded when he joined the court in April. He has consistently, even aggressively, lined up with the court’s most conservative justices. He has even split with Chief Justice John Roberts, viewed by some as insufficiently conservative because of his two opinions upholding President Barack Obama’s health law.

Liberals’ despair about Gorsuch goes beyond his judicial actions. He occupies a seat once held by Justice Antonin Scalia which they thought Obama would get to fill. But Senate Republicans refused to consider Obama’s nominee, a strategy that paid off when Donald Trump unexpectedly won the White House.

While his confirmation was pending, the liberal Alliance for Justice worried that Gorsuch would often embrace the most conservative outcome on the high court.

“Our concerns were confirmed,” said Nan Aron, the group’s president.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...35616.html

#winning

Tying. He simply replaced Scalia.

Now replacing Ginsburg or Kennedy would be winning.

My point being we could have ended up with someone like Souter. Gorsuch has proven to be what we hoped he'd be.

Now, on to Ginsburg. How long can she last?

(11-27-2017 11:03 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 10:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

explain if you can (rhetorical.....simply b/c you cannot)

Do you really not grasp the possible ramifications of refusing to address a sitting Presidents SC nominee like was done with Obama? What do you think happens if the situation is reversed? Of course the Dems will do the same, and it will be the GOP President whose nominees are ignored, leaving the court without 9 members and unable to function properly. This isnt about winning, it's about the integrity of the system.

Dems would've done the same thing in the same circumstance. If I recall during the waiting period, the Supreme Court still heard cases with fewer than 9 members and made decisions. And alas the Republic endured and survived in spite of the Court not being at full strength.

BTW For most of the Courts existence it has functioned with the number of justices other than nine.

http://www.history.com/news/history-list...reme-court

I think they should remove Kagan and Sotomayor and cut to 7.

(11-28-2017 09:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  Now replacing Ginsburg or Kennedy would be winning.

Hopefully, he gets to replace both!

(11-28-2017 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think they should remove Kagan and Sotomayor and cut to 7.

Fantastic idea! Then when Kennedy retires and RBG croaks, Trump can install 2 more conservatives on the 7 member panel.

(11-27-2017 10:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:20 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

Please. Apparently, you've never taken a history class and studied the hero of the Democrats, FDR. This isn't even minor league stuff compared to what he tried to pull.

Cool, so because a politician of one political party tried to do something really bad in the past, we should allow a politician of another political party to do a bad thing? Do you realize how mindlessly partisan and nonsensical that is?

So you're not admonishing the dems for doing it? The line in the sand was with this opening?

Really?

I think you probably missed that point that is HilLIARy had won (and by all reputable <<cough cough>> media outlets that was to be the case) she would have had the pick.

Congress decided the pick belonged to the incoming president -- regardless of party -- than the one with months remaining in his term.

But you keep spinning it the way that suits your narrative.

And the rest of the world will keep laughing.

(11-28-2017 10:36 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 10:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:20 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

Please. Apparently, you've never taken a history class and studied the hero of the Democrats, FDR. This isn't even minor league stuff compared to what he tried to pull.

Cool, so because a politician of one political party tried to do something really bad in the past, we should allow a politician of another political party to do a bad thing? Do you realize how mindlessly partisan and nonsensical that is?

So you're not admonishing the dems for doing it? The line in the sand was with this opening?

Really?

I think you probably missed that point that is HilLIARy had won (and by all reputable <<cough cough>> media outlets that was to be the case) she would have had the pick.

Congress decided the pick belonged to the incoming president -- regardless of party -- than the one with months remaining in his term.

But you keep spinning it the way that suits your narrative.

And the rest of the world will keep laughing.

I literally described it what FDR did as "a really bad thing", perhaps read the post you're responding to before responding?

In reality, the only thing you actually said that carries any validity to it is that the rest of the world is in fact laughing, but they're not laughing with you. They're laughing at you.

(11-28-2017 11:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:36 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 10:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:20 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

Please. Apparently, you've never taken a history class and studied the hero of the Democrats, FDR. This isn't even minor league stuff compared to what he tried to pull.

Cool, so because a politician of one political party tried to do something really bad in the past, we should allow a politician of another political party to do a bad thing? Do you realize how mindlessly partisan and nonsensical that is?

So you're not admonishing the dems for doing it? The line in the sand was with this opening?

Really?

I think you probably missed that point that is HilLIARy had won (and by all reputable <<cough cough>> media outlets that was to be the case) she would have had the pick.

Congress decided the pick belonged to the incoming president -- regardless of party -- than the one with months remaining in his term.

But you keep spinning it the way that suits your narrative.

And the rest of the world will keep laughing.

I literally described it what FDR did as "a really bad thing", perhaps read the post you're responding to before responding?

In reality, the only thing you actually said that carries any validity to it is that the rest of the world is in fact laughing, but they're not laughing with you. They're laughing at you.

Yeah, some of the socialist world leadership might be laughing -- nervously. But the people understand what's going down.

Brexit.
Poland.
Germany.
etc.

Think about it.


BTW, here's some reading material for you:

The longest Supreme Court nomination delay in history

Why the current Supreme Court nomination situation isn’t that unique

No need for nine on the Supreme Court

(11-28-2017 09:40 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 11:03 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 10:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

explain if you can (rhetorical.....simply b/c you cannot)

Do you really not grasp the possible ramifications of refusing to address a sitting Presidents SC nominee like was done with Obama? What do you think happens if the situation is reversed? Of course the Dems will do the same, and it will be the GOP President whose nominees are ignored, leaving the court without 9 members and unable to function properly. This isnt about winning, it's about the integrity of the system.

Dems would've done the same thing in the same circumstance. If I recall during the waiting period, the Supreme Court still heard cases with fewer than 9 members and made decisions. And alas the Republic endured and survived in spite of the Court not being at full strength.

BTW For most of the Courts existence it has functioned with the number of justices other than nine.

http://www.history.com/news/history-list...reme-court

I think they should remove Kagan and Sotomayor and cut to 7.

the only reason I like 9 better (under the current value of being a lifetime appointment) is the potential of losing to socialist numbers growing if the dippos don't change their platform and begin to win again.....

I'll be dead.....however, maybe my daughter and brother and sis' kids won't....

as a 'nihilist' (still lol at that one), I do care about things moving forward.....

(11-27-2017 10:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:20 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yay for further politicizing the SCOTUS nomination process! I'm sure that this won't end up harming our Union in the future, nor will it ever be used by your political opponents! Hurrah! Go team!

Please. Apparently, you've never taken a history class and studied the hero of the Democrats, FDR. This isn't even minor league stuff compared to what he tried to pull.

Cool, so because a politician of one political party tried to do something really bad in the past, we should allow a politician of another political party to do a bad thing? Do you realize how mindlessly partisan and nonsensical that is?

Your naivety is cute.

It is already a politicized process. This doesn't make it "more."

Historical references are for context and perspective. I guess that rockets over your head.

Why would any American care in the least what the rest of the world thinks of us? I know I don't GAF about any of them. At all.

(11-28-2017 12:45 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  Why would any American care in the least what the rest of the world thinks of us? I know I don't GAF about any of them. At all.

You must not be a liberal.

(11-28-2017 12:45 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  Why would any American care in the least what the rest of the world thinks of us? I know I don't GAF about any of them. At all.

These are the people that made up fake (conveniently) out of state girlfriends in high school to be cool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-28-2017 12:45 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  Why would any American care in the least what the rest of the world thinks of us? I know I don't GAF about any of them. At all.

Ask the person who brought up the notion of the rest of the world laughing at us.