1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Any Satanic Death cult is way more normal than Trump’s cult.  Think about that.

I thought about it, and this is still one of the dumbest things Ive read for a long time

4 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Turned a topic arguing about SCOTUS protocols into a religious debate where liberals are defending Satanists.  Peak CVON.

Happy Friday everyone!

45 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

I thought about it, and this is still one of the dumbest things Ive read for a long time

Well, you’re in it, so...

1 hour ago, PoconoDon said:

I think history has suggested a principle, even if it's not one we'd pick at first. When the President and Senate majority are from different parties, no seat is filled in an election year. When they are the same party, it is. Generally, that's what has happened as far as I can tell.  

Kennedy, a Reagan nominee, was confirmed 97-0 by a Democratic Senate in an election year following Bork getting Borked.

Brennan, a Democrat, was nominated by Republican Eisenhower in an election year and confirmed by a split Senate.

There just aren't that many vacancies, so pointing to a lack of a precedent is weak sauce.

You know what there definitely ISN'T precedent for prior to 2016? One party sitting on a nomination for 8 mos. I don't think the founding fathers intended for the senate's "advise and consent" clause to mena "sit on a nominee for 8 mos during an election year"

 

 

Too soon?  

 

39 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Too soon?  

 

Remember, they can say anything they want about her as long as it’s in meme form. Meme’s don’t count!  

46 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Too soon?  

 

Not too soon at all. 

I kind of agree with Ginsburg:  the Supreme Court should be all women

 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I kind of agree with Ginsburg:  the Supreme Court should be all women

You would...

I dunno what's more Fed up....the fact that they think nominating a woman = patriarchy....or that that actually makes sense to them 

 

 

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Kennedy, a Reagan nominee, was confirmed 97-0 by a Democratic Senate in an election year following Bork getting Borked.

Brennan, a Democrat, was nominated by Republican Eisenhower in an election year and confirmed by a split Senate.

There just aren't that many vacancies, so pointing to a lack of a precedent is weak sauce.

You know what there definitely ISN'T precedent for prior to 2016? One party sitting on a nomination for 8 mos. I don't think the founding fathers intended for the senate's "advise and consent" clause to mena "sit on a nominee for 8 mos during an election year"

My position in 2016 is the same as it is now. The Senate should consider a nominee put forward by the President, regardless of the electoral calendar. The Senators should meet with the nominee, and the Judiciary Committee should have hearings. And then...they can vote for or against to advance (and same if it makes it to the floor). 
 

That’s where I disagreed with the GOP in 2016. Consider Garland and then have the committee deny him, or the full Senate vote him down. Do that and there would be no cries of hypocrisy now. 
 

I know very little about Garland, or Barrett, but they are both worthy of some form of consideration. 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

My position in 2016 is the same as it is now. The Senate should consider a nominee put forward by the President, regardless of the electoral calendar. The Senators should meet with the nominee, and the Judiciary Committee should have hearings. And then...they can vote for or against to advance (and same if it makes it to the floor). 
 

That’s where I disagreed with the GOP in 2016. Consider Garland and then have the committee deny him, or the full Senate vote him down. Do that and there would be no cries of hypocrisy now. 
 

I know very little about Garland, or Barrett, but they are both worthy of some form of consideration. 

This.

If you’re going to reject the nominee, just do it through formal proceedings as it should be done. There is nothing untoward about doing this.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

This.

If you’re going to reject the nominee, just do it through formal proceedings as it should be done. There is nothing untoward about doing this.

I guess they thought Garland was too strong a nominee to vote against, but they looked ten times worse not even considering him. And they set a terrible precedent that is being thrown back in their faces. 
 

Lost in all this political BS? Merrick Garland is clearly a very accomplished man, regardless of his political leanings. The man deserved the respect of at least being considered. 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I guess they thought Garland was too strong a nominee to vote against, but they looked ten times worse not even considering him. And they set a terrible precedent that is being thrown back in their faces. 
 

Lost in all this political BS? Merrick Garland is clearly a very accomplished man, regardless of his political leanings. The man deserved the respect of at least being considered. 

This seems to be pretty consistent among SCOTUS nominees. Pretty much the last bastion of our government with people worthy of the position.

I think if a liberal judge had died in 2016 that they might have voted.  But the GOP couldn’t stomach Scalia being replaced with an Obama appointee.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/judge-cant-be-handmaid/616494/

I don't know much about Barrett so this was informative on one critique of her.

 

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

This seems to be pretty consistent among SCOTUS nominees. Pretty much the last bastion of our government with people worthy of the position.

I miss the days when qualifications are what really mattered. When SCOTUS nominees were confirmed overwhelmingly. Hell, even Roberts was 78-22 (22 yes votes from Democrats). Kagan and Sotomayor both broke 60. And Ginsburg got 96. 

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I miss the days when qualifications are what really mattered. When SCOTUS nominees were confirmed overwhelmingly. Hell, even Roberts was 78-22 (22 yes votes from Democrats). Kagan and Sotomayor both broke 60. And Ginsburg got 96. 

Barrett will probably get 51 or 52.  Even Doug Jones said he would vote against her.

5 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Any Satanic Death cult is way more normal than Trump’s cult.  Think about that.

I've been waiting to use this one:

https://babylonbee.com/news/poll-majority-of-evangelicals-would-support-satan-if-he-ran-as-republican-candidate

From 2017, btw. 😄😄😄

😈😈😈😈👹👹👹👹👹👺👺👺👺👺

1 minute ago, M.C. said:

I've been waiting to use this one:

https://babylonbee.com/news/poll-majority-of-evangelicals-would-support-satan-if-he-ran-as-republican-candidate

😈😈😈😈👹👹👹👹👹👺👺👺👺👺

It’s funny because it’s true.  But also, the maskless rallies where they all give each other Covid are something even Satanists wouldn’t do.

14 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I miss the days when qualifications are what really mattered. When SCOTUS nominees were confirmed overwhelmingly. Hell, even Roberts was 78-22 (22 yes votes from Democrats). Kagan and Sotomayor both broke 60. And Ginsburg got 96. 

Unfortunately, SCOTUS is now a super legislature. The days of good faith legal readings are over.