|
Replies: 46
| visibility 1
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
For the record, even if the President lost the election
Oct 12, 2020, 8:51 AM
|
|
by the largest landslide ever, and control of the Senate switched parties, and a SCOTS spot opened up after the election, the President is Constitutionally obligated to nominate someone to fill that position, and the Senate is Constitutionally obligated to advise and consent.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Hope you dont get too excited
Oct 12, 2020, 9:00 AM
|
|
Dems are gonna add 4 more scotus seats next yr to make it 13 judges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I am way against that.***
Oct 12, 2020, 10:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Doesnt matter if your against it. Its going to happen
Oct 12, 2020, 11:25 AM
|
|
When Trump loses
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Only Congress can increase the number of justices.***
Oct 12, 2020, 11:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Uhh, Trump loses, dems already have the house and
Oct 12, 2020, 12:47 PM
|
|
Will probably have the senate and President.
Not sure if youre being real here.
You can hide your head in the sand all you want, but doesnt make it not real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Not sure what you mean...I think you and I
Oct 12, 2020, 12:49 PM
|
|
agree on this issue, but it seems you are striking an argumentative tone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46801]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30710
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Yes
Oct 12, 2020, 9:02 AM
|
|
I have no problem with the president nominating. I have a problem with the hypocrisy coming from the Senate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11626]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 5/17/02
|
Re: Yes
Oct 12, 2020, 9:17 AM
|
|
From which side? They are both hypocrites.
In 2016, Repubs said they should delay. Now they say they can't delay.
In 2016, Dems said it's your Constitutional requirement to nominate and have a full Supreme Court. I believe Schumer even said every day that goes by without 9 Justices is an injustice the American people. Now they say they should delay.
In 2020, they are both reversing their stances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21558]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13911
Joined: 9/7/02
|
But only one of those stances were followed.....
Oct 12, 2020, 3:54 PM
|
|
and precedent was set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30804]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22859
Joined: 11/1/03
|
Don’t know why people are surprised that politicians want to enforce laws that benefit their side
Oct 12, 2020, 4:19 PM
|
|
I just wish they’d say “it benefits my party to get this judge in now” and be done with it. We all know why both sides are arguing. Quit being ####### and just admit why you’re pushing things and why you’re resisting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23463
Joined: 7/13/12
|
I got laughed at last week
Oct 12, 2020, 1:43 PM
[ in reply to Yes ] |
|
By @felix
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23463
Joined: 7/13/12
|
Re: I got laughed at last week
Oct 12, 2020, 1:45 PM
|
|
By Felix2®
Who said something along the lines of
Are you saying politicians lie?
The hail you say
Then never returned to answer the question about what his stance on subject was
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: I got laughed at last week
Oct 12, 2020, 7:59 PM
|
|
By Felix2®Who said something along the lines of Are you saying politicians lie? The hail you say Then never returned to answer the question about what his stance on subject was
Sorry about that Fluff, I have a sarcastic, ironic sense of humor, like my wife.
I was just trying to be funny, wasn't a shot at you at all. I was being ironical. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
The record has been updated to reflect your official opinion***
Oct 12, 2020, 9:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [353]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 341
Joined: 6/27/10
|
Re: For the record, even if the President lost the election
Oct 12, 2020, 9:11 AM
|
|
Can you link us to what you posted in 2016 about the topic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Whos scok are you***
Oct 12, 2020, 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [353]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 341
Joined: 6/27/10
|
Re: Whos scok are you***
Oct 12, 2020, 9:47 AM
|
|
This is the one and only username I've ever had. Moderators can check whatever they need to check to prove this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Whos scok are you***
Oct 12, 2020, 11:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Pot meet kettle.***
Oct 12, 2020, 2:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Re: Pot meet kettle.***
Oct 12, 2020, 2:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [353]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 341
Joined: 6/27/10
|
Re: Whos scok are you***
Oct 12, 2020, 3:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: Whos scok are you*** ] |
|
That is correct. Sorry that you cannot fathom that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I'm not looking it up again.***
Oct 12, 2020, 10:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34536]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41381
Joined: 4/20/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19889]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16715
Joined: 11/28/00
|
He can still declare Martial Law
Oct 12, 2020, 9:15 AM
|
|
... and stay in office?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 1:52 PM
|
|
That's why Merrick Garland isn't a Justice right now.
At the time, you said it was a strategic move on the Republicans' part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 1:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 1:58 PM
|
|
I must've missed your post about that. If the Senate failed to confirm him for legitimate reasons, sure, and Obama could have nominated someone else. He had almost a year to get someone in.
If the Senate would have voted against confirming anyone no matter what, then they aren't doing their Constitutional duty, so that would be just as bad as what they did.
Pretty sure I can get Prodigal on my side of this argument (now that it's 2020 and not 2016).
Message was edited by: spooneye® because typos
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 2:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 2:44 PM
|
|
I didn't say a Senator can never vote against a nominee.
We can discuss whether Kavanaugh's adventures should have invalidated him as a candidate, but now we're already beyond where the Senate went with Garland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 2:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 2:56 PM
|
|
So you’re not even going to a knowledge how almost all of the Justices nominated by R Presidents had a much harder time?
Did you ask me to acknowledge that? Or are you just changing the subject? Again, we can talk about which justices should have been confirmed but weren't, but that's a different topic than whether it's OK to stall the confirmation process for a year. You still haven't mentioned whether you think it's OK to do that.
Dems were pulling the Kavanaugh bs back with Clarence Thomas. Hair on a Coke can??? Please.
Good point. About a different topic. Can you answer whether it's OK to stall for a year?
As Obama is responsible for the Trump presidency, Dems have nobody to blame but themselves for Pubs playing hardball with the SCOTUS now.
Wow, the Dems are responsible for their own actions AND for Pub actions? That's pretty convenient. Hey, we can use that maneuver if the Dems try to pack the Court: "Pubs have nobody to blame but themselves for what they did to Garland and for rushing to replace RBG."
This assumes that you're OK with what happened to Garland, of course. If all's fair, then all's fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 3:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 3:23 PM
|
|
Not just to disregard Garland, but to stall so that Obama couldn't nominate anyone else. You're saying you're okay with that.
That's fine, but don't complain when the Dems pack the court. All's fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 3:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 4:20 PM
|
|
Problem for you is, if Dems have Congress and the White House, then they have the right to add Justices to the Court.
Just like Pubs had the right to stall on Merrick Garland.
You don't hear me whining about Garland. It's was good strategy on the Pubs' part. It's good strategy to rush in a replacement for RBG now.
And it might be good Dem strategy to add some extra Justices.
Since your only point is that McConnell "had the right" to screw over Obama, you can't complain when the Dems do what they "have the right" to do.
After all, you're no hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 4:57 PM
|
|
So perhaps you want to go back and amend your "the Pubs had the right to do it" argument. Because now you sound like it might not be enough merely to have the right to do something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 5:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34100]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33604
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 12, 2020, 5:22 PM
|
|
I did answer that. I said they should have given him a hearing even if they were all conspiring to vote him down for no good reason, but that voting down a nominee for no good reason is also not good.
But I'm of the opinion that it can be wrong to do things even if you have a right to do it. McConnell and the Pubs have a right to play games with Garland and now with Barrett. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
You seemed to suggest that just having the right to pack the court doesn't make it the right thing to do. So perhaps you and I agree that there's more to these questions than what someone has the right to do.
Fair enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Why would Garland need to be voted down?
Oct 12, 2020, 3:26 PM
[ in reply to Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements. ] |
|
And I'm not in favor of packing the court, the GOP made this bed. This is why neither party should make short-sighted moves and rule changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Why would Garland need to be voted down?
Oct 12, 2020, 3:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements.
Oct 13, 2020, 1:44 PM
[ in reply to Re: But there is no Constitutional timing requirements. ] |
|
T3,
Yes that would have been better, but then the Repugs would have had to clearly admit that they were refusing Garland on political rather than judicial grounds.
I would have hated to see a clearly qualified judge denied, but that is better than not getting a hearing at all. And at least the Senate would have fulfilled their Constitutional obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: For the record, even if the President lost the election
Oct 13, 2020, 1:37 PM
|
|
Prodigal,
Where were these Constitutional obligations in 2016, especially the Senate's obligation to advise and consent ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 46
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
