PDA

View Full Version : More of the same and we re-elect these senators



AZ Jim
10-18-2016, 11:19 AM
16422

Disgusting!

DGUtley
10-18-2016, 11:20 AM
Disgusting!

Because? Shouldn't this suggest that Hillary shouldn't put up such a far left candidate?

hanger4
10-18-2016, 11:24 AM
Reckon HC would nominate a conservative jurist if elected ?? Reckon McCain would filibuster that nomination ??

maineman
10-18-2016, 11:37 AM
Because? Shouldn't this suggest that Hillary shouldn't put up such a far left candidate?
she hasn't put up ANY candidate as of yet.

Subdermal
10-18-2016, 11:46 AM
16422

Disgusting!

Um...how is the voice of the people not represented by electing Senators who will oppose Hillary's SCOTUS nominees?

Do you think this is a monarchy or something, and no further check or balance is needed beyond a carte blanche approval by POTUS to do whatever they want?

You're 80, and still don't understand how our Government is supposed to work. Shameful.

hanger4
10-18-2016, 11:47 AM
she hasn't put up ANY candidate as of yet.

Well DUH :facepalm:

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 12:15 PM
16422

Disgusting!

No it isn't. Look, in terms of the necessity of term limits there's no question John McCain, individually should be out of the government. But that doesn't mean a Republican controlled Senate shouldn't block liberal justices from Supreme Court. The balance of the court is up for grabs, that's worth fighting for. Or perhaps mitigate the loss.....

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 12:16 PM
she hasn't put up ANY candidate as of yet.

Of course not, should McCain expect another Scalia coming out of her? Is that a reasonable expectation?

Beevee
10-18-2016, 12:20 PM
Can someone tell me how checks and balances work with a Republican dominated Congress and President - or visa versa?

Don
10-18-2016, 12:26 PM
McCain's still in election mode. He'll say whatever he has to in order to be reelected. If He wins and it looks like he will, he will revert back to his regular self. If Clinton wins and nominates a left wing hack for Supreme court justice then McCain will probably say the hack is really a moderate and in the interest of party unity he will vote for the nominee. Then the "conservatives" will say "he did it to us again and we fell for it...again!"

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 12:37 PM
McCain is winning by 16 in the polls so far. Looks like a clear majority of the people he has a responsibility to represent want him to obstruct any unfavorable SCOTUS nominee.

DGUtley
10-18-2016, 12:40 PM
she hasn't put up ANY candidate as of yet.

That's a valid point although she's said that she'll appoint justices that are committed to reverse Heller.

maineman
10-18-2016, 12:43 PM
McCain is winning by 16 in the polls so far. Looks like a clear majority of the people he has a responsibility to represent want him to obstruct any unfavorable SCOTUS nominee.

if Tim Kaine is president of the senate, the point is moot.

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 12:43 PM
she hasn't put up ANY candidate as of yet.

Why not? Trump has released a whole list, though I doubt he's seriously considering anyone on it.

Why wouldn't she give her shortlist?

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 12:44 PM
if Tim Kaine is president of the senate, the point is moot.

Only if Democrats take back the Senate or at least take enough seats to make it 50-50. Otherwise it doesn't really matter.

DGUtley
10-18-2016, 12:47 PM
Why not? Trump has released a whole list, though I doubt he's seriously considering anyone on it. Why wouldn't she give her shortlist?

Why do you say what I underlined? He's pledged to do that.

AZ Jim
10-18-2016, 12:48 PM
Go back in our history and find anywhere that a Democrat US Senator made such a outlandish statement either before or during a Republican President administration. You won't find it. Democrats have NOT obstructed republican appointments to the SCOTUS, ever. Don't try to rationalize it to me or anyone else, it is as I said, DISGUSTING and it is anti-American. These people, McCain, McConnell et al have been in power so long they act like Kings. Nothing stated here means Democrats have always voted for a republican nominee but they never stated they wouldn't even consider one.

Cigar
10-18-2016, 01:10 PM
McCain is winning by 16 in the polls so far. Looks like a clear majority of the people he has a responsibility to represent want him to obstruct any unfavorable SCOTUS nominee.


So in order to become a SCOTUS, you have to be "favorable" to The Republican Party? :huh:

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 01:11 PM
Go back in our history and find anywhere that a Democrat US Senator made such a outlandish statement either before or during a Republican President administration. You won't find it. Democrats have NOT obstructed republican appointments to the SCOTUS, ever. Don't try to rationalize it to me or anyone else, it is as I said, DISGUSTING and it is anti-American. These people, McCain, McConnell et al have been in power so long they act like Kings. Nothing stated here means Democrats have always voted for a republican nominee but they never stated they wouldn't even consider one.

You're kidding me, right? The Democrats threatened to PACK THE COURT during the New Deal.

hanger4
10-18-2016, 01:17 PM
So in order to become a SCOTUS, you have to be "favorable" to The Republican Party? :huh:

More appropriately, favorable to the Senate majority party. It's that ol "advice and consent" thingy.

Bethere
10-18-2016, 01:20 PM
...she's said that she'll appoint justices that are committed to reverse Heller.

Excellent. Heller v DC is a great example of the type of judicial activism about which the gop claims to be so upset.

Btw, Tribe 3-0.

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 01:33 PM
Excellent. Heller v DC is a great example of the type of judicial activism about which the gop claims to be so upset.

Btw, Tribe 3-0.

Nonsense, it was correctly decided. While it applies to DC it was the forerunner of MacDonald which incorporates 2nd Amendment against the states and its clear from the congressional record that XIV was specifically intended to include prohibiting states from disarming recently freed slaves frkm roaming bands of klansmen.

Bethere
10-18-2016, 01:59 PM
Nonsense, it was correctly decided. While it applies to DC it was the forerunner of MacDonald which incorporates 2nd Amendment against the states and its clear from the congressional record that XIV was specifically intended to include prohibiting states from disarming recently freed slaves frkm roaming bands of klansmen.


Nonsense, the jurists created a right out of thin air 221 years after the constitution was ratified.

I thought you opposed judicial activism?

The nra is pleased.

Our founding fathers, on the other hand, have been dead for hundreds of years.

DGUtley
10-18-2016, 02:11 PM
Excellent. Heller v DC is a great example of the type of judicial activism about which the gop claims to be so upset. Btw, Tribe 3-0.

The problem with reversing Heller is that it will be interpreted as a repudiation of the right of an individual to bear arms rather than the acknowledgment that we've always had that right.

49 minutes til game 4. Explain it. Explain the decimation of the rotation and yet we're a win away from the WS.

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 02:19 PM
Nonsense, the jurists created a right out of thin air 221 years after the constitution was ratified.

I thought you opposed judicial activism?

The nra is pleased.

Our founding fathers, on the other hand, have been dead for hundreds of years.

No, they didn't, the right is the fundamental right of self defense which, with a blanket prohobition, the District violated. In this case it IS the district and not a state. Once a state the XIV applies and there's no question the XIV was targeting rebel states that were trying to disarm recently freed slaves

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 02:50 PM
Why do you say what I underlined? He's pledged to do that.

Because Donald Trump is the biggest flip-flopper in US political history. He's pledged a lot of things that he later altered completely.

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 02:50 PM
Go back in our history and find anywhere that a Democrat US Senator made such a outlandish statement either before or during a Republican President administration. You won't find it. Democrats have NOT obstructed republican appointments to the SCOTUS, ever.

Robert Bork.

del
10-18-2016, 02:52 PM
Because? Shouldn't this suggest that Hillary shouldn't put up such a far left candidate?

which candidate is that?

what part of any requires further explanation to you?

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 02:52 PM
So in order to become a SCOTUS, you have to be "favorable" to The Republican Party? :huh:

If the Republican Party controls the Senate, yes, that's how our system of government works.

del
10-18-2016, 02:55 PM
Robert Bork.

bork got a hearing and was rejected.

he was not rejected out of hand like garland and presumably anyone clinton nominates.

Boris The Animal
10-18-2016, 03:00 PM
Robert Bork.Was just about to say that.

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 03:26 PM
bork got a hearing and was rejected.

he was not rejected out of hand like garland and presumably anyone clinton nominates.

Rejected is rejected.

DGUtley
10-18-2016, 03:27 PM
bork got a hearing and was rejected. he was not rejected out of hand like garland and presumably anyone clinton nominates.

I agree. She/He should have a hearing and then a vote. Period.

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 03:35 PM
I agree. She/He should have a hearing and then a vote. Period.

I disagree only because there's no reason to have a hearing for the sake of having a hearing. The hearing, at this point, is basically theatrics at this point.

There was a time when it would serve the purpose of filling in gaps of knowledge. But the cases are easily found now, how that person ruled on any case he/or she sat on. There's no real mystery here.

AZ Jim
10-18-2016, 03:35 PM
Robert Bork.Wrong. Robert Bork's nomination was debated by the full senate for weeks it finally boiled down to him not having a chance to win enough votes so he withdrew. He DID get a full and fair hearing. Republicans will not even allow debate. The will not even consider the nomination. How does that compare amigo?

hanger4
10-18-2016, 03:41 PM
Wrong. Robert Bork's nomination was debated by the full senate for weeks it finally boiled down to him not having a chance to win enough votes so he withdrew. He DID get a full and fair hearing. Republicans will not even allow debate. The will not even consider the nomination. How does that compare amigo?

Where in the Constitution does it say hearings and votes. All it says is "advise and consent". Obama was advised his nominees would receive no consent. Before, after or during hearings is irrelevant.

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 03:43 PM
Where in the Constitution does it say hearings and votes. All it says is "advise and consent". Obama was advised his nominees would receive no consent. Before, after or during hearings is irrelevant.

Indeed, did Obama have a hearing soliciting senatorial advice? Of course not (and he shouldn't either). Senatorial consent can be withheld or supplied as the senate sees fit.

AZ Jim
10-18-2016, 03:54 PM
I disagree only because there's no reason to have a hearing for the sake of having a hearing. The hearing, at this point, is basically theatrics at this point.

There was a time when it would serve the purpose of filling in gaps of knowledge. But the cases are easily found now, how that person ruled on any case he/or she sat on. There's no real mystery here. You are thinking but not clearly. Do you mean to suggest that nominees don't deserve a hearing as prescribed by law? The President has the duty to nominate and the congress to consider them. As young as you are (I have tee shirts almost you age) you may not consider this but many of or justices may not even live 4 years are we to live with the third leg of our political system crippled? Use your head and put aside your bias and think like an American. Remember Justice Roberts a well known rightie was nominated by Bush and later confirmed by a Democratic Senate 78-22.

AZ Jim
10-18-2016, 03:55 PM
You're kidding me, right? The Democrats threatened to PACK THE COURT during the New Deal.Oh please, lets not talk old time politics and apples and oranges.

hanger4
10-18-2016, 04:13 PM
You are thinking but not clearly. Do you mean to suggest that nominees don't deserve a hearing as prescribed by law? The President has the duty to nominate and the congress to consider them. As young as you are (I have tee shirts almost you age) you may not consider this but many of or justices may not even live 4 years are we to live with the third leg of our political system crippled? Use your head and put aside your bias and think like an American. Remember Justice Roberts a well known rightie was nominated by Bush and later confirmed by a Democratic Senate 78-22.

There is no "prescribed by law" to hold hearings AZ Jim You're certainly welcom to site. The Senate has no constitutional obligation to hold a confirmation hearing on a Supreme Court nominee when no such public hearings were held for most of the nation’s history.

AZ Jim
10-18-2016, 04:22 PM
There is no "prescribed by law" to hold hearings @AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901) You're certainly welcom to site. The Senate has no constitutional obligation to hold a confirmation hearing on a Supreme Court nominee when no such public hearings were held for most of the nation’s history.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 04:30 PM
You are thinking but not clearly. Do you mean to suggest that nominees don't deserve a hearing as prescribed by law? The President has the duty to nominate and the congress to consider them. As young as you are (I have tee shirts almost you age) you may not consider this but many of or justices may not even live 4 years are we to live with the third leg of our political system crippled? Use your head and put aside your bias and think like an American. Remember Justice Roberts a well known rightie was nominated by Bush and later confirmed by a Democratic Senate 78-22.

They aren't entitled to a hearing. The hearing, at this point, is just a vestigial organ of a time when a hearing was actually useful. You might think its useful but its not, its merely political theater at this point, nothing more. The Senate could, in its sole discretion, summarily grant consent, summarily decide to withhold consent, have a hearing if it wants, or do nothing which is the same as witholding consent. By not holding a hearing, the Senate is easentially deciding that they don't need a hearing to make a further determonation at this juncture, and that ultimately is a political question that they alone can answer.

In this day and age there's little reason for Congress to congregate as a body for much at all really.

hanger4
10-18-2016, 04:36 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

Thanks for making my point. There is no "prescribed by law" to hold hearings.

I suggest you read your link carefully, especially the "Full text of the clause" section.

Again, there is no law requiring hearings for nominees.

BTW The Judiciary Committee didn’t hold its first public hearing on a Supreme Court nominee until 1916.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/mar/20/mark-herring/herring-says-all-supreme-court-nominees-back-1875-/

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 06:13 PM
Wrong. Robert Bork's nomination was debated by the full senate for weeks it finally boiled down to him not having a chance to win enough votes so he withdrew. He DID get a full and fair hearing. Republicans will not even allow debate. The will not even consider the nomination. How does that compare amigo?

Why did he not have the votes, Jim?

Bethere
10-18-2016, 07:44 PM
The problem with reversing Heller is that it will be interpreted as a repudiation of the right of an individual to bear arms rather than the acknowledgment that we've always had that right.

49 minutes til game 4. Explain it. Explain the decimation of the rotation and yet we're a win away from the WS.

It's a miracle. Pure and simple.

Did you see the blood pouring out of his finger? He was wiping it between pitches on his jersey. If it were a road game his white jersey would have looked as if someone stabbed him in the stomach with a dagger.

Bethere
10-18-2016, 07:51 PM
No, they didn't, the right is the fundamental right of self defense which, with a blanket prohobition, the District violated. In this case it IS the district and not a state. Once a state the XIV applies and there's no question the XIV was targeting rebel states that were trying to disarm recently freed slaves

Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about an individual's right to bear arms. The court agreed with this for 221 years. You aren't a militia, well regulated or otherwise.

You love judicial activism. Why don't you just admit it? You'll feel better about yourself.

TrueBlue
10-18-2016, 07:52 PM
Of course not, should McCain expect another Scalia coming out of her? Is that a reasonable expectation?
By the same token, would a Sonia Sotomayor be a reasonable expectation for a Trump presidency?

Bethere
10-18-2016, 07:53 PM
Robert Bork.

Abe Fortas.

del
10-18-2016, 07:54 PM
Rejected is rejected.

he received a full hearing

if you can't see the difference, i can't help you.

TrueBlue
10-18-2016, 07:56 PM
Why did he not have the votes, Jim?
I'm not Jim but the talk at the time was that he was too much of a radical, extreme right-winger. Could that have been it?

Bethere
10-18-2016, 08:01 PM
he received a full hearing

if you can't see the difference, i can't help you.

A full hearing that hanger 4 says he had no constitutional right to expect.

See? We bent over backwards to accommodate the gop and bork.

hanger4
10-18-2016, 08:27 PM
A full hearing that hanger 4 says he had no constitutional right to expect.

See? We bent over backwards to accommodate the gop and bork.

You're welcome to prove there's right to a hearing. AZ Jim tried and failed miserably.

Newpublius
10-18-2016, 10:19 PM
Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about an individual's right to bear arms. The court agreed with this for 221 years. You aren't a militia, well regulated or otherwise.

You love judicial activism. Why don't you just admit it? You'll feel better about yourself.

The militia reference is the rationale behind the right. The Constitution is a delegation of authority and the Bill of Rights expressly prevents the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms.

In adopting the XIV Amendment Thadeus Stevens says: "Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty"

He continues and says: "The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question."

Express intent of the framers of the XIV Amendment.....

Even the 2d Amendment's reference to militia and right of the people to bear arms isn't remotely difficult to understand in the historical context of the era. The era of the minuteman, bringing his own weapon used privately, into service of the militia as danger appeared was how defense was set up. The militia, which weren't federal, were seen as a check on federal power, and the amendment is preventing the federal government from disarming the militia in a roundabout manner, ie. by disarming the people who would be be bringing their private weapons into service of the militia.

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 10:23 PM
Abe Fortas.

To be fair, Fortas was a colossal dick.

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 10:24 PM
I'm not Jim but the talk at the time was that he was too much of a radical, extreme right-winger. Could that have been it?

Possibly, but I'm more looking at who didn't vote for him rather than the reasons behind it.

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 10:25 PM
he received a full hearing

if you can't see the difference, i can't help you.

AZ Jim said Democrats never obstructed a Republican SCOTUS nominee.

That statement is historically false and Bork is a good example of that.

Yes, there was a hearing. Yes, there was going to be (presumably, anyway) a vote. However, the Democrats at the time made it clear during the hearing that they never had any intention of allowing his nomination to go through. That sounds like obstruction to me.

del
10-18-2016, 10:31 PM
AZ Jim said Democrats never obstructed a Republican SCOTUS nominee. That statement is historically false and Bork is a good example of that. Yes, there was a hearing. Yes, there was going to be (presumably, anyway) a vote. However, the Democrats at the time made it clear during the hearing that they never had any intention of allowing his nomination to go through. That sounds like obstruction to me. i would say obstruction is when you refuse to even have a hearing to consider the candidate, let alone a vote. that bork chose not to be voted upon was exactly that, his choice.

there was a vote, which he lost, 58-42

Bethere
10-18-2016, 11:02 PM
To be fair, Fortas was a colossal dick.

No more so than Bork.

The colossal dick thing was funny. You have the noble Fortas confused with Clarence Thomas' infatuation concerning Long Dong Silver.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Bethere
10-18-2016, 11:05 PM
You're welcome to prove there's right to a hearing. AZ Jim tried and failed miserably.

I never said there was did I? What I did say, you futile obfuscater you, was that we gave Bork hearings and a vote that you Republicans didn't offer our candidate.

This kind of behavior is why few here respect you.

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 11:20 PM
i would say obstruction is when you refuse to even have a hearing to consider the candidate, let alone a vote. that bork chose not to be voted upon was exactly that, his choice.

there was a vote, which he lost, 58-42

You are correct, there was a vote.

hanger4
10-18-2016, 11:27 PM
I never said there was did I? What I did say, you futile obfuscater you, was that we gave Bork hearings and a vote that you Republicans didn't offer our candidate.

This kind of behavior is why few here respect you.

"This kind of behavior is why few here respect you"

Must of missed that poll Bethere, got a link ??

Nevermind, I forget, when Bethere gots nutin Bethere makes it up.

Bethere
10-18-2016, 11:33 PM
"This kind of behavior is why few here respect you"

Must of missed that poll Bethere, got a link ??

Nevermind, I forget, when Bethere gots nutin Bethere makes it up.

Way to project! I bust you on claiming that I said hearings were required by the constitution and all of a sudden I am the one making stuff up?

Who could possibly respect projection such as that?

hanger4
10-18-2016, 11:56 PM
Way to project! I bust you on claiming that I said hearings were required by the constitution and all of a sudden I am the one making stuff up?

Who could possibly respect projection such as that?

Can't be busted for the telling the truth Bethere

Bethere
10-19-2016, 12:00 AM
Can't be busted for the telling the truth Bethere

16425

hanger4
10-19-2016, 06:50 AM
16425

Bethere concedes the point again.

It's becoming a bad habit with you. You should try harder. :thumbsup: