(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Merrick Garland as her replacement for the full $25B for Trump to use as any sort of wall that he wants and an agreed to end to all this "sanctuary" city and state BS.

1. Amy Coney Barrett as the replacement.

2. Declare an emergency and build the wall.

3. Listen to the liberals go REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

(01-11-2019 09:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Merrick Garland as her replacement for the full $25B for Trump to use as any sort of wall that he wants and an agreed to end to all this "sanctuary" city and state BS.

And DACA.

Unfortunately he's a liar and I doubt he would follow through.

(01-11-2019 03:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:31 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Yes

No. SCJ for the Wall? Why? You have the confirmation votes in the Senate now for your SCJ and you don't even have to have a moderate. One more SCJ and getting a ruling that the wall is an emergency gives you both the Wall and the SCJ. It's absolutely a fail to negotiate on the Supreme Court Justice when gaining that essentially gives you the wall, if not now, soon.

And that's even if the Emergency Funding for the wall needs a ruling and I don't think it does.

For the good of the country, I don’t think an overly partisan court in either direction is a good thing. Someone pro-gun for sure, to lock that issue down for generations.

For the sanity of the left. They are teetering right now, and if they lose RBG for ACB, I think terrorism is an actual concern.

Shaking hands on a deal instead of ramming it through via national emergency (and setting the precedent for the dems) would also bump Trump’s approval rating and his chances in 2020.

Another Kavanaugh and a wall? I take that deal.

The point is we don't have to make a deal at all. They were given their chance for a deal. There is a much needed lesson in it for all of them. If we could get another Kavanaugh then let's get him or her. But we don't need to deal to do it. It would be a sign of weakness.

And quite frankly they need to know that as long as extremists drive their agenda Americans can have no compromise with them.

And one more thing, as long as they have Kagan and Sotomayor they have 1 too many.

Well Thomas is getting up there. I won't be comfortable until we either replace him or get a 6th conservative.

(01-11-2019 07:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 06:44 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I would define a moderate as someone who wouldn't overturn Roe vs Wade.

The Democrats don’t trust the Republicans to nominate a “moderate” and the Republicans don’t trust the Democrats to confirm a “moderate.”

So, the “moderate” nominee would have to be specified and agreed to by all parties ahead of time.

I would probably consider Joan Larsen, the 6th App. judge from Michigan who was confirmed 60-38 to her current position in 2017.

Wasn't Kavanaugh nearly unanimous to the Appeals Court? Then entirely partisan when he gets to the Supreme Court. The Democrats simply won't approve anyone qualified if they are even moderately conservative.

(01-11-2019 03:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:31 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Yes

No. SCJ for the Wall? Why? You have the confirmation votes in the Senate now for your SCJ and you don't even have to have a moderate. One more SCJ and getting a ruling that the wall is an emergency gives you both the Wall and the SCJ. It's absolutely a fail to negotiate on the Supreme Court Justice when gaining that essentially gives you the wall, if not now, soon.
And that's even if the Emergency Funding for the wall needs a ruling and I don't think it does.

For the good of the country, I don’t think an overly partisan court in either direction is a good thing. Someone pro-gun for sure, to lock that issue down for generations.
For the sanity of the left. They are teetering right now, and if they lose RBG for ACB, I think terrorism is an actual concern.
Shaking hands on a deal instead of ramming it through via national emergency (and setting the precedent for the dems) would also bump Trump’s approval rating and his chances in 2020.
Another Kavanaugh and a wall? I take that deal.

The point is we don't have to make a deal at all. They were given their chance for a deal. There is a much needed lesson in it for all of them. If we could get another Kavanaugh then let's get him or her. But we don't need to deal to do it. It would be a sign of weakness.
And quite frankly they need to know that as long as extremists drive their agenda Americans can have no compromise with them.
And one more thing, as long as they have Kagan and Sotomayor they have 1 too many.

2 too many.

Although Sotomayor did vote for our side in the case where I worked on an amicus brief.

(01-11-2019 11:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:31 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Yes

No. SCJ for the Wall? Why? You have the confirmation votes in the Senate now for your SCJ and you don't even have to have a moderate. One more SCJ and getting a ruling that the wall is an emergency gives you both the Wall and the SCJ. It's absolutely a fail to negotiate on the Supreme Court Justice when gaining that essentially gives you the wall, if not now, soon.

And that's even if the Emergency Funding for the wall needs a ruling and I don't think it does.

For the good of the country, I don’t think an overly partisan court in either direction is a good thing. Someone pro-gun for sure, to lock that issue down for generations.

For the sanity of the left. They are teetering right now, and if they lose RBG for ACB, I think terrorism is an actual concern.

Shaking hands on a deal instead of ramming it through via national emergency (and setting the precedent for the dems) would also bump Trump’s approval rating and his chances in 2020.

Another Kavanaugh and a wall? I take that deal.

The point is we don't have to make a deal at all. They were given their chance for a deal. There is a much needed lesson in it for all of them. If we could get another Kavanaugh then let's get him or her. But we don't need to deal to do it. It would be a sign of weakness.

