Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 65
  1. #26
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,933
    Quote Originally Posted by nidhogg View Post
    dems might appoint 4 more if they also control the senate.
    ...packing the court will only make matters worse, imo...

  2. #27
    Pedantic bastard
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,906
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...packing the court will only make matters worse, imo...
    Worse than a 6-3 majority for the next 20 years?

  3. #28
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:32 PM
    Posts
    7,769
    Wondering why selection of a judge is of such high concern of any party? Isn't judge a person that has no affiliation to anybody, to any party? (just curious...)

  4. #29
    Thailand Expat
    aging one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Klondyke View Post
    Wondering why selection of a judge is of such high concern of any party? Isn't judge a person that has no affiliation to anybody, to any party? (just curious...)
    You damn well know the answer to that. Trolling is a way of life with you is it not comrade?

  5. #30
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    Quote Originally Posted by pickel View Post
    So you think it should be loaded with judges that only share your beliefs, and not the beliefs of the whole country? You're starting to sound like a Republican Ray.
    show me the section of the constitution which states that the make up of the supreme court should be balanced between republicans and democrats.

    free US civics lesson: it's not there.

    article III, section 1 of the US constitution was written in 1787, and the democratic party was founded in 1828 and the republican party in 1854.


    again, your idiotic quote...

    Quote Originally Posted by pickel View Post
    The whole point of the Supreme Court is to be balanced.
    the whole point of SCOTUS is to put a check on legislative and executive overreach and provide a forum of last resort for those seeking justice.

  6. #31
    Elite Mumbler
    pickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Isolation
    Posts
    6,033
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    the whole point of SCOTUS is to put a check on legislative and executive overreach and provide a forum of last resort for those seeking justice.
    And you would like to stock it with judges that share "your" view of legislative and executive overreach?

    Balanced is healthier for a democracy.

  7. #32
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    do you have any idea how many straw men do you intend to put up on this thread?

    or will you just be winging it...like your half-baked takes on US politics and policy?

  8. #33
    Elite Mumbler
    pickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Isolation
    Posts
    6,033
    Call it what you want, but there was a question mark at the end of my posts, and you've so far failed to answer the questions.

  9. #34
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,984
    They should have shoved her in the freezer and kept their gobs shut.

  10. #35
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    ^
    i wonder what sort of end of life directives she had in place.

    from what i've read about it her, something along the lines of "use every medical and technical means known to man to keep my heart beating until january 17, 2021" wouldn't be too far off the mark.

  11. #36
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    even if mcconnell decides he's ready to hold a vote, trump needs to nominate someone first.

    trump's not a conservative ideologue like many senate republicans, and it's undeniably in his best interest to wait until after the election.

    the first rule of trump is that trump does what's best for trump.

    my best guess....he won't nominate someone and try to frame it as out of to respect ginsburg and also to unify the country. then he'll go on the stump every goddamn day ginning up the base telling them that they need to vote for him because if they don't it will result in dead babies.

  12. #37
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    a lot of 'if's here, but....

    if someone is confirmed before the election or if trump loses and mcconnell confirms someone in the lame duck session, biden is going to be under tremendous pressure to stack the court if dems take the senate.

    btw, if you haven't seen this documentary, it's worth checking out...


  13. #38
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    31,217
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    even if mcconnell decides he's ready to hold a vote
    He won't. Too much risk. Republicans could easily loose Senate majority.
    Trump will use her replacement as a get out the vote for him point.
    Especially if he hints he would nominate a female.

  14. #39
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    He won't. Too much risk. Republicans could easily loose Senate majority.
    Trump will use her replacement as a get out the vote for him point.
    i agree.
    but if he did move forward, it would cement his legacy in the pantheon of US conservatives....he would have put the next generation of the court ahead of his personal political interests.
    but again, trump has to nominate someone first.


    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Especially if he hints he would nominate a female.
    again, i agree.

    dollars to donuts, here's who he'll dangle as the pick:

    Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia

  15. #40
    Thailand Expat TheRealKW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    4,150
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    'd wager mcconnell waits until after the election to hold the vote.

    it will gin up the base to go to the polls and also provide cover to collins, gardner and tillis.

    if trump wins or loses there is still plenty of time to hold a vote before inauguration.
    Makes more sense. And they will not want to waste an opportunity!

  16. #41
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    can't take credit for dreaming up this doomsday scenario, but think about this....

    on election night trump and barr do something to stop mail in votes from being counted in a swing state or two....of course democrats will file a lawsuit to ensure that all votes are counted....just like the gore did in 2000.....and bush v. gore quickly made its way up to the supreme court....but this time SCOTUS could only have 8 members and potentially a tie vote.


  17. #42
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:32 PM
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by aging one View Post
    You damn well know the answer to that
    ????

    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    show me the section of the constitution which states that the make up of the supreme court should be balanced between republicans and democrats.
    Balancing of the judges? They judge according to affiliation to their party?

    Then, considering these circumstances, who can wonder how nowadays the judgements are handled...

