RBG passed

Here4money said:

waiting on the flipflop

More...



Of course we all know how the lefty dance will work if Trump is re-elected but he loses the Senate.

Let me take a wild and crazy guess that the lefterrhoids will then argue that no vote should be taken on a nominee until the new senate is seated.

Yeh, sprize dat? NOT.
 
Wallet said:
Yes, we’re all supposed to believe the Democrats would play nice. The toxic hate that has been spewed by the left towards conservatives since Trump took office has shown the world your “play nice”.

Run along.
More...

Again, doesnt matter nice or not nice, it's about actions, if Republicans go against their own words and replace a liberal with a conservative then hello court packing in 2021 and beyond, courts will complete lose their legitimacy and red state gets fucked because populous blue states supreme courts will make all the rules.
 
gaussian said:
At least we are clear there.

The Democrats will get what they want either way. They do not play by any rule book and are not honor bound by any, even loose, definition of the word "honor". They attempted to slam through a candidate in 2016 and failed, spent 4 years bogging Trump down with an impeachment, threats, and childish tantrums, failed to create a believable lie around Kavanaugh, support riots, support locking people down and costing them their jobs, and support creating a "equality of outcome" society. They are not a party of Americans. They are not the party they once were even 20 years ago. They've been co-opted by neomarxism and they have no qualms about showing their hand.

So when they do get back they'll strike with vengeance. Not because they're fixing a broken society. But because millions of Americans chose to oppose their power. Yes, that is the true Democrat party. Despotic maniacs. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I hope for Democracy's sake Trump picks a moderate along the lines of Roberts. But I don't care either way. I'm here to watch lefties seeth.
More...

You can replace Democrats with Republicans and marxism with nazism to get the same rant that means the opposite of what you just wrote. Means nothing, just a bunch of sophistry.
 
Certaintly a lively discussion.

In my opinion, the best course of action is to wait until after the elections before appointing a new Supreme Court justice for the following reasons:

1. Mitch O’Connell said in 2016 there should be no appointments so close to an election. Honesty and integrity are fundamental aspects of our justice system. Nominating a justice through a lie, taints that justice and the court, much less O’Connell, Trump, and Senators voting for that justice’s nomination. Many senators are attorneys. A group of attorneys abiding by such behavour taints the legal profession and by extension, the Universities they came from.

All for what? So a Supreme Court justice can be nominated a few months earlier?


2. Ruth’s dying wish. While some may feel the act of dying should not entitle someone with a premptory challenge to our political process, the fact is, both sides respected her. How can you say you respect someone and then in the same breath say you are not going to honor their last wish? Especially when it does not prevent the Supreme court from functioning?

3. Trump may not win reelection. Appointing a new Supreme Court justice seems like it is stepping on the toes of the incoming administration. Seems like an act of bad will to me.

4. There may not be enough time to thoroughly vet a potential appointee due to other obligations of Senators during election season.

5. Appointing a new Supreme Court justice escalates partisanship to the point of insubordination of voters by both sides. We need the leaders of the respective parties to have a truce from excessive partisanship, respect the Constitution and its intent, follow long established traditions based on sound principles, and focus on finding ways to better represent the people.

A person of character has died. We need someone to step up and show character, even if it hurts, and put excessive partisanship aside.
 
BeautifulStranger said:
2. Ruth’s dying wish. While some may feel the act of dying should not entitle someone with a premptory challenge to our political process, the fact is, both sides respected her. How can you say you respect someone and then in the same breath say you are not going to honor their last wish? Especially when it does not prevent the Supreme court from functioning?
More...

If she said what is alleged- and I don't know- then that was a stupid political hack statement to make that only underscores her reputation of having a political agenda and meddling in areas that fall to the presidency and the senate. Trump takes heat all the time from dems arguing that he should not be commenting on issues that are actively before the judiciary yet they cheer Ruthie on now and in the past for piping up about Trump and conservatives outside of court.

Next, I will say that some of this reminds me of when Teddy Kennedy died and everyone kept talking about "Teddy Kennedy's seat" and who will fill "Teddy Kennedy's seat" and what would "Teddy Kennedy think of a republican in HIS seat and how can "we possibly put a conservative in HIS seat."

HELLLOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! It is not Teddy Kennedy's seat. It is the people's seat. I think a certain amount of calling it Teddy Kennedy's seat was to be expected and sort of okay for communicating but when it starts to go over the top as though he owned a seat on the stock exchange or something then reminders are in order. IT'S THE PEOPLE'S SEAT. Not an exchange seat that she personally owned and so we look at her will and dying wishes to determine who her rightful heir should be.

And Ruthie held one of the people's seats on the Supreme Court. She has died and it has not reverted to the people, because it always belonged to the people.

I could not care less what she wanted and that type of comment - if true and I don't know- should not be honored and in fact should be condemned. The elected president lawfully in office and the elected people's representatives lawfully seated in the Senate will make those decisions. No one respected her and loved her more than Scalia or disagreed with her more but he would have given zero weight to what she wanted in regard to a judicial nominee. It is not a sign of disrespect to follow the constitution or to refrain from allowing the political opinions of justices to bleed into the nomination process. Leave the judiciary and get elected if you want to do that.

Ruthie had a good run and left all she had on the field so she was a stand up guy and is getting plenty of respect in public. But the people are in charge acting by and through their elected representatives and elected president within the period of time that they were elected to serve. That would be into January regardless of how the election goes.