And quite frankly they need to know that as long as extremists drive their agenda Americans can have no compromise with them.

And one more thing, as long as they have Kagan and Sotomayor they have 1 too many.

Well Thomas is getting up there. I won't be comfortable until we either replace him or get a 6th conservative.

Very possible Thomas retires this summer.

(01-11-2019 08:40 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

You mean, like the kind of deal that Tip O'Neill and the democrats welshed on with Reagan?

I think that's really the problem here. Neither side trusts the other on this issue after that, and I don't know how one negotiates with someone whom he/she doesn't trust.

I don't really think much of the wall, so that's not a trade I would make. I would counter with how about we drop the wall, we enact a merit-based comprehensive immigration system (hell, for all the finger-pointing young Trudeau has done, I'd take Canada's law over ours in a heartbeat), and I get to appoint whomever I want to the SCt. At this point, probably the biggest positives I see from Trump are the corporate tax cut (not a fan of the personal tax changes) and SCt nominees, and the biggest negatives are the wall and tariffs, so I definitely would not favor giving up a positive to get a negative.

By the way, define "moderate." Merrick Garland is not a moderate. His views on gun control, among others, rule that out. I would have agreed to nominate a moderate, even Garland specifically, to replace RBG or whoever was the first liberal to go, in exchange for agreement to end the character assassination process for Kavanaugh. Garland for any of Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer would move the court to the right. But now that democrats went there, nope.

The problem with laws over physical barriers is decades or maybe even years from now the enforcement becomes selective. The I-9 law for example: that was supposed to keep ILLEGALS from working in the US. The problem just a decade or so after that passed enforcement became lax and penalties for failure to comply are not punitive enough to discourage violators. If I-9 were strictly enforced and harsh penalties levied for failure to comply we'd have very few illegals coming to the US.

Walls are effective for stopping mass incursion but do not address the underlying issue, bringing US immigration law into the 21st century. We must decide how many legal immigrants can be effectively integrated into the US each year on hold to that. Finally neither party wants to solve the, the GOP doesn't since illegals are a source of cheap labor for donors, the democrats don't since they view illegals as another demographic they can exploit using politics of fear.

The I-9s don't solve the employment problem. Its not that hard to get false documents. However, strict enforcement would control some of the worst abuses. I think we should throw some employers in jail who fail to comply. I-9s aren't hard to do.

(01-11-2019 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:31 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:09 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Yes

No. SCJ for the Wall? Why? You have the confirmation votes in the Senate now for your SCJ and you don't even have to have a moderate. One more SCJ and getting a ruling that the wall is an emergency gives you both the Wall and the SCJ. It's absolutely a fail to negotiate on the Supreme Court Justice when gaining that essentially gives you the wall, if not now, soon.
And that's even if the Emergency Funding for the wall needs a ruling and I don't think it does.

For the good of the country, I don’t think an overly partisan court in either direction is a good thing. Someone pro-gun for sure, to lock that issue down for generations.
For the sanity of the left. They are teetering right now, and if they lose RBG for ACB, I think terrorism is an actual concern.
Shaking hands on a deal instead of ramming it through via national emergency (and setting the precedent for the dems) would also bump Trump’s approval rating and his chances in 2020.
Another Kavanaugh and a wall? I take that deal.

The point is we don't have to make a deal at all. They were given their chance for a deal. There is a much needed lesson in it for all of them. If we could get another Kavanaugh then let's get him or her. But we don't need to deal to do it. It would be a sign of weakness.
And quite frankly they need to know that as long as extremists drive their agenda Americans can have no compromise with them.
And one more thing, as long as they have Kagan and Sotomayor they have 1 too many.

2 too many.

Although Sotomayor did vote for our side in the case where I worked on an amicus brief.

My ideal court would have 3 strict conservatives like we have now, 2 moderate conservatives like Roberts/Alito, 1 right leaning moderate like Sandra Day O'Connor and 3 classic liberals like Stephen Breyer. No Ginsburgs or Sotomayors. Not sure yet on Kagan whether she is more like Breyer or more like Ginsburg.

(01-11-2019 03:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 03:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

You mean, like the kind of deal that Tip O'Neill and the democrats welshed on with Reagan?

I think that's really the problem here. Neither side trusts the other on this issue after that, and I don't know how one negotiates with someone whom he/she doesn't trust.

I don't really think much of the wall, so that's not a trade I would make. I would counter with how about we drop the wall, we enact a merit-based comprehensive immigration system (hell, for all the finger-pointing young Trudeau has done, I'd take Canada's law over ours in a heartbeat), and I get to appoint whomever I want to the SCt. At this point, probably the biggest positives I see from Trump are the corporate tax cut (not a fan of the personal tax changes) and SCt nominees, and the biggest negatives are the wall and tariffs, so I definitely would not favor giving up a positive to get a negative.

By the way, define "moderate." Merrick Garland is not a moderate. His views on gun control, among others, rule that out. I would have agreed to nominate a moderate, even Garland specifically, to replace RBG or whoever was the first liberal to go, in exchange for agreement to end the character assassination process for Kavanaugh. Garland for any of Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer would move the court to the right. But now that democrats went there, nope.

