Supreme court nomination

[billeisele 130]

Seems that we should follow what the Democrats have said and what the Constitution says. If Joe, Hillary, Nancy, Elizabeth, Bernie, Chuck and the rest of them say it we should do it. 

 

[brenthutch 432]

Oh no! You have done it now!  You have put a mirror in the faces of Democrat hypocrites.  They are not going to like that.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Oh no! You have done it now!  You have put a mirror in the faces of Democrat hypocrites.  They are not going to like that.

 

Here comes the "But the time line is different " argument.

[tonyhays 86]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

Seems that we should follow what the Democrats have said and what the Constitution says. If Joe, Hillary, Nancy, Elizabeth, Bernie, Chuck and the rest of them say it we should do it. 

 

The democrats should do what the republicans should have done in 2014/15.  Vet the supreme court nominee with a fair hearing and vote accordingly.  

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, tonyhays said:

The democrats should do what the republicans should have done in 2014/15.  Vet the supreme court nominee with a fair hearing and vote accordingly.  

If it is who I suspect it will be, She was just vetted recently and passed with votes of 85 to 15 or something along those lines.

[kallend 1,935]

10 hours ago, billeisele said:

Seems that we should follow what the Democrats have said and what the Constitution says. If Joe, Hillary, Nancy, Elizabeth, Bernie, Chuck and the rest of them say it we should do it. 

 

Nice to see you admit that McConnell and his GOP lackeys were being  partisan assholes in refusing to hold a vote on Garland.

[jakee 1,445]

15 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Here comes the "But the time line is different " argument.

You think the timeline is the same?

[GeorgiaDon 355]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

If it is who I suspect it will be, She was just vetted recently and passed with votes of 85 to 15 or something along those lines.

True, but an appeals court judge is different from a supreme court justice.  Bad decisions from the court of appeals can be reversed by the SC (supreme court, that is, not speaker's corner).  There is no place to go after the SC to reverse a decision, so they have to get it correct.

[gowlerk 2,164]

I don’t understand what all the argument is about. Of course Trump and his party are going to try to fill that seat. The other party would do the exact same thing. It’s about power when you have it you use it. If you don’t like it get up off your ass and go vote  for the other party this time. Y’all screwed up last time when you fell for the years and years of painting Hillary as a villain.

[SkyDekker 1,409]

55 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

There is no place to go after the SC to reverse a decision, so they have to get it correct.

There sort of is. Back to the legislative branch.

[GeorgiaDon 355]

27 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

There sort of is. Back to the legislative branch.

True in theory.  Less so in practice.  McConnell is too busy pushing through judges to be bothered with legislation.  Plus the "base" ensures that it is political suicide for republican legislators to cooperate with democrats on anything.

But yes, even Dred Scott was reversed.  Only took a civil war and two constitutional amendments.

[JerryBaumchen 1,340]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I don’t understand what all the argument is about. Of course Trump and his party are going to try to fill that seat. The other party would do the exact same thing. It’s about power when you have it you use it. If you don’t like it get up off your ass and go vote  for the other party this time. Y’all screwed up last time when you fell for the years and years of painting Hillary as a villain.

Hi Ken,

Re:  'If you don’t like it get up off your ass and go vote'

There it is, folks.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[billeisele 130]

8 hours ago, kallend said:

Nice to see you admit that McConnell and his GOP lackeys were being  partisan assholes in refusing to hold a vote on Garland.

No problem. That never should have happened. There should have been hearings and a vote. Both parties have plenty to be held accountable for.

[headoverheels 330]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

No problem. That never should have happened. There should have been hearings and a vote. Both parties have plenty to be held accountable for.

McConnell et. al. also refused to consider Garland when he was nominated by Clinton for a district judge position.  When Clinton was re-elected, he re-nominated Garland, who was confirmed in a 76-23 vote, with McConnell, Grassley and Sessions voting against confirmation, supposedly on the grounds that the district didn't need that many judges.

[brenthutch 432]

I’m thinking Trump will nominate Lagoa, while he down in Fla.  It will help him with the Cuban American community and blow RBG right out of the news cycle.  If there is something Trump hates most of all is not being the center of attention.  It will be a classless move (if he does it) but that would be pure Trump

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I’m thinking Trump will nominate Lagoa, while he down in Fla.  It will help him with the Cuban American community and blow RBG right out of the news cycle.  If there is something Trump hates most of all is not being the center of attention.  It will be a classless move (if he does it) but that would be pure Trump

The nomination wouldn't be classless.

The nomination would be going to a worthy individual.

The politics of it are undesirable at best.

I stand by my earlier comments that the position should be filled after the election.

BUT - I refuse to believe that the democrats would not be doing the same exact thing if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot.

[JerryBaumchen 1,340]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’m thinking Trump will nominate Lagoa, while he down in Fla.  It will help him with the Cuban American community and blow RBG right out of the news cycle.  If there is something Trump hates most of all is not being the center of attention.  It will be a classless move (if he does it) but that would be pure Trump

Hi Brent,

Well, he was the 'center of attention' when he went to view her. 

'VOTE HIM OUT!'

Jerry Baumchen

[Phil1111 1,142]

Amy Coney Barrett is reported to be trump's nomination:

"The 48-year-old judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago is a favorite among social conservatives. They, and others on the right, view her record as anti-abortion rights and hostile to the Affordable Care Act. If nominated and confirmed, Barrett would be the youngest justice on the Supreme Court and could help reshape the law and society for generations to come.

When Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the court in 2018, President Trump passed over Barrett, giving the nod instead to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. At the time, Trump told Barrett supporters that he was "saving" her to fill the Ginsburg seat, should the justice retire or die, sources say....

Barrett is a member of a particularly conservative Christian faith group, People of Praise. Newsweek reported that the group "teaches that husbands should assume authority as the head of the household." (Her parents are also members, and her father was a coordinator of the group's Southern chapters.)

The New York Times reported that People of Praise "grew out of the Catholic charismatic renewal movement that began in the late 1960s and adopted Pentecostal practices such as speaking in tongues, belief in prophecy and divine healing."...

Barrett has been critical of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision, but in 2016, she suggested that the court most likely would hollow out the decision, leaving the basic right to abortion in place, but allowing states wide latitude to make abortion difficult to obtain."

Elections have consequence.

[JerryBaumchen 1,340]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Amy Coney Barrett is reported to be trump's nomination:

"The 48-year-old judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago is a favorite among social conservatives. They, and others on the right, view her record as anti-abortion rights and hostile to the Affordable Care Act. If nominated and confirmed, Barrett would be the youngest justice on the Supreme Court and could help reshape the law and society for generations to come.

When Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the court in 2018, President Trump passed over Barrett, giving the nod instead to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. At the time, Trump told Barrett supporters that he was "saving" her to fill the Ginsburg seat, should the justice retire or die, sources say....

Barrett is a member of a particularly conservative Christian faith group, People of Praise. Newsweek reported that the group "teaches that husbands should assume authority as the head of the household." (Her parents are also members, and her father was a coordinator of the group's Southern chapters.)

The New York Times reported that People of Praise "grew out of the Catholic charismatic renewal movement that began in the late 1960s and adopted Pentecostal practices such as speaking in tongues, belief in prophecy and divine healing."...

Barrett has been critical of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision, but in 2016, she suggested that the court most likely would hollow out the decision, leaving the basic right to abortion in place, but allowing states wide latitude to make abortion difficult to obtain."

Elections have consequence.

Hi Phil,

Re:  'allowing states wide latitude to make abortion difficult to obtain'

I have always felt that this is the direction that the Supremes would take once they get the conservative majority.  The actual right to an abortion was set with Roe v Wade.  I think it was Kansas or Texas that had a state law ( for a while ) that any abortion provider had to have admitting privileges to a hospital.  This drives the costs way up; and they have to be close enough to a hospital.

The times, they are a'changin.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[wmw999 2,384]

31 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

The times, they are a'changin.

It’d be an improvement to hear why they should change, rather than “take that, libs” or “haha we won”

Wendy P. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,340]

30 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

It’d be an improvement to hear why they should change, rather than “take that, libs” or “haha we won”

Hi Wendy,

Ever hear of a guy named Mitch McConnell?

Jerry Baumchen

[SkyDekker 1,409]

Hard to believe that in 2020  developed countries are still politically and judicially being shaped by whether or not a woman should be allowed to make a decision regarding their own body.

Of course all while loudly proclaiming how backwards islamic countries are......

[brenthutch 432]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

It’d be an improvement to hear why they should change, rather than “take that, libs” or “haha we won”

Wendy P. 

Isn’t that EXACTLY what Obama did to the Republicans over the ACA?  “Elections have consequences...in case you haven’t noticed, I won, get over it”

Edited September 25, 2020 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 432]

Seems like I was wrong (see I can admit it) looks like it will be Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  My wife has the remote and she is watching Wheel of Fortune and won’t let me change to MSNBC   

[JoeWeber 2,690]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Seems like I was wrong (see I can admit it) looks like it will be Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  My wife has the remote and she is watching Wheel of Fortune and won’t let me change to MSNBC   

Why am I not surprised that in your house Wheel of Fortune takes precedence over news?