America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by delta1. 91 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
SCOTUS Kennedy To Retire
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#51 Posted: Fri, Jun 29 2018, 7:55 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Poor CROS... Sad
teedubbya Offline
#52 Posted: Fri, Jun 29 2018, 7:55 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Screw CROS
DrafterX Offline
#53 Posted: Fri, Jun 29 2018, 7:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
OhMyGod
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#54 Posted: Fri, Jun 29 2018, 4:19 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
delta1 wrote:
... you really think he would've accepted Obama's nominee if it was just 4 months before a mid-year election? Where 33 Senatorial seats are up for grabs?


...it doesn't really matter...our differences of opinion about who started what and who said what or who did what first doesn't amount to a hill of beans, except to push us apart...I don't think this is worth doing that...

But we will both rue the day when a bare majority of Senators is enough to appoint a US Supreme Court Justice...60 votes forced thoughtful consideration of the qualifications to serve and can help prevent an extreme nominee, left or right, from being appointed...the SCOTUS deserves to be a sane place without the super-partisanship games being played by the other two branches of government.


Short memory. Kagan was confirmed by the Senate on August 7, 2010, just 3 months before a midterm election where Democrats lost dozens of seats.

David
delta1 Offline
#55 Posted: Fri, Jun 29 2018, 5:05 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
She was nominated in April of that year, coincidentally 8 months before the elections. Difference was that Dems had a 58 member majority then...

I personally believe that it should not matter on the calendar when a vacancy on the SCOTUS arises, and which party occupies the WH or has a majority in the Senate...the President shall nominate, ASAP... and the Senate shall advise and consent ASAP...


Hey, I get that McConnell will say and do anything as long as he is in a position of power...heck he was even able to box in the Dems while he was the Senate MINORITY Leader while Obama was in office...the man is ruthless, wicked smart, and, arguably, without principle...he is a master manipulator of Senate process, and will go down in history as one of the greatest Senators ever...the one glaring weakness, though, is lack of legislative accomplishment...
ZRX1200 Offline
#56 Posted: Fri, Jun 29 2018, 11:24 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#57 Posted: Sat, Jun 30 2018, 6:48 AM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
^Jamie, I read the article. I don't know what to comment on first. The outright lies this propagandist states in his article, the fact that the delusional fool thinks his scheme can be accomplished as early as 2021 (bless his heart), or that his scheme if implemented, won't start a 2nd Civil War.

David
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#58 Posted: Sat, Jun 30 2018, 7:08 AM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
^^^#55

Al, we probably don't agree on much, but I can't find fault with any point you've made in this post.

With that said, I'd like to revisit a statement of yours. You stated in a previous post "Where 33 Senatorial seats are up for grabs?" Strange that I'm now seeing this same statement echoed on media discussion boards, as if this is some special, unique election. There are 100 Senate seats, and approximately 1/3 come up for election every 2 years. That means that for some time now, EVERY mid-term election has had approximately 33 Senate seats up for grabs. So this mid-term election is no different then any other. Democrats need to defend 22 seats this year, while the Republicans only have to defend 8. According to the law of averages, Republicans should gain seats. So why is this even a talking point?

David
ZRX1200 Offline
#59 Posted: Sat, Jun 30 2018, 9:27 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
Red meat for the base.
delta1 Offline
#60 Posted: Sat, Jun 30 2018, 1:00 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
Dave, we prolly agree on much more than we'll ever know, unless we can someday get together and herf. I've found MACS, Abrignac and Drafter to be good dudes, despite our knocking heads over politics here. I believe that true friendship is not defined by politics...especially not if all we see of one another are words about political views.


Pointing to the number of Senatorial seats up for grabs is a way to illustrate that all national elections are important. There is a likelihood that some of those seats will swing...in whose favor? McConnell is bright, but even he couldn't foretell Trump's election.

It is up to the people who vote, as McConnell argued then. It was wrong, imho, for McConnell to set a precedent then, eight months before, claiming he wanted the people to weigh in first. Now, he can't wait four months?..not rational...

McConnell made the case for restricting Obama's choice from being discussed, because he wanted the people to be involved by voting for the next President. Why does this rationale not apply to the election of the Senate, the ones who actually decide who is confirmed to the SC?

I think he just wanted to stick it to Obama, as he opposed nearly every one of his nominees that needed confirmation, especially He and Obama had stink eyes with one another from the very beginning, when McConnell announced he was going to "do all I can to make Obama a one term President."

I believe that the President should decide ASAP, without regard to the issue of election year, less than a few weeks now that pre-vetting takes place and consultation can be done without lengthy travel, to make a nominee. The Senate should advise and consent ASAP...not sure how long, but there needs to be established norms. Then we should move the number of votes needed to confirm back up from a bare majority, to something more likely to create actual debate and a moderating process...maybe 60 was too high? I dunno..57? 55? This will accomplish one of our democratic ideals of "majority rules with minority rights."

It seems that SCOTUS has become politicized, unfortunately, but that is the nature of the system imagined and implemented centuries ago. It seems that people are hoping that a Justice outlive a President's term... that a justice times his exit when the President is in his party...cuts both ways...
DrafterX Offline
#61 Posted: Sun, Jul 1 2018, 9:36 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
The Stink eye ehh...?? Think
DrafterX Offline
#62 Posted: Sun, Jul 1 2018, 9:56 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/01/left-wing-media-panic-over-supreme-court-turning-right-as-some-link-trump-to-newspaper-shooting.html


damn......Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#63 Posted: Sun, Jul 1 2018, 10:04 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
According to the law of averages, Republicans should gain seats. So why is this even a talking point?

David



Typically a new President's party loses seats in the mid-term elections. More the 1st term than the 2nd.

This mythical "Blue Wave" isn't going to materialize. The left has to ramp up the panic in all departments so get ready for more racist and anti-immigrant hot buttons. Break out the Kleenex...maybe get a mop.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#64 Posted: Sun, Jul 1 2018, 10:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
delta1 wrote:
McConnell made the case for restricting Obama's choice from being discussed, because he wanted the people to be involved by voting for the next President. Why does this rationale not apply to the election of the Senate, the ones who actually decide who is confirmed to the SC?


Seeing as how the President appoints picks to the SCOTUS and is part of his job, Obama surrendered that power to McConnell and his party. He shouldn't have done it as having a full bench is necessary for the nation.

Trump will pick a nominee and not the senate. The senate only confirms the nomination. Game over. There is nothing the left can do. Dirty Harry sealed the fate.
ZRX1200 Offline
#65 Posted: Sun, Jul 1 2018, 10:12 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
Advise and consent is the wording I believe.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#66 Posted: Sun, Jul 1 2018, 10:13 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
ZRX1200 wrote:
Advise and consent is the wording I believe.



wording schmerding. Its the weekend.
ZRX1200 Offline
#67 Posted: Sun, Jul 1 2018, 10:14 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
At Bernies?
delta1 Offline
#68 Posted: Mon, Jul 2 2018, 8:20 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Seeing as how the President appoints picks to the SCOTUS and is part of his job, Obama surrendered that power to McConnell and his party. He shouldn't have done it as having a full bench is necessary for the nation.

Trump will pick a nominee and not the senate. The senate only confirms the nomination. Game over. There is nothing the left can do. Dirty Harry sealed the fate.


You do know that Obama selected /nominated Merrick Garland, right? He did his job.

...and McConnell refused to do his job, and wouldn't let the Senate even discuss the nomination...

Dirty Harry? You mean Mudwrestler Mitch...
DrafterX Offline
#69 Posted: Mon, Jul 2 2018, 9:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
I thought it was Biden's rule... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#70 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 8:13 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
delta1 wrote:
You do know that Obama selected /nominated Merrick Garland, right? He did his job.





Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/in-hindsight-obama-shouldnt-have-appointed-merrick-garland.html


Yeah, he really did everything he could to get that to happen!
Abrignac Offline
#71 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 4:22 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
delta1 wrote:
She was nominated in May 26, 2009 coincidentally 7 months before the elections. Difference was that Dems had a 58 member majority then...

I personally believe that it should not matter on the calendar when a vacancy on the SCOTUS arises, and which party occupies the WH or has a majority in the Senate...the President shall nominate, ASAP... and the Senate shall advise and consent ASAP...


Hey, I get that McConnell will say and do anything as long as he is in a position of power...heck he was even able to box in the Dems while he was the Senate MINORITY Leader while Obama was in office...the man is ruthless, wicked smart, and, arguably, without principle...he is a master manipulator of Senate process, and will go down in history as one of the greatest Senators ever...the one glaring weakness, though, is lack of legislative accomplishment...


Fixed it for ya
delta1 Offline
#72 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 7:08 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
Thanks Ant...but I looked it up...it actually was May 10, 2010...

musta confused her birthdate, April 28, with the nomination date....


does that month make a difference?
delta1 Offline
#73 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 7:13 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/in-hindsight-obama-shouldnt-have-appointed-merrick-garland.html


Yeah, he really did everything he could to get that to happen!


lol...that was pretty entertaining reading...lotta tongue in those cheeks...but you can't say that Obama didn't do what a President should do...like him or not (Obama or Garland) a nomination was made...

one CAN say the McConnel- led Senate refused to do their job, whether they would have confirmed or rejected Garland doesn't matter...they refused to do what they are required to do...
DrafterX Offline
#74 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 7:20 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
But Biden said... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#75 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 7:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
What is the biggest fear anyways..?? Doesn't sound like abortion is on da table although that's being spread as such... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#76 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 8:05 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
So I'm guessing it's just another obstruction by the Resistance again...


Wonder if they had Iran's Resistance Movement in mind when they formed the thing... Doesn't make much sense if they're trying to compare the state of the union with theirs.. I'm pretty sure they just hate Trump.. even tho they have more money in their pockets... Think
frankj1 Offline
#77 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 8:15 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
DrafterX wrote:
But Biden said... Mellow

if it was wrong then, why not condemn it now?
DrafterX Offline
#78 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 8:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Cause Biden said... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#79 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 8:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Just kiddin of course... It won't matter... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#80 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 8:24 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
DrafterX wrote:
Just kiddin of course... It won't matter... Mellow

true, true.
looking for CROS is time better spent.
DrafterX Offline
#81 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 8:39 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Poor, poor CROS.. it's been so long... Sad
DrafterX Offline
#82 Posted: Tue, Jul 3 2018, 8:50 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Mister blue sky please tell us why
You had to hide away for so long (so long)
Where did we go wrong?

Sad
DrMaddVibe Offline
#83 Posted: Wed, Jul 4 2018, 11:45 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
delta1 wrote:
lol...that was pretty entertaining reading...lotta tongue in those cheeks...but you can't say that Obama didn't do what a President should do...like him or not (Obama or Garland) a nomination was made...

one CAN say the McConnel- led Senate refused to do their job, whether they would have confirmed or rejected Garland doesn't matter...they refused to do what they are required to do...



He was a POS of a President. The WORST of them all...even worse than Coolidge and Harrison!

He was a useful tool of the EU and the Haus of Saud.

His mom jeans and talk down to you speeches bored me to tears!

I still think it's funny how people want to hold that up like he's some great leader. All he was good for was political payoffs!
DrafterX Offline
#84 Posted: Wed, Jul 4 2018, 1:25 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
The most arrogant bassard I've ever seen for sure... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#85 Posted: Wed, Jul 4 2018, 1:31 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Lol. Funny ... obama is arrogant for sure but Trump has him beat by a mile in that regard. It’s no contest
DrafterX Offline
#86 Posted: Wed, Jul 4 2018, 1:33 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Maybe. But let's not take any thing away from Obama on that front... He was good at it... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#87 Posted: Wed, Jul 4 2018, 2:19 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
Mom jeans...helmet...girl's bike...and all
DrafterX Offline
#88 Posted: Wed, Jul 4 2018, 2:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Laugh
delta1 Offline
#89 Posted: Thu, Jul 5 2018, 4:40 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
DrMaddVibe wrote:
He was a POS of a President. The WORST of them all...even worse than Coolidge and Harrison!

He was a useful tool of the EU and the Haus of Saud.

His mom jeans and talk down to you speeches bored me to tears!

I still think it's funny how people want to hold that up like he's some great leader. All he was good for was political payoffs!


I prolly dislike Trump about as much as you dislike Obama...but neither of us will be around when history decides who was the better/worst President...there are some scholars who use objective criteria, beyond speaking styles and tones of voice, but I think that matters to some, or Ross Perot woulda done better...

Constitutionally, every President should be able to nominate a qualified person of his choice to fill a vacancy on the SCOTUS, and have the Senate advise and consent...the cons who controlled the Senate refused to even acknowledge Obama's nomination...the same cons who say the Constitution is the sacred law of the land...

does that set a precedent for the next time when a GOP President selects a qualified person to fill a SCOTUS vacancy and the Dems have a majority in the Senate? I think that's the reason that McConnell now has flip-flopped...but bad precedent should not be followed...

Realistically, there isn't much chance of a Blue Wave changing the composition of the Senate in the Dems favor in the upcoming mid-term elections...too many mod Dem voters were bought off by the Trump crumbs that were thrown to the middle class and the poor in the tax cut for the rich and for corporate America...
ZRX1200 Offline
#90 Posted: Thu, Jul 5 2018, 4:50 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
Wilson and FDR were far worse than Barry. Barry was slightly worse that W.
delta1 Offline
#91 Posted: Thu, Jul 5 2018, 7:03 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,784
Here's a ranking by C-SPAN, who polled presidential historians on various leadership qualities of America's Presidents... the top 20...

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-20-presidents-in-us-history-according-to-historians-2017-2
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top