    And that the "evidence" of the plaintiff is not accessible to the accused? (Navalny case)

  18. #43
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,984
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    even if mcconnell decides he's ready to hold a vote, trump needs to nominate someone first.

    trump's not a conservative ideologue like many senate republicans, and it's undeniably in his best interest to wait until after the election.

    the first rule of trump is that trump does what's best for trump.

    my best guess....he won't nominate someone and try to frame it as out of to respect ginsburg and also to unify the country. then he'll go on the stump every goddamn day ginning up the base telling them that they need to vote for him because if they don't it will result in dead babies.
    Not a chance. He can't wait for the opportunity to gloat that he put a couple of right wingers on the SCOTUS. It gets him adulation from his base, and he has an enormous ego that needs feeding constantly. That's what drives him.

    As for McConnell, he will not pass up the opportunity either.

  19. #44
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,984
    And let's remember this:

    As President Trump prepares to announce his replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Democrats are desperate to block the president’s nominee — but are powerless to so. They have no one to blame but themselves. Let’s take a moment to recall the sordid 15-year history of Democratic miscalculations that brought them to this point.

    The Democrats’ first mistake was to launch unprecedented filibusters against President George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees, starting with his 2001 nomination of Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, having produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Estrada was a supremely qualified nominee who had the support of a clear majority in the Senate. His confirmation should have been easy.

    But Democrats killed his nomination. Why? According to internal strategy memos obtained by the Wall Street Journal, they blocked Estrada at the request of liberal interest groups who said Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” Democrats did not want Republicans to put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Instead, two years after his nomination, they made Estrada the first appeals court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered. It was an extraordinary breach of precedent.

    They did not stop with Estrada. Democrats also filibustered nine other Bush circuit-court nominees, all of whom had majority support in the Senate. It was, as columnist Robert Novak wrote at the time, “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.”

    The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.

    The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office. When Donald Trump was elected and appointed Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s seat, apoplectic Democrats made a fatal error: Instead of keeping their powder dry until Kennedy resigned, they filibustered Gorsuch’s nomination. The decision to block such an obviously qualified nominee — praised for his impeccable temperament, character and intellect by legal scholars on both the left and right — freed tradition-bound Republicans to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and confirm him with a simple majority.

    Had Democrats not tried to block Gorsuch, they would still have the filibuster. And Republicans, who now have just a single-vote majority, would have a much more difficult time mustering the votes to change Senate rules today. But thanks to Democrats’ miscalculations, the GOP doesn’t have to.

    Democrats are accusing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of hypocrisy moving forward with a Supreme Court nominee during an election year. But McConnell never said he would not confirm nominees before midterm elections in the second year of a presidency. Three sitting justices were confirmed in midterm election years: Elena Kagan (August 2010), Samuel A. Alito Jr. (January 2006) and Stephen G. Breyer (August 1994) — as were retired Justice David Souter (October 1990) and Scalia (September 1986). Trump is going to do exactly what Presidents Obama, Bill Clinton and both Bushes did before him: He will nominate a qualified candidate to fill the high court vacancy, and Senate Republicans will confirm his nominee. There is nothing the left can do about it. If Democrats are upset, too bad. They should have confirmed Miguel Estrada.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1f1_story.html

  20. #45
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    who wrote that pile of crap?

  21. #46
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    21,664
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    who wrote that pile of crap?
    A Bush era Republican and Fox News contributor. It is an oped piece not a news story.

  22. #47
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    69,984
    Don't get all arsey just because you don't like the facts.

    You can't have it both ways.

    New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
    “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
    Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks - POLITICO

  23. #48
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Don't get all arsey just because you don't like the facts.
    i'm not going too far down this rabbit hole for your sake, but....


    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    The Democrats’ first mistake was to launch unprecedented filibusters against President George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees, starting with his 2001 nomination of Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, having produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Estrada was a supremely qualified nominee who had the support of a clear majority in the Senate. His confirmation should have been easy.
    is some of this true? probably.
    but what's also true...

    In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Estrada said he had never thought about Roe v. Wade, even while serving as a Supreme Court clerk at a time when the first Bush Administration had asked the Court to reconsider it.
    Miguel Estrada - Wikipedia


    that is a lie. a blatant fucking lie. before the senate judiciary committee when he's up for an appointment as a circuit court judge. it so completely outrageous that he disqualified himself right there.
    Last edited by raycarey; 19-09-2020 at 06:37 PM.

  24. #49
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:48 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    my best guess....he won't nominate someone and try to frame it as out of to respect ginsburg and also to unify the country. then he'll go on the stump every goddamn day ginning up the base telling them that they need to vote for him because if they don't it will result in dead babies.
    strike one
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    who wrote that pile of crap?
    strike two
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    still can't get over how stupid a statement this is....but as i posted earlier, perhaps it's due to ignorance.
    striiiiike three your out



    Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to US Supreme Court


    Announcement begins fierce confirmation battle only weeks before presidential election

    Subscribe to read | Financial Times

  25. #50
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,653
    errr....having a bad day, herman?
    can't find anything to blame on muslims or islam?
    i'm sure you'll find/create something soon enough.

    btw, your post doesn't make any sense.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •