RBG leaves the stage.

Red Baron Farms said:
See its comments like that which are slowly but steadily causing me to lean towards Trump, even though I don't like him at all.
Click to expand...
Anonymous meanies on the internet -- how very upsetting. This truly absurd hand-wringing is something to marvel at, when you consider that Dear Leader himself has said things far worse.

Person A: I do not tolerate non white people.
Person B: I do not tolerate people who are intolerant of non white people.
Person C: B is a meanie and I'm casting my vote accordingly.
 
Last edited:
If your attitude is:

"Yeah well I was sure that Trump was a bad guy because he's an idiot, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, criminal, lying, and openly bragging about planning to steal the election by conspirising with a foreign dictator...

... but then a 'Librul said something kind of mean and sarcastic online so now I don't know for sure. I might vote for him."

You are an absolutely horrible human being.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
It may be important to vote Trump, just to make sure a conservative justice gets in.
Click to expand...

May I ask, if you are a single issue voter on this, and want Trump to appoint a conservative justice, would you mind saying what it is you think a conservative justice would bring to the court?

Do you wish the Supreme Court will rule a particular way on the following...

Affordable healthcare?
Voting rights?
Same-sex marriage?
Abortion?
"States' rights"?

I'd be interested to know what it is you personally would like to see from a conservative court.
 
"All the SCOTUS Justices say that 2+2=4. Obviously we need to put one on the bench that says 2+2=A Potato in order to keep things fair."
 
So what should be the rules, the actual in place rules not a "Gentleman's Agreement" as to nominating a SCOTUS vacancy close to an election year?

Let's use a ~6 month cut off prior to election day. Let's say that in an election year a SCOTUS nomination should come up within 180 days of November 3rd.

Option 1: - Nothing. The current administration and current Senate nominate and approve a candidate, same as always.
Option 2: - The President can nominate, but we have to wait until after the election for approval. So in our scenario Trump could nominate someone, but we would have to wait until the new Senate takes office January 3rd for the approval.
Option 3: - We wait until the new President and Senate take office.
Option 4: - Other.

Also should the rules changes if the current incumbent could be (I.e. the Mitch McConnell loophole) President after the election?
 
Lindsey Graham:
"People wonder about the peaceful transfer of power. I can assure you it will be peaceful. Now we may have litigation about who won the election, but the court will decide, and if Republicans lose, we'll accept that result. But we need a full court."
 
angrysoba said:
May I ask, if you are a single issue voter on this, and want Trump to appoint a conservative justice, would you mind saying what it is you think a conservative justice would bring to the court?

Do you wish the Supreme Court will rule a particular way on the following...

Affordable healthcare?
Voting rights?
Same-sex marriage?
Abortion?
"States' rights"?

I'd be interested to know what it is you personally would like to see from a conservative court.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear what the specific judicial philosophy he's after. Is this a political position that a judge should be dedicated to political aims, or is there some guiding principle here?

("Follow the constitution" isn't a guiding principle. It is an abdication of principle as the whole question here is what does the constitution mean. Also, the court hears matters that are not constitutional questions)
 
The scary part is "There are too many people in government who are good, decent, and factually correct and that's unfair to bad, indecent, and wrong people" might actually be a lot of people's mentality.
 
It is amazing that the no.1 priority for Republicans when it comes to Federal or Supreme Court judges is being "Ideologically sound", no.2 is being young.
Qualification doesn't enter the picture.

The fact that almost all GOP Senators have said they would vote for Trump's nominee without being told who it ill be is an astounding dereliction of duty to vet.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lindsey Graham:
"People wonder about the peaceful transfer of power. I can assure you it will be peaceful. Now we may have litigation about who won the election, but the court will decide, and if Republicans lose, we'll accept that result. But we need a full court."
Click to expand...

can we use his words against him?
Because that works so well.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lindsey Graham:
"People wonder about the peaceful transfer of power. I can assure you it will be peaceful. Now we may have litigation about who won the election, but the court will decide, and if Republicans lose, we'll accept that result. But we need a full court."
Click to expand...

He can assure us?

All of this "full court" stuff is some sniping at Roberts, really. A 4-4 decision is only possible if Roberts goes with the liberal wing.

All they need a full court for is to make a decision without Roberts getting in the way. Which is really ominous.
 
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove breach of rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeMorgue said:
So what should be the rules, the actual in place rules not a "Gentleman's Agreement" as to nominating a SCOTUS vacancy close to an election year?

Let's use a ~6 month cut off prior to election day. Let's say that in an election year a SCOTUS nomination should come up within 180 days of November 3rd.

Option 1: - Nothing. The current administration and current Senate nominate and approve a candidate, same as always.
Option 2: - The President can nominate, but we have to wait until after the election for approval. So in our scenario Trump could nominate someone, but we would have to wait until the new Senate takes office January 3rd for the approval.
Option 3: - We wait until the new President and Senate take office.
Option 4: - Other.

Also should the rules changes if the current incumbent could be (I.e. the Mitch McConnell loophole) President after the election?
Click to expand...

It is #1. This whole thing was a thinly veiled excuse from the start and the concept isn't worth taking seriously.

Any reform here would have to center around lowering the stakes. Not putting in more unenforceable rules.
 
angrysoba said:
May I ask, if you are a single issue voter on this, and want Trump to appoint a conservative justice, would you mind saying what it is you think a conservative justice would bring to the court?

Do you wish the Supreme Court will rule a particular way on the following...

Affordable healthcare?
Voting rights?
Same-sex marriage?
Abortion?
"States' rights"?

I'd be interested to know what it is you personally would like to see from a conservative court.
Click to expand...
I am a pro lifer,
Other issues I feel are important
  1. anti trust, especially anti Friedman doctrine
  2. anti racism, and that includes anti affirmative action. Race should never even enter into the conversation. I am not a white man. I am not a red man. I am a man. And I don't have Black friends, or Asian friends, or Hispanic friends, or White friends, they are just friends. Race doesn't even scientifically exist. Time to move on.
  3. Pro gun rights
  4. The entire rest of my life I have dedicated to ending global warming, specifically by restoring ecosystem function on about 1/2 the land surface of the planet by improving land management and especially farming practices and bringing the carbon cycle back into balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom