Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1196410]LOL, sure you're not. That's why all of a sudden "news source's " you respected are now crap becuase they don't fit your narrative ,don't look now but that is a trump cult thing to do .[/quote]

Conspiracy theories aren't news...its gossip and tabloid. Belongs on a news stand next to the National Enquirer.

If you chose to trust these sources as legitimate news then maybe you rethink some things.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

I'm just saying that the whole scenario as laid out doesn't make logical sense, unless you assume one of our top 9 justices is corrupt. If someone wants to lay out the thought process in a coherent manner I would really appreciate it.

Mooby has presented the very plausible idea that Mueller's probe is looking into Deutsche Bank ties with Trump to Russia, where Russia then exerts influence over Trump and Trump in turn has been acting on it rather than using the full power of the US to stop it. Ok. If evidence is turned up proving this, then Trump should be impeached.

So let's assume that this (or something of this nature) is the underpinning of all of the Trump investigation and that Trump is indeed worried there is something there. Then Trump would have it as a goal to get a Justice on the court to go along with protecting him. OK, so if you then assume that Kennedy's son is not only privvy to shady dealings but implicit in them, that would give you a path to get from Trump/Russia to Trump/Kennedy.


BUT at this point, even if ALL of that is true, you have to then say we have a respected SC Justice who is willing to be complicit in this by peacefully resigning, instead of using his immense authority and powers and/or notifying the ongoing special prosecutor, with the direct purpose of allowing corruption to continue in the presidency and by saying who he thinks would best go along with it, in the SC as well.

Somewhere I am missing a logical connection that makes the thread substantive. I don't for a minute accept the idea that Justice Kennedy would sacrifice the SC and his own legacy for a President, especially if he believed that President to be corrupt.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1196411]Conspiracy theories aren't news...its gossip and tabloid. Belongs on a news stand next to the National Enquirer.

If you chose to trust these sources as legitimate news then maybe you rethink some things.[/quote]



Chico, [B]DENIAL isn't just a river in Egypt any more.[/B]:postcop:

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196386]How is it wrong for a sitting president to ask a resigning Justice who he would favor for his replacement?[/quote]

I don't know of any rule or ethical requirement that would prohibit such a conversation. I believe, however, that justices are supposed to remain removed from the selection process in order to preserve the court's impartiality in the country's political process. Separation of powers and all that.

(Strictly speaking, under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," not other judges.)

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1196433]I don't know of any rule or ethical requirement that would prohibit such a conversation. I believe, however, that justices are supposed to remain removed from the selection process in order to preserve the court's impartiality in the country's political process. Separation of powers and all that.

(Strictly speaking, under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," not other judges.)[/quote]

Ok. But as I understand it you kinda practice law or something.

So, if a lawyer in a department is leaving, and the boss wants that lawyer's opinion on who might be a good replacement, is that ethically wrong to ask? Would you assume sinister intent if you were asked?

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196434]Ok. But as I understand it you kinda practice law or something.

So, if a lawyer in a department is leaving, and the boss wants that lawyer's opinion on who might be a good replacement, is that ethically wrong to ask? Would you assume sinister intent if you were asked?[/quote]

No, it is not ethically wrong for an employer to ask an employee to recommend a replacement.

However, a Supreme Court justice is not an [I]employee[/I] of the President but rather a member of a separate and equal branch of the government. Does that make it inherently ethically wrong? No. Do I think its good practice? No.

Does it have the potential to create unnecessary entanglements of justices in the political process? Yes. Think about it ... do we want justices lobbying presidents cutting side deals during elections or with sitting Presidents? "You know ... if I retire, you could appoint my successor. Oh by the way, I hear there is a nice little ambassadorship opening up in the Caribbean. If I can't get that, I might as well stay on the bench."

I realize that's pretty cynical and hyperbole but it's not a path we want to start down.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1196436]No, it is not ethically wrong for an employer to ask an employee to recommend a replacement.

