RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Discussion
jsf said:
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.
Breadvan72 said:
jsf said:
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.
Why the need to try and deflect by suggesting a state of mind or assuming my allegiance to anything? My viewpoint on Trump, Guns or anything else is not mentioned or in play. It is you that appears to have lost your perspective and are now ignoring the realities. Keep to the subject being discussed, your bulls
t deflections don't work.I read your post, i understood it. It doesn't matter what you think was put into effect by previous statements or actions, and you should know by now, unless you are as naïve as the Dems, the Reps wont play nice when it's in their interests not to.
Trump in the last hour has stated his nominations will be made this Saturday. Onwards it goes.
Breadvan72 said:
In your gun-crazed, Trump adoring delirium, you appear not to have understood a single word in my post that you quote above. You could try reading it again.
Typical left leaning response, I don't debate you I just call you names, imply your not of sound mind and your probably loved trump blindly so blah blah!The post made no view on liking trump either way and certainly didn't mention a position on guns! LOL
surveyor_101 said:
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.
With respect it's a bit of a bullsTrump may be on course to hold the presidency that's the only difference.
t argument. It's a bit like arguing that any Prez in his or her 2nd term shouldn't make any decisions because they're a "Lame Duck who's on their way out". surveyor_101 said:
Typical left leaning response, I don't debate you I just call you names, imply your not of sound mind and your probably loved trump blindly so blah blah!
The post made no view on liking trump either way and certainly didn't mention a position on guns! LOL
I wasn't aware an ad hominem, what you're accusing him of, was 'typical' of people with left-leaning views. The post made no view on liking trump either way and certainly didn't mention a position on guns! LOL
Have you drawn that conclusion from the same source which you used to state the FBI said there was no case to answer?
Countdown said:
With respect it's a bit of a bullst argument. It's a bit like arguing that any Prez in his or her 2nd term shouldn't make any decisions because they're a "Lame Duck who's on their way out".
I didn't say it was great argument. t argument. It's a bit like arguing that any Prez in his or her 2nd term shouldn't make any decisions because they're a "Lame Duck who's on their way out". Either side would do the same as they take every opportunity to get their own members in key legal posts.
The system to me seems bonkers as you can be a REP President but can't deliver on promises because the DEMs control block it when it gets to approval.
The newer the Person in the post the more they same to take their own party position and used it to play party politics.
Feinstein sat on the allegations from Ford and only presented them when it suited her, Ford was also supposed to remain anonymous but the Dems had no problem betraying her to further their political gains!
Countdown said:
surveyor_101 said:
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.
With respect it's a bit of a bullsTrump may be on course to hold the presidency that's the only difference.
t argument. It's a bit like arguing that any Prez in his or her 2nd term shouldn't make any decisions because they're a "Lame Duck who's on their way out". This time the Senate and President are of the same party, so a different scenario.
vetrof said:
Countdown said:
surveyor_101 said:
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.
With respect it's a bit of a bullsTrump may be on course to hold the presidency that's the only difference.
t argument. It's a bit like arguing that any Prez in his or her 2nd term shouldn't make any decisions because they're a "Lame Duck who's on their way out". This time the Senate and President are of the same party, so a different scenario.
t argument. They didn't conduct a confirmation hearing, which is when senators get to size up a nominee, ask hard questions then vote on it; instead McConnell decided that due process was a bit too democratic for his taste and there would be no hearing. Mildly ironic given Garland is a conservative, just not a Federalist Society conservative.vetrof said:
Countdown said:
surveyor_101 said:
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.
With respect it's a bit of a bullsTrump may be on course to hold the presidency that's the only difference.
t argument. It's a bit like arguing that any Prez in his or her 2nd term shouldn't make any decisions because they're a "Lame Duck who's on their way out". This time the Senate and President are of the same party, so a different scenario.
My point being, you can't have it both ways - the Dems made significant gains in Congress in 2018 and the polls are uniformly in favour of Biden. If the polls are wrong and Trump is the preferred candidate, and the Electorate want trump to nominate somebody they only need to wait 6 or so weeks.
Both Trump and the GOP know that there's a good chance of losing the Presidency AND the Senate so they're trying to railroad this through. Now you could argue that they're entitled to do that but we shouldn't pretend it's not hypocrisy of the highest order. And if the GOP want to play dirty they shouldn't be surprised if the Dems do the same by appointing an extra 2/3/17 liberal judges to the SC
Countdown said:
And if the GOP want to play dirty they shouldn't be surprised if the Dems do the same by appointing an extra 2/3/17 liberal judges to the SC
How? 
This will set the agenda for decades for the SC, playing dirty requires another SCJ to die, even then they need a couple more to pop their cloggs at the right time to turn the tide.
It's an utterly bonkers system, made when people died much younger, it's not fit for purpose now. But the Reps will play the system as it is now and will do everything to get their appointment on board, it's a much bigger issue than looking bad or dirty or even losing Trumps presidency (the Reps wont shed a tear when he's gone, it will be a relief).
Prosecutor John Durham reveals the report into 'spying' on Trump's campaign will be released by the end of summer and says: 'The American people deserve to hear this story'
[quote]John Durham, the U.S. Attorney who is heading a criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation, is to release his findings by the end of the summer.
The review, which became a criminal investigation last fall, has been derided by Democrats as simply a scheme to damage President Trump's Democrat rivals before November's election.
But Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec, said that the report was not the 'goal' of the criminal investigation but that it will be 'pivotal to the restoration of that one tiered system of justice.'
'There is a story to be told there. The American people deserve resolution, and frankly, justice deserves resolution,' Kupec stated on behalf of Durham.
[/quote]
should be intriguing.
[quote]John Durham, the U.S. Attorney who is heading a criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation, is to release his findings by the end of the summer.
The review, which became a criminal investigation last fall, has been derided by Democrats as simply a scheme to damage President Trump's Democrat rivals before November's election.
But Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec, said that the report was not the 'goal' of the criminal investigation but that it will be 'pivotal to the restoration of that one tiered system of justice.'
'There is a story to be told there. The American people deserve resolution, and frankly, justice deserves resolution,' Kupec stated on behalf of Durham.
[/quote]
should be intriguing.
Bozwell said:
BREAKING: Burisma Investigation to be Released within 24 Hours — FINDS BIDEN FAMILY GUILTY LIKELY CRIMINAL ACTIONS (VIDEO)
what's this qanon thing about?
Biden is an old man with memory problems, 30 years in politics what has he achieved? Other than tell voters he will take their gins, called one lady a 'lying dog-faced pony solidier'.what's this qanon thing about?
The left in the US is now threatening to burn down the court if trump does anything so he has to push ahead now!
Does the constitution not guide Trump to appoint a new judge!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 23 September 07:23
You have to ask, how long before enough people in the US wake up and realise the level of corruption in their politics? Or is it truly a case of "here's 17 more channels of American Gladiators, go back to sleep America"?
I mean, at least in the UK you need to dig to find out that our bunch are both incompetent and corrupt (only the incompetent bit is obvious).
I mean, at least in the UK you need to dig to find out that our bunch are both incompetent and corrupt (only the incompetent bit is obvious).
Bozwell said:
BREAKING: Burisma Investigation to be Released within 24 Hours — FINDS BIDEN FAMILY GUILTY LIKELY CRIMINAL ACTIONS (VIDEO)
what's this qanon thing about?
It's either the absolute truth, or it's batswhat's this qanon thing about?
t wingnut insane conspiraloonery; you be the judge. Breadvan72 said:
You are being blinded by your partisan prejudice. What was unprecedented was the refusal even to hold an appointment procedure. That was a purely partisan act that had no Constitutional basis. The Senate could approve or disapprove a specific candidate, but what McConnell did was to prevent even the consideration of a candidate. See also the blocking of appointments to the Federal bench at first instance and appellate level. Your apparent loyalty to the Trump cause is encouraging you to ignore and twist the facts.
I’m not blinded although your recent rants tend to suggest you are. You have no idea where my allegiances lie and I was clear in my admiration of RBG. I happen to believe that Antonin Scalia was correct in his approach. Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 22 September 06:00
The problem with some in the law, and you would appear to be from that tradition, is they believe that they are so wise and educated that they should circumvent the ugly world of politics and impose the ‘right thinking’ solution.
The problem is when you politicise the courts you become fair game and part of the political process.
Wiser judges like Scalia understood this. Our very own Lady Hale enjoyed her day in the sun and gained fame/notoriety depending on your view.
But at what long term cost? There will now inevitably be political oversight of judicial appointments in this country. Be careful what you wish for.
hidetheelephants said:
It's either the absolute truth, or it's batst wingnut insane conspiraloonery; you be the judge.
https://qanon.pub/ (and yes RBG gets a mention)t wingnut insane conspiraloonery; you be the judge. been following it since 2017. what's funny is knowing the news way before it becomes mainstream. just wanted to see if anyone links a BS MSM narrative or the actual source.
granted some of it does seem crazy. But i find it fascinating.
and no Mueller was NOT working with Trump. far from it. Shill said it and the MSM ran with it.
and another narrative is elites and trafficking. What is Ghislaine and Jeffery supposed to have done on Little St James Island? (locally known as pedo island)
how many of Mueller's arrests were to do with Russia Collusion? And if there was no Collusion when did Mueller know?
i.e. was it dragged out to steal the midterms.
the Dems now want to investigate the investigators of the Russia Collusion investigation. something to hide?
https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge
for a bats
t loon conspiracy it so far has got a lot right about what is now coming out in the MSM re Mueller etc. said about a year before the Mueller report came out they had NO actual evidence. just 'hearsay' (there is a search function on the qanon link, have fun)Clinton had more Russia Collusion paying for the Steel dossier (dirt on Trump).
surveyor_101 said:
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.
I haven't the faintest idea what connection any part of your post above has to do with mine that you have quoted. Which, btw, were in response to somebody else's post rather than one of yours.
Also, for some unaccountable reason, you have chosen to omit the comment I was replying to. Thereby rendering the whole utterly devoid of context.
I can only surmise that you had had one too many and/or been smoking the waccy baccy.
As for the upcoming race to the White House, only a Brit could have conceived a system as convoluted as the Electoral College for determining who will become the POTUS.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff