I notice you don't complain about republicans when Obama nominated someone 8 months before and election and they would not allow a vote so that a republican might win the presidency. Can you show you criticized republicans on this issue? I'm 99.99999% sure you didn't.
This was a different situation. The Democrats did not control the Senate during Obama's last term. If the opposing party controls the senate, they have no obligation to bring the nominee to the floor for a vote. They also could simply vote not to confirm. The Democrats have been playing dirty far longer than the Republicans on nominating and confirming supreme court judges. They've already threatened to stack the court with justices willing to vote along with the hard left party line. They've been doing it since FDR. The fact that they already made these threats before is partly why we're going to go through with nominating and hopefully confirming another conservative justice. Conservative justices historically don't vote along the party line as much as liberal justices anyway.
We're headed for a constitutional crisis not because of Trump nominating and the Republican Senate confirming a supreme court justice but because of the ways in which the Democrats plan to take revenge. You can call me a fascist if you want. If we get to separate and split the country between liberal and conservative, it's well worth it to me.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
I notice you don't complain about republicans when Obama nominated someone 8 months before and election and they would not allow a vote so that a republican might win the presidency. Can you show you criticized republicans on this issue? I'm 99.99999% sure you didn't.
This was a different situation. The Democrats did not control the Senate during Obama's last term. If the opposing party controls the senate, they have no obligation to bring the nominee to the floor for a vote. They also could simply vote not to confirm. The Democrats have been playing dirty far longer than the Republicans on nominating and confirming supreme court judges. They've already threatened to stack the court with justices willing to vote along with the hard left party line. They've been doing it since FDR. The fact that they already made these threats before is partly why we're going to go through with nominating and hopefully confirming another conservative justice. Conservative justices historically don't vote along the party line as much as liberal justices anyway.
We're headed for a constitutional crisis not because of Trump nominating and the Republican Senate confirming a supreme court justice but because of the ways in which the Democrats plan to take revenge. You can call me a fascist if you want. If we get to separate and split the country between liberal and conservative, it's well worth it to me.
LOL Must be nice living in fantasy land. One of the things I see from from extremists like you is everything you view as your side can do no wrong and everything from the other side can do no right. With enough of you democracy will fall, but don't complain when you lose your freedoms. It's one of the reasons I think the far right dismisses anthropogenic climate change. The left accepts it so it must be wrong.
I would add that it was the republicans who argued it was wrong to nominate a justice in an election year, yet now they do a 180. They and you are hypocrites.
I bring this up every time a Supreme Court Justice dies:
A Constitutional Amendment that would limit Supreme Court terms to 18 years. The idea is that every 2 years there is a turnover. Such a system would make nominations less of a do-or-die affair. Justices would not be staying on the court just to survive until the next election. There would be less of a temptation to nominate younger justices. It would also limit undue influence a single President would have over the future of the court.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
I bring this up every time a Supreme Court Justice dies:
A Constitutional Amendment that would limit Supreme Court terms to 18 years. The idea is that every 2 years there is a turnover. Such a system would make nominations less of a do-or-die affair. Justices would not be staying on the court just to survive until the next election. There would be less of a temptation to nominate younger justices. It would also limit undue influence a single President would have over the future of the court.
seems whimsical and counter to the slow long game that should be Supreme Court.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
I bring this up every time a Supreme Court Justice dies:
A Constitutional Amendment that would limit Supreme Court terms to 18 years. The idea is that every 2 years there is a turnover. Such a system would make nominations less of a do-or-die affair. Justices would not be staying on the court just to survive until the next election. There would be less of a temptation to nominate younger justices. It would also limit undue influence a single President would have over the future of the court.
seems whimsical and counter to the slow long game that should be Supreme Court.
I wouldn't categorize an 18-year term as 'whimsical' or antithetical to the 'long game' of the court. What is the practical difference between serving 18 years or 30 years?
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
Treating the Supreme Court as a "game" is a significant part of the problem.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
It is blazingly obvious by now that the main reason Trump and McConnell are so determined to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election is that they hope to have a majority in the Supreme Court that is guaranteed to rule in Trump's favor, should he contest the results of the election, if Biden wins. Trump has now openly declared that he will not agree to step down, even if Biden wins decisively.
“I know—it sounds like dystopic science fiction,” says Chris Hayes. “We have to be honest about it, the same way we had to be honest about what the virus was going to do to this country back in late February. It is frankly a plan for an authoritarian power grab.” Aired on 09/23/2020.
I have little doubt that the most compelling reason he doesn't want to leave office is the surety that he will be indicted and prosecuted for the tax and bank frauds currently being being investigated in New York State, once he leaves. It is not just because his narcissistic ego prevents him from admitting defeat, though that probably figures strongly into it too.
I fear that there not enough Republicans, or even Justices left with both the integrity and the backbone to stand up to this tyrannical maniac! I would hope that any competent lawyers or justices who managed to rise to being prominent enough to be seriously considered for nomination to the Supreme Court would be well informed enough to realize that Trump's claims of widespread fraud in mail-in voting are simply not supported by the available objective evidence, but will they let the evidence override their partisan preferences? If not, they are unqualified for any high judicial office.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
It is scary that Trump doesn't have the wit to even pretend that he will abide by the vote of the American electorate, if it goes against him. Even dictators like Kim Jong Un are smart enough to at least pretend to abide by the vote of the people.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
I guess the main reason I think Trump supporters are so glaringly stupid is that they don't see what 's obvious. Christ, they are so fu-cking stupid. If you see anything positive about Trump, you must be moronic.
Yeah... fu-cking stupid. America has a thing for producing idiot citizens.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.