Supreme Court vacancy

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Where's the lie?

The "lie" is in the hypocrisy. If a muslim judge were to be nominated, and the republicans were to react as this quote says (and some would ) the same democrats using her religion as a deterrent now would be claiming you can't use religion as a test.

It is the underlying problem that is bigger than Trump or Biden, why media bias is only a tip of the iceberg and why otherwise reasonable men and women can come into web forums and be at odds with each other to the point of complete disengagement.

The "it" is hypocrisy. Everyone of us on this forum, including me, has let it seep into the discussion. It is why the US has no underlying unity any more and why the media can spin things left right up and down. The US as a whole suffers from the disease of its ok if its my side doing it

I feel like solidsnake now but we are very literally doomed as a country because of it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The "lie" is in the hypocrisy. If a muslim judge were to be nominated, and the republicans were to react as this quote says (and some would ) the same democrats using her religion as a deterrent now would be claiming you can't use religion as a test.

It is the underlying problem that is bigger than Trump or Biden, why media bias is only a tip of the iceberg and why otherwise reasonable men and women can come into web forums and be at odds with each other to the point of complete disengagement.

The "it" is hypocrisy. Everyone of us on this forum, including me, has let it seep into the discussion. It is why the US has no underlying unity any more and why the media can spin things left right up and down. The US as a whole suffers from the disease of its ok if its my side doing it

I feel like solidsnake now but we are very literally doomed as a country because of it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Ah, but I'm not saying all Republicans would react in that manner. The hardcore Christians and the racists using conservatives to further their agenda would though.

I agree with you on the bolded part though. And I think it's only going to get worse in the next few months, no matter if Trump wins or loses. But it starts at the top with him. We will never agree or compromise on anything when our leader won't set the example.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Quoting an outright Anti Semitic. JFC...amazing

You're not worth the effort Chico. Have a good day.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

You're not worth the effort Chico. Have a good day.

Wait, you don’t want to hear my hypothetical if the nominee was orthodox Jewish what Ilan Omar would say?

She is an outright anti Semitic with a history of statements and policy proposals. You are just fine with it. White gop’er saying this you would have a meltdown. This is a problem.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Ah, but I'm not saying all Republicans would react in that manner. The hardcore Christians and the racists using conservatives to further their agenda would though.



I agree with you on the bolded part though. And I think it's only going to get worse in the next few months, no matter if Trump wins or loses. But it starts at the top with him. We will never agree or compromise on anything when our leader won't set the example.

And I am not saying all Democrats would react hypocritically. Although in both parties the higher up the totem pole the more hypocrisy shines through.


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Lol y’all know Chico is just messing with you all.

See, the sad thing is we know he isn't.

[SunnySide]

The paralegal cubicle outside my office is playing the Barrett confirmation hearings out loud .. so I get the joy of listening to the whole thing.

While I do wish SCOTUS nominees would have more than 3 years experience on the bench, she does sound qualified. Much better temparment than Kavanaugh who frankly seemed to be too emotionally fragile.

Constitution originalists like Scalia kinda scare me. They believe the protections under the Constitution are only for what is expressly stated within the 4 corners of the document. A document ratified in 1787. Anything else should fall under "states rights".

They do not believe the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted and applied to modern times and context.

^^ that sounds acceptable? right?

Except these same "originalists" selectively choose when to be "states rights" and other times ignores "original intent" approach when it does not benefit their conservative view.

Example?

Abortion.

No where in the constitution is the word 'abortion" used. yet these originalists use word play and interpretation to make abortion illegal under the Constitution.

If the Constitution does not expressly forbid abortion ... then there should not be any constitutional challenges to abortion laws.

[mooby]

[sdskinsfan2001]

A Hawaii (female) Senator asked ACB if she was ever a sexual predator. Seriously, WTF? Is this a confirmation hearing or a persecution? Feels more like the Salem Witch Trials.

[SunnySide]

“Don’t think when you have established the rule of ‘because we can,’ that should the shoe be on the other foot, you will have any credibility to come to us and say: ‘yeah, I know you can do that, but you shouldn’t,’” Whitehouse said. “Your credibility to make that argument at any time in the future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue.”

The Rhode Island Democrat succinctly stated what’s on everyone’s mind: Once Barrett is confirmed, all bets are off about how the Senate — and the Supreme Court — might look a few months from now if Democrats sweep in November.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...rvd?li=BBnb7Kz

Watching the live clip of his full comments ... he basically put the Republicans on notice. By not confirming Obama's nominee with 11 months left "because the American people should have a say" and then rushing Barrett's confirmation in days before election day ..