The way the ultra left blue States are headed and with more conservative Boomers phasing out, we need every conservative or right leaning moderate we can get on the court if our grandchildren are to have anything to hang onto for the future.

The balance cannot be measured in terms of the Supreme Court only. The Supreme Court has to be held in equilibrium with the Executive and Legislative branches. Once Trump fills a second term it may be very difficult to rely upon regaining the house, especially with some former red areas of Texas turning blue and with Virginia looking like it has been flipped just enough to keep it blue.

So my point is the Court may be the only line of defense against what the media and the left are seeking to accomplish. Therefore, any compromise on the SCourt jeopardizes the balance because it may be the only one of the 3 branches safeguarding our rights for the next few decades until the utter nonsense that threatens our nation today has run its course as the young grow older and wiser.

So I just can't see where any compromise on the Supreme Court nominees can be an acceptable strategy for conservatives. We should replace RBG with another conservative while we have the chance, and possibly replace one of the older justices with a younger conservative while we have the chance. If in 2020 the Republicans lose seats in the Senate, and fail to regain a majority in the House, we might find ourselves in tough times trying to keep the Court as a counterbalance to the other lunacy.

XACLY!

for the foreseeable future, the R's are going to have a tough time keeping up or regaining control of the house...

when I think of where this country would be if hrc had won, I can only cringe what spending policy and the court would look like right now....

Years ago on Saturday Night Live it was "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!". Today throughout the liberal media it will be "Ruth Bader Ginsberg is still alive!".

(01-11-2019 10:52 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 09:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

Merrick Garland as her replacement for the full $25B for Trump to use as any sort of wall that he wants and an agreed to end to all this "sanctuary" city and state BS.

And DACA.

Unfortunately he's a liar and I doubt he would follow through.

Agreed. End DACA. All recipients go to the back of the line for citizenship. They are given quarterly hearings they must show up to until they receive permanent resident status or citizenship or else their status is terminated. Any criminal conviction for violent crime or drugs is an immediate termination of status and deportation. Attending a trade school or college, enlistment in civil or military service, or long-term gainful employment (not minumum wage) accelerate their path to citizenship or permanent resident status.

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

I'd take the deal as long as the funding came first and was fully secured.


Then I'd pay the dims back for crawfishing Reagan by nominating Amy Coney Barrett or Joan Larsen.

(01-11-2019 12:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:58 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hypothetical - if Pelosi/Schumer go to Trump and say we'll give you the funding on the wall if you assure us that you will name a moderate to replace RBG. Would you go for that?

I'd take the deal as long as the funding came first and was fully secured.


Then I'd pay the dims back for crawfishing Reagan by nominating Amy Coney Barrett or Joan Larsen.

He doesn't need to give the Dems anything. Them voting for a measly $5million dollars is them giving nothing. It doesn't negatively effect them in any way. They will be the ones getting what they want.

(01-11-2019 07:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 06:44 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I would define a moderate as someone who wouldn't overturn Roe vs Wade.

The Democrats don’t trust the Republicans to nominate a “moderate” and the Republicans don’t trust the Democrats to confirm a “moderate.”

So, the “moderate” nominee would have to be specified and agreed to by all parties ahead of time.

I would probably consider Joan Larsen, the 6th App. judge from Michigan who was confirmed 60-38 to her current position in 2017.

The leftists wouldn't consider her a moderate because of this passage in the op-ed she wrote about Scalia after his death.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opini...calia.html

Quote:Justice Scalia believed in one simple principle: That law came to the court as an is not an ought. Statutes, cases and the Constitution were to be read for what they said, not for what the judges wished they would say. Each of his opinions needed to conform to that principle and to be written clearly, forcefully and accurately.

With a belief system like that she can't "re-write" the law to suit their purposes.

Just announced, Ginsberg will miss next week as well. They claim her recovery is "on track" whatever that means. I suspect while this is being downplayed, her issues are far more serious than what is being disclosed.

(01-11-2019 12:49 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Just announced, Ginsberg will miss next week as well. They claim her recovery is "on track" whatever that means. I suspect while this is being downplayed, her issues are far more serious than what is being disclosed.

My guess she is on hospice care and the White House has been informed of such.

(01-11-2019 12:49 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Just announced, Ginsberg will miss next week as well. They claim her recovery is "on track" whatever that means. I suspect while this is being downplayed, her issues are far more serious than what is being disclosed.

She’s hanging on for Mueller‘s report .....

(01-11-2019 12:55 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:49 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Just announced, Ginsberg will miss next week as well. They claim her recovery is "on track" whatever that means. I suspect while this is being downplayed, her issues are far more serious than what is being disclosed.

She’s hanging on for Mueller‘s report .....

(01-11-2019 12:49 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Just announced, Ginsberg will miss next week as well. They claim her recovery is "on track" whatever that means. I suspect while this is being downplayed, her issues are far more serious than what is being disclosed.

that's my take as well....