When Scalia died the dems put a lot of time into trying to discern what he wanted in regard to filling his position, right? Get a grip for keerist sake. They just tried to guess what he would have wanted and actively set about doing the complete opposite.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
If she said what is alleged- and I don't know- then that was a stupid political hack statement to make that only underscores her reputation of having a political agenda and meddling in areas that fall to the presidency and the senate. Trump takes heat all the time from dems arguing that he should not be commenting on issues that are actively before the judiciary yet they cheer Ruthie on now and in the past for piping up about Trump and conservatives outside of court.

Next, I will say that some of this reminds me of when Teddy Kennedy died and everyone kept talking about "Teddy Kennedy's seat" and who will fill "Teddy Kennedy's seat" and what would "Teddy Kennedy think of a republican in HIS seat and how can "we possibly put a conservative in HIS seat."

HELLLOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! It is not Teddy Kennedy's seat. It is the people's seat. I think a certain amount of calling it Teddy Kennedy's seat was to be expected and sort of okay for communicating but when it starts to go over the top as though he owned a seat on the stock exchange or something then reminders are in order. IT'S THE PEOPLE'S SEAT. Not an exchange seat that she personally owned and so we look at her will and dying wishes to determine who her rightful heir should be.

And Ruthie held one of the people's seats on the Supreme Court. She has died and it has not reverted to the people, because it always belonged to the people.

I could not care less what she wanted and that type of comment - if true and I don't know- should not be honored and in fact should be condemned. The elected president lawfully in office and the elected people's representatives lawfully seated in the Senate will make those decisions. No one respected her and loved her more than Scalia or disagreed with her more but he would have given zero weight to what she wanted in regard to a judicial nominee. It is not a sign of disrespect to follow the constitution or to refrain from allowing the political opinions of justices to bleed into the nomination process. Leave the judiciary and get elected if you want to do that.

Ruthie had a good run and left all she had on the field so she was a stand up guy and is getting plenty of respect in public. But the people are in charge acting by and through their elected representatives and elected president within the period of time that they were elected to serve. That would be into January regardless of how the election goes.

When Scalia died the dems put a lot of time into trying to discern what he wanted in regard to filling his position, right? Get a grip for keerist sake. They just tried to guess what he would have wanted and actively set about doing the complete opposite.
More...

:thumbsup:
 
exGOPer said:
If you think you are predicting the market, then you are no different than your typical MA crossover trader who thinks he has discovered holy grail. Your snarky comment doesn't address my point at all, you are just predicting something because of a similar situation in the past with all the context missing. You also ignored the polls where voters are already committed to this election unlike in 2016. There are more Democrats than Republicans, pissing of Dems is a bad idea, remember 2008.
More...
Nope. Not predicting the market yet. Merely making commentary on the mindset of college educated SWW in battleground states buddy.
Any market commentary will be post above the cellar.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
If she said what is alleged- and I don't know- then that was a stupid political hack statement to make that only underscores her reputation of having a political agenda and meddling in areas that fall to the presidency and the senate. Trump takes heat all the time from dems arguing that he should not be commenting on issues that are actively before the judiciary yet they cheer Ruthie on now and in the past for piping up about Trump and conservatives outside of court.

Next, I will say that some of this reminds me of when Teddy Kennedy died and everyone kept talking about "Teddy Kennedy's seat" and who will fill "Teddy Kennedy's seat" and what would "Teddy Kennedy think of a republican in HIS seat and how can "we possibly put a conservative in HIS seat."

HELLLOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! It is not Teddy Kennedy's seat. It is the people's seat. I think a certain amount of calling it Teddy Kennedy's seat was to be expected and sort of okay for communicating but when it starts to go over the top as though he owned a seat on the stock exchange or something then reminders are in order. IT'S THE PEOPLE'S SEAT. Not an exchange seat that she personally owned and so we look at her will and dying wishes to determine who her rightful heir should be.

And Ruthie held one of the people's seats on the Supreme Court. She has died and it has not reverted to the people, because it always belonged to the people.

I could not care less what she wanted and that type of comment - if true and I don't know- should not be honored and in fact should be condemned. The elected president lawfully in office and the elected people's representatives lawfully seated in the Senate will make those decisions. No one respected her and loved her more than Scalia or disagreed with her more but he would have given zero weight to what she wanted in regard to a judicial nominee. It is not a sign of disrespect to follow the constitution or to refrain from allowing the political opinions of justices to bleed into the nomination process. Leave the judiciary and get elected if you want to do that.

Ruthie had a good run and left all she had on the field so she was a stand up guy and is getting plenty of respect in public. But the people are in charge acting by and through their elected representatives and elected president within the period of time that they were elected to serve. That would be into January regardless of how the election goes.

When Scalia died the dems put a lot of time into trying to discern what he wanted in regard to filling his position, right? Get a grip for keerist sake. They just tried to guess what he would have wanted and actively set about doing the complete opposite.
More...

You have tremendous knowledge concerning US politics. I am hoping, even if it may be difficult, for you to specifically address the other four of my five points as well as how you believe undecided voters will react.

My concern is, how this issue is handled may be a difference maker in the Presidential election. Further, there may be an opportunity missed in attempting to reach across the aisle. I’m not so naive in thinking the other will automatically reciprocate, but we should at least try. Who knows, maybe some undecideds will pick up on the olive branch try by Republicans in this hot issue and entertain giving Republicans four more years.

At the end of this issue, people’s sense of justice will be the deciding factor in who will represent us going forward.

Please take a moment to reflect on how that idea makes you feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top