Civility and statesmanship, whatever was left of it, has died.

If the Dems take the Presidency and Senate ... how can republicans be taken seriously when they object to the Dems rushing through judicial appointments or whatever else they want to do. Senate minority has been rendered toothless over the past 4 years.

[Chico23231]

Lol this thread...

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

“Don’t think when you have established the rule of ‘because we can,’ that should the shoe be on the other foot, you will have any credibility to come to us and say: ‘yeah, I know you can do that, but you shouldn’t,’” Whitehouse said. “Your credibility to make that argument at any time in the future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue.”



The Rhode Island Democrat succinctly stated what’s on everyone’s mind: Once Barrett is confirmed, all bets are off about how the Senate — and the Supreme Court — might look a few months from now if Democrats sweep in November.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...rvd?li=BBnb7Kz



Watching the live clip of his full comments ... he basically put the Republicans on notice. By not confirming Obama's nominee with 11 months left "because the American people should have a say" and then rushing Barrett's confirmation in days before election day ..



Civility and statesmanship, whatever was left of it, has died.



If the Dems take the Presidency and Senate ... how can republicans be taken seriously when they object to the Dems rushing through judicial appointments or whatever else they want to do. Senate minority has been rendered toothless over the past 4 years.

I will say this, with all sincerity, if as you have claimed, the Democrats will be running the show for the indefinable future, then isn't it a good thing to have the 3rd branch of government positioned in such a way that there is an oppositional and effective check on unregulated executive and legislative branches.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I will say this, with all sincerity, if as you have claimed, the Democrats will be running the show for the indefinable future, then isn't it a good thing to have the 3rd branch of government positioned in such a way that there is an oppositional and effective check on unregulated executive and legislative branches.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

1. I think theres a chance (just from what I read) that the Dems take the Senate this time bc the Rs have a bunch of seats on the ballot vs 2018 when the Dems had to defend a bunch of seats. I am just going off what Ive read, I have zero original thoughts on this.

2. Yes I agree it would be beneficial, as long as the SCOTUS sticks to judicial cannons (oaths to be fair, etc). In 20-30 years, I dont want some AOC president ramming through far left agendas. I expect the 6-3 SCOTUS to lean conservative. I can live with that. But I hope they dont become an operative arm of the GOP, with the GOP running to the SC every time a dem President signs an executive order. That would be a problem imo.

If Clarence Thomas gets his way and overturns Roe v Wade or Obergefell (same sex marriage) ... i would have major problems with the SCOTUS. I would expect protests like we have never seen and i honestly dont think the republicans even want that.

Its like the dog chasing the car. Now that you caught up to the car, what are you going to do now? did you think this through?

3. What McConnnell did to the process of placing justices on the SC will not be forgotten for a long time. For the past 6 years, he has done anything he could to put party over Country. Civility and statesmanship was dying in Congress but McConnell drove it off a cliff.

Lots of us Dems are really pissed off at McConnell and the hypocrisy of the republicans. The Chicos of the world can laugh and roll around enjoying our anger ... but I hope the moderates can agree that this is not good for the future of congress. The camels back is broken. Enjoy the stolen seat on the SCOTUS, but it will cost the republicans in the end.

[Chico23231]

Dems should have never changed the rules...cocaine Mitch stood up and said you will regret it. He was right

That’s where your beef should be...but that was the dems power grab, Obama was good with it, Schumer and Pelosi celebrated.

Own it now!

[SunnySide]

Yes, the Dems did lower the threshold to simple majority for federal judicial appointments.

Yes, McConnell rightfully warned the Dems this will come back to bite them

Yes, the Dems kept the blue slip policy

Yes, McConnell lowered the threshold for Supreme Court picks to a simple majority

Yes, McConnell did away with the blue slip policy

Yes, McConnell refused to allow vetting of Garland with 10 months to go in Obamas term so "the american people have a say"

Yes, McConnell then ignored the "american people have a say" by rushing Barretts confirmation just days before an election

Yes, Dems have warned McConnell that this will comeback to bite him

Yes, one day one of the party's will do away with legislative filibusters thereby creating a simple majority rule in the Senate for legislation and policy (and that will be a sad for every American, regardless of political affiliation)