RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
jsf said:
As expected Trump has said this morning he wants the new SCJ in place before election.
Trump Tweeted in April 2016 that if Obama did that he ought to be fired. There is always a Tweet!It's USA politics, they will do whatever it takes, only a fool would expect anything else, especially from Trump.
kowalski655 said:
MC Bodge said:
Are Iran and the US really that different?
Seen pictures of ISIS & MAGA truck convoys, only difference is the flags!
I guess you missed the decapitated heads.Honestly, the USA has it's issues, but to consider the regime in Iran or ISIS as the same as a MAGA rally in a democracy such as the USA is rather daft.
jsf said:
kowalski655 said:
MC Bodge said:
Are Iran and the US really that different?
Seen pictures of ISIS & MAGA truck convoys, only difference is the flags! I guess you missed the decapitated heads.Honestly, the USA has it's issues, but to consider the regime in Iran or ISIS as the same as a MAGA rally in a democracy such as the USA is rather daft.
pilotoscot said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-...
Interesting background on Trump’s right to submit a nomination and the Senate’s to advise and consent.
There’s no doubting RGB’s passing means the loss of a giant and rightly celebrated in her lifetime.
There’s also no doubt that Trump has every right to nominate her successor and this is not the same as Garland where opposing parties held the senate/presidency.
Interesting background on Trump’s right to submit a nomination and the Senate’s to advise and consent.
There’s no doubting RGB’s passing means the loss of a giant and rightly celebrated in her lifetime.
There’s also no doubt that Trump has every right to nominate her successor and this is not the same as Garland where opposing parties held the senate/presidency.
surveyor_101 said:
I have just been letting BV puff his chest
The submitted a report and that was end of the matter.
Kavanaugh has and is subject to background checks for his roles and previous so are you suggesting the FBI are flawed in any case?
If there were any justice(see what I did there?) he would have been disqualified for being a rude, whiny, entitled prick; his performance at the confirmation hearing personified white male privilege. Then there's his bizarre attitude toward beer.The submitted a report and that was end of the matter.
Kavanaugh has and is subject to background checks for his roles and previous so are you suggesting the FBI are flawed in any case?
surveyor_101 said:
La Liga said:
The submitted a report and that was end of the matter.
Kavanaugh has and is subject to background checks for his roles and previous so are you suggesting the FBI are flawed in any case?
surveyor_101 said:
So the FBI didn't say there was a no case.
I asked where did the FBI say that. Don't try and worm out of it with a 'are you suggesting?' strawman.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 September 01:33
Breadvan72 said:
That is an utterly specious argument. The blocking of Garland was unprecedented, and had nothing to do with Constitutional propriety.
No. It really isn’t. And your emotions don’t trump the facts. Garland would have been blocked anyway. The Rep. held the senate. Whether that was ethical or not is another matter. It was precedented. I’ve provided you with precedents. If you don’t like them or think they are wrongheaded, fair enough. But they exist and constitutionally, you are simply incorrect.
Breadvan72 said:
I think you may be assuming too much consistency of thought or possession of principles amongst members of the Religious Right. They just see Trump as their man, despite his obvious irreligion and his appalling behaviour. Bear in mind that, outside the Metro elites both Left and Right, many Americans are appallingly badly educated, have very narrow Wold views, and have been brainwashed to see politicians as boringly centrist as Biden as agents of Communism.
Any nomination for someone to become the next Senator Joe McCarthy?jsf said:
If i was a betting man, I'd bet on Trump winning the presidency whilst losing the popular vote.
Ah, 2016, rinse and repeat.pilotoscot said:
Breadvan72 said:
That is an utterly specious argument. The blocking of Garland was unprecedented, and had nothing to do with Constitutional propriety.
No. It really isn’t. And your emotions don’t trump the facts. Garland would have been blocked anyway. The Rep. held the senate. Whether that was ethical or not is another matter. It was precedented. I’ve provided you with precedents. If you don’t like them or think they are wrongheaded, fair enough. But they exist and constitutionally, you are simply incorrect.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 September 06:00
vetrof said:
Breadvan72 said:
That is an utterly specious argument. The blocking of Garland was unprecedented, and had nothing to do with Constitutional propriety.
So the Democrats were correct at the time and the nomination should have taken place?Edited by vetrof on Monday 21st September 20:05
Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
Red Devil said:
Ah, 2016, rinse and repeat.
After the democrat held cities and areas don't paint a good picture of life under DC New York case in point, aside from Pelosi locking down her area and then getting her hair dresser to open up so she can have a blow out (no mask on), then claims she was setup when the CCTV is leaked.Then they promoted the protests that burned down parts of USA and cost at least £1 billion.
You have anyone who seems protrump (he had a pariot group hat on) being shot and murdered in the streets of portland and the police leaving the guy for days, long enough for him to do an interview only after trump sent the feds to get him as local police are democrat control.
Kyle Rittenhouse has been held on crazy bond and maybe in jail for 2 years awaiting trial in what I have been told by American lawyers is cut and dry case of self defence.
Biden has send several times he will take their guns!
I think you will find Trump doesn't wear glass because he has got 2020.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 22 September 07:26
Breadvan72 said:
Yes. That would have been the normal course. Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. The Republicans in effect created a new rule that there should be no confirmation procedure in an election year. They did so for purely partisan reasons. Now they wish to revert to the old procedure. This shows their hypocrisy, and again their purely partisan approach to matters that affect the integrity of the Republic.
Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
These rules you speak of dont exist. They were political positions taken to further their cause at the time.Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
Your use of "in effect" illustrates your spin of this.
You of all people should understand the only thing that matters is the law, Trump can nominate and the Senate can confirm before the election.
jsf said:
These rules you speak of dont exist. They were political positions taken to further their cause at the time.
Your use of "in effect" illustrates your spin of this.
You of all people should understand the only thing that matters is the law, Trump can nominate and the Senate can confirm before the election.
Exactly Trump can do as his pleases there is no legal precedent I have seen that would stop him nominating. RBG dying wish was for them to wait, well Trump is a President not a Genie he doesn't grant wishes.Your use of "in effect" illustrates your spin of this.
You of all people should understand the only thing that matters is the law, Trump can nominate and the Senate can confirm before the election.
Either way I think Dems or Reps would take advantage of this if the shoe was on the other foot.
The only issue is Reps taken issue when Obama was in a similar boat so they may be guilty of hypocrisy if they do, but the Dems are just as bad if not worse in that regard.
The Rep argument I feel is Obama was a 'lame duck' he was on his way out.
Trump may be on course to hold the presidency that's the only difference.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff