The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    LOL



    Liberals respond
    [​IMG]
     
  2. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    I know some devout Catholics in South Texas (Latino's no less) who voted for Trump because of abortion alone. They consider it to be murder. They are posting meme's such saying things like why do Liberals support separating a baby from the mother's womb. Really hard-hitting stuff.
     
  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Here is the thing -- line up all the issues that matter to you, organize them, prioritize them, rank them on importance to you.

    Then realize that if Hillary had won and was able to set a 6-3 hard left majority on the Court, none of your lists or your priorities would have meant a thing. Not a single thing. None of them. At that point, it was game over. It was going to be the end of the American Experiment.
     
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Here we go -- take a gulp of air

     
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. bystander

    bystander 10,000+ Posts

    I understand. It's the most important thing (control of the Court). But hell, didn't Roberts rule Obamacare was constitutional because he decided the individual mandate was a tax (though Obama campaigned on the idea that it was not) and Congress had the power to tax? Assuming I'm correct in my recollection, his straight-forward ruling helped the Left.
     
  7. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Roberts got Obamacare wrong. I will never concede he made his decision on the law. He was overcome by "other concerns." It was unforgivable. That's why 4-4 with a swing vote is such a risky position. 6-3 (or better*) is the way forward.


    * Ginsburg is 85, Breyer is 79
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2018
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    The list - some are already pimping Kavanaugh and Lee

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  9. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    I thought seating a jurist during an election year was against the protocol?
     
  10. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    IIRC seating a Supreme close to a Presidential election is typically not done.
    See and understand the difference?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    Not sure how replacing Kennedy with another Gorsuch is going to get you to 6-3. Ginburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan all vote lockstep left, do they not? Did you mean 5-4?
     
  12. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    McConnell, walking off Senate floor, asked if it’s fair to bring up SCOTUS nominee this year given Garland precedent -

    “There’s no presidential election this year.”
    Besides, Obama nominated Kagan, who was already known to be a leftist, in May 2010.
    That was only months before a midterm in which Obama's party got dumped on pretty hard.
    Nonetheless, Kagan was confirmed in August.
    The same people squawking today, who you are apparently reading/following, had no problem with any of this at that time.
    Isnt this the way it always go with your people?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2018
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I meant 6-3 would remove the worry over a wayward wobbler or two and resulting inconsistent opinions. And I think Trump will get that opportunity.
     
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Making something a condition of employment isn't forcing it. The Right agrees with that anytime we're talking about something that favors the employer. And of course, none of that has anything to do its constitutional legitimacy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Two things. First, it's not a presidential election year. Second, if the Supreme Court is going to be used as an unaccountable political weapon (which it has been for some time), filling vacancies is going to be a take-no-prisoners war. There aren't going to be standards or rules.

    Also, I'm not totally sure that they're playing their cards very well by not wanting the seat filled. They are more likely to have fewer seats after the election, not more, which means their clout will be reduced after the election.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    It was never an issue until Garland. Until that time the Senate followed what some call regular order. Given that the make up of the Senate could change it's not wholly unreasonable. Also, President Pence might nominate differently than this law and order president we have.
     
  18. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    They have a 3 of spades on this one. It's the only play.
     
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Yes, it has been an issue before. It didn't start with Garland.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  20. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Those Harley Davidson people should have unionized. :)
     
  21. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    The timing was never abused like it was in Garland, at least to my Okie non law schooled knowledge.
     
  22. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Well, they could back down and allow the issue to move forward and then try to pull one or two Rs to leverage a moderate nominee. That would be their best play.
     
  23. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    That's a 6 of spades....
     
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I'm not sure what you mean by "the timing," but the issue has come up before. And you're forgetting that the Senate has the right to confirm or not confirm or not even consider any nominee it wants.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  25. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    I mean a February vacancy delayed over a year. Scalia passed in February and Gorsuch wasn't approved until April of 17. That's about 15 months.
     
  26. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Well, it's probably as good as it's going to get for them. Now, I also understand why the GOP is pushing ahead. Waiting is still a gamble. They could lose in 2018 (though it's unlikely), and they have the votes now if they can hold the moderates. Furthermore, they hope to use the vote to leverage red-state Democrats to vote for the nominee.

    The problems I see with the GOP's strategy are two-fold. First, they're not likely to hold the moderates. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski aren't voting to let Roe v. Wade to get overturned. Second, I don't think it serves a red-state Democrat to vote for the nominee. It isn't likely to deliver them many Republican votes. Furthermore, they will be signing their own death warrants in the next Democratic primary.
     
  27. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    If you buy into the "Biden Rule," that doesn't matter.
     
  28. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    Supreme Court tom foolery by the Senate goes back to Nixon. The democrats can never really complain after what they did to Bork.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  29. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    And let's be honest. Supreme Court nomination pissing matches happen because the Court has decided to make itself a super-legislature that resolves the most contentious issues in politics over the will of the people and their elected representatives. So long as it continues to do that, people are going to go ape-**** when the court has vacancies. They'd be stupid not to.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    "arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate." March 16th does not summer make.
     

Share This Page