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 When people see the devastation of liberal financial policies and as conservatives shed their outdated social policies the balance will shift again.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