However, a Supreme Court justice is not an [I]employee[/I] of the President but rather a member of a separate and equal branch of the government. Does that make it inherently ethically wrong? No. Do I think its good practice? No.

Does it have the potential to create unnecessary entanglements of justices in the political process? Yes. Think about it ... do we want justices lobbying presidents cutting side deals during elections or with sitting Presidents? "You know ... if I retire, you could appoint my successor. Oh by the way, I hear there is a nice little ambassadorship opening up in the Caribbean. If I can't get that, I might as well stay on the bench."

I realize that's pretty cynical and hyperbole but it's not a path we want to start down.[/quote]

So instead of asking a judge, who had a lifetime appointment, and can retire at his/her choosing (I doubt that any of them are really in need of an ambassadorship at the fine spry age of 80, though if RBG wants to be leave for 1 - I'm ok with that), we should ask those 100 fine apolitical senators, or a nice neutral group like the heritage foundation or ACLU.

Nominating a new SC Justice is the one case in all of our constitution (I think) where the executive branch and the legislative branch, through advise and consent, get to bring politics directly into the SC. If it can be headed off by asking a well respected moderate justice who they think would be the ideal replacement, I would take that 50 times out of 50, over the political side show that is about to ensue.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1196426]Chico, [B]DENIAL isn't just a river in Egypt any more.[/B]:postcop:[/quote]

G1 rethinking some things “u know, why haven’t we been back to the moon?”...”Area 51, possible next vacation spot?”.....googles: trump + Illuminati....

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1196443]G1 rethinking some things “u know, why haven’t we been back to the moon?”...”Area 51, possible next vacation spot?”.....googles: trump + Illuminati....[/quote]

LOL, # triggered.:spank:

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

RBG has passed away. Rest In Peace.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

I guess any political pissing can go here and keep the RIP thread just condolences.

Mitch is going to Mitch. If the dems can’t stop it, they can’t stop it. But there is a price to be paid. This would be the final nail in civil democracy and decorum. The future generations are going to be majority Democrat. In 20 years even Texas will be blue or at least tightly contested. You can steal a SC seat now but within my lifetime, it will be Dems controlling the legis and executive for decades to come.

Older white people and rural whites are a decreasing demographic. Democrat voters are only rising. It’s inevitable. 10 to 20 years from now republicans can whine but statesmanship was killed by McConnell.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Cry some more lib

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Lol many will ... I’m okay. If Mitch can get it in, he can get it in.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Personally for the country sake, and his reelection chance Trump should put forth his candidate ask Biden to do the same, and ask the senate to wait until january. By making the election about the SC he will have an energized base and the liberals will be divided over who there nominee should pick.

And, by taking the high road of waiting, the country will hopefully accept the outcome in January more easily.

While a conservative in this seat would cement the majority for a long time having a moderate liberal which is who Biden would have to put forth, it would still keep or shift the balance to the right some.

But Trump is likely going to name someone, and the Senate Republicans will screw it up by attacking each other rather than looking at the long game.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=SunnySide;1259252]I guess any political pissing can go here and keep the RIP thread just condolences.

Mitch is going to Mitch. If the dems can’t stop it, they can’t stop it. But there is a price to be paid. [B]This would be the final nail in civil democracy and decorum. The future generations are going to be majority Democrat. [/B]In 20 years even Texas will be blue or at least tightly contested. You can steal a SC seat now but within my lifetime, it will be Dems controlling the legis and executive for decades to come.

Older white people and rural whites are a decreasing demographic. Democrat voters are only rising. It’s inevitable. 10 to 20 years from now republicans can whine but statesmanship was killed by McConnell.[/quote]

That coffin is already nailed up. If the other part is true, that's actually an argument to try to cram one down now. And pick the youngest candidate to boot because we might never get a chance to appoint one again.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1259252]I guess any political pissing can go here and keep the RIP thread just condolences.



Mitch is going to Mitch. If the dems can’t stop it, they can’t stop it. But there is a price to be paid. This would be the final nail in civil democracy and decorum. The future generations are going to be majority Democrat. In 20 years even Texas will be blue or at least tightly contested. You can steal a SC seat now but within my lifetime, it will be Dems controlling the legis and executive for decades to come.



Older white people and rural whites are a decreasing demographic. Democrat voters are only rising. It’s inevitable. 10 to 20 years from now republicans can whine but statesmanship was killed by McConnell.[/QUOTE]This assumes an inaccurate detail. That race determines politics. When people see the devastation of liberal financial policies and as conservatives shed their outdated social policies the balance will shift again. That is the pendulumn of politics and it will always happen. I will be glad when race is no longer a tool that dems use to separate us.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

CRED - race is a part of it. But also gender and age. Each year the dem base grows, the republican base shrinks. Republicans tried to shred their outdated social platform leading up to 2016 ... then trump happened.

I personally wish someone like Kasich or Paul Ryan would step forward and steer the Republican Party back to center. I’m 42 and I should be morphing into a republican but I just can’t get on board with a Trump train wreck or a Ted Cruz or a Tom cotton. If they guys follow trump, lots of 40 and 50 something educated won’t be switching over.

The Republican Party is literally dying. They usually only lead in white voters but even that is changing.

You can’t defend a guy like trump then expect independents or educated people to join.

[url]https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/[/url]

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Devastation of liberal financial policies??

Come on c red .... that’s laughable considering what Trump has done btw tarriffs requiring huge bailouts for farmers (bigger than Obama during the recession created by bush), sky rocketing deficit accrues during a time of good growth economy ... trumps gdp is average compared to what it should be .. tax reform intentionally targeting blue states ...

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1259262]CRED - race is a part of it. But also gender and age. Each year the dem base grows, the republican base shrinks. Republicans tried to shred their outdated social platform leading up to 2016 ... then trump happened.



I personally wish someone like Kasich or Paul Ryan would step forward and steer the Republican Party back to center. I’m 42 and I should be morphing into a republican but I just can’t get on board with a Trump train wreck or a Ted Cruz or a Tom cotton. If they guys follow trump, lots of 40 and 50 something educated won’t be switching over.



The Republican Party is literally dying. They usually only lead in white voters but even that is changing.



You can’t defend a guy like trump then expect independents or educated people to join.



[url]https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/[/url][/QUOTE]I am fine with the republican party dying but the values of fiscal conservatism (obviously Trump is not that) wont so at some point a party without the race/gender stigma that supports non liberal/socialist platforms will take hold either under a republican banner or like the WFT under a name not yet known.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1259263]Devastation of liberal financial policies??



Come on c red .... that’s laughable considering what Trump has done btw tarriffs requiring huge bailouts for farmers (bigger than Obama during the recession created by bush), sky rocketing deficit accrues during a time of good growth economy ... trumps gdp is average compared to what it should be .. tax reform intentionally targeting blue states ...[/QUOTE]Trump is not a fiscal conservative. What his policies show is that if there is not a viable sane economic party we will be headed the way of argentina.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

I could get on board with that but I don’t it will be through the Republican Party. They went far right when they should have hedged towards center. I fear now the democrats will now go far left as well.

Sucks for us and the country. My straw is open borders. They do open borders, I’m grabbing. Pitch fork.

Good talking with ya man. Got a 8 lb pork shoulder that I wasn’t able to trim to 4 so now I gotta slow roast the whole damn thing ...

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1259267]I could get on board with that but I don’t it will be through the Republican Party. They went far right when they should have hedged towards center. I fear now the democrats will now go far left as well.



Sucks for us and the country. My straw is open borders. They do open borders, I’m grabbing. Pitch fork.



Good talking with ya man. Got a 8 lb pork shoulder that I wasn’t able to trim to 4 so now I gotta slow roast the whole damn thing ...[/QUOTE]When do i need to be there with plate fork and beer??? Lol

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1259259]This assumes an inaccurate detail. That race determines politics. When people see the devastation of liberal financial policies and as conservatives shed their outdated social policies the balance will shift again. That is the pendulumn of politics and it will always happen. I will be glad when race is no longer a tool that dems use to separate us.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

Exactly...spot on.

Especially the fact democratic policies have a poor track record within the minority communities they govern...when you ask why, they have no answer. You are starting to see Conservatives outreach to black candidates there, it’s refreshing to see libs quiet with these candidates because when you have equal footing on identity politics, then you have to actually speak policy and ideas. Democrats should have to answer for their records within the shitholes they govern.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Based on the most disgraceful and dishonest political stunt of our lifetime: Kavenaugh nomination and confirmation...there should be no compromise. They should pay for that bullshit now.

To act like that was ok is completely unacceptable. It’s was the most dishonest and disgraceful hit job of our life time politically.

Give me the most conservative judge possible NOW

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Are we really going to pretend 2016 didn't happen?

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1259270]Based on the most disgraceful and dishonest political stunt of our lifetime: Kavenaugh nomination and confirmation...there should be no compromise. They should pay for that bullshit now.



To act like that was ok is completely unacceptable. It’s was the most dishonest and disgraceful hit job of our life time politically.



Give me the most conservative judge possible NOW[/QUOTE]



What fuckin world do you live in?

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1259265]Trump is not a fiscal conservative. What his policies show is that if there is not a viable sane economic party we will be headed the way of argentina.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]



His policies. Thats funny. His policies. Hahahaha.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1259273]Are we really going to pretend 2016 didn't happen?[/QUOTE]



Thee most hypocritical move in the history of American politics. After the Trumpublicans lose the White House and the Senate I hope the Dems expand the number of judges. Let the Republicans pay.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1259268]When do i need to be there with plate fork and beer??? Lol

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

Yeah man .. about 10:30 tonight when that thing is done. Insert crying emoji

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=MTK;1259273]Are we really going to pretend 2016 didn't happen?[/quote]

RIP Merrick Garland. May he rest in peace this day and forever

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=MTK;1259273]Are we really going to pretend 2016 didn't happen?[/quote]

evidently chico is.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=MTK;1259273]Are we really going to pretend 2016 didn't happen?[/quote]

I certainly understand the Republican(ish) position on this.
In 2014 the US Senate became Republican with the voter intent to frustrate President Obama's agenda.
In 2018 the US Senate remained Republican in a large part due to the SC and lower court appointments Trump was nominating.


That said, I personally would prefer Trump announcing who he would nominate, and then asking the Senate to wait until after the new Senate is called to session.

or nominate Merritt Garland just for the pure political comedy of it!

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=MTK;1259273]Are we really going to pretend 2016 didn't happen?[/quote]

Precedent is out the fuckin' window. Anything goes to advance one party's agenda. Just hope Chico remembers that the next time blue is in charge.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

2018, dems had 26 senate seats up for re-election, Republicans had 9. Only one of the R seats was in a state won by Clinton. To say the 2018 results were the American people’s will and shows what the nation wants is a stretch. Hillary beat trump by 3 million Americans wishes and wants.

Now the senate, where New York gets the same votes as North Dakota, will decide. Let’s not try to spin this. It’s a political no holds bar, no turning back move.

Obama had 11 months left in his presidency, Trump has something like 41 days. First republicans said not during an election year. Now it’s not during an election year if a different party holds the senate.

No senate will ever vote on a SCOTUS nomination by a different party president no matter how long the president has left. When a Republican President has 3 years left but a dem senate, there will be no vote. Slippery slope.

Eventually, we will start adding justices until it becomes absurd as we have 113 judges.

Is it worth it? To possibly lose the presidency and senate and any shred of decorum for 1 justice? Republican Party can never be viewed as honorable after this, there is no turning back.

This will be a majority dem country soon ... perhaps 20 years and this move and what trump has done will be repeatedly pointed to as justification.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1259297]2018, dems had 26 senate seats up for re-election, Republicans had 9. Only one of the R seats was in a state won by Clinton. To say the 2018 results were the American people’s will and shows what the nation wants is a stretch. Hillary beat trump by 3 million Americans wishes and wants.



Now the senate, where New York gets the same votes as North Dakota, will decide. Let’s not try to spin this. It’s a political no holds bar, no turning back move.



Obama had 11 months left in his presidency, Trump has something like 41 days. First republicans said not during an election year. Now it’s not during an election year if a different party holds the senate.



No senate will ever vote on a SCOTUS nomination by a different party president no matter how long the president has left. When a Republican President has 3 years left but a dem senate, there will be no vote. Slippery slope.



Eventually, we will start adding justices until it becomes absurd as we have 113 judges.



Is it worth it? To possibly lose the presidency and senate and any shred of decorum for 1 justice? Republican Party can never be viewed as honorable after this, there is no turning back.



This will be a majority dem country soon ... perhaps 20 years and this move and what trump has done will be repeatedly pointed to as justification.[/QUOTE]As I have said a few times now, I wish the republicans had chosen a different way. But I do want to address one thing.
Would it be a bad thing for SC justices to be held up until after the next national election. (This is reacting to your point that going forward no confirmation will happen when the senate and peesident are of different parties). Especially when the country is as divided as it is. If that means that the court spends a term as an 8 judge panel so be it. I don't want to see SC justices elected on a ballot, but this is almost like you are creating republic style justice nominations instead of lifetime appointment by the ruling class.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1259298]As I have said a few times now, I wish the republicans had chosen a different way. But I do want to address one thing.
Would it be a bad thing for SC justices to be held up until after the next national election. (This is reacting to your point that going forward no confirmation will happen when the senate and peesident are of different parties). Especially when the country is as divided as it is. If that means that the court spends a term as an 8 judge panel so be it. I don't want to see SC justices elected on a ballot, but this is almost like you are creating republic style justice nominations instead of lifetime appointment by the ruling class.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

I thought 2016 was setting the precedent that the American people would pick the next Supreme Court justice in an election year? If the Senate burns us on this there is no decorum, no precedent anymore. Anything goes that doesn't have a law explicitly barring it. Any grey area is grounds for sheisty interpretation. If they go forward with this the right will never again receive any benefit of the doubt.

Your party will say or do anything to advance the party agenda. It's the latest example of putting the party over the public interest. This time it's unforgiveable though.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1259301]I thought 2016 was setting the precedent that the American people would pick the next Supreme Court justice in an election year? If the Senate burns us on this there is no decorum, no precedent anymore. Anything goes that doesn't have a law explicitly barring it. Any grey area is grounds for sheisty interpretation. If they go forward with this the right will never again receive any benefit of the doubt.



Your party will say or do anything to advance the party agenda. It's the latest example of putting the party over the public interest. This time it's unforgiveable though.[/QUOTE]I am not a republican though i did vote for trump i did not for bush either time . I more align with libertarian ideals. That said both parties say and do whatever is expedient for them. Hypocrisy runs deeper than the mariana trench in washington dc.

Ultimately our system is seriously broken

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

My dream is Trump resigns and appoints himself as the next Judge and he trolls everyone till his death

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1259564]My dream is Trump resigns and appoints himself as the next Judge and he trolls everyone till his death[/quote]

Even in your dreams you haven't a clue.:stop:

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1259564]My dream is Trump resigns and appoints himself as the next Judge and he trolls everyone till his death[/quote]

My dream is all those assholes in D.C., Trump included stop running trillion dollar deficits. And its well before COVID, so you can delete this year. They are all fucking us.