June 21, 20223 yr We went through this during the Barrett hearings didn't we? I don't believe there's anything in the constitution that specifies how expediently the have to approve a SCOTUS seat. However by sitting on Garland for over a year, McConnell broke a precedent that believe had only been broken once over the previous 100 years and by doing that made a massive leap towards politicizing the supreme court. The number of justices for example, is also not explicitly established in the constitution and has been changed multiple times. Would everyone be ok with Biden expanding the supreme court by 3 seats? Doubt it.
June 21, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: We went through this during the Barrett hearings didn't we? I don't believe there's anything in the constitution that specifies how expediently the have to approve a SCOTUS seat. However by sitting on Garland for over a year, McConnell broke a precedent that believe had only been broken once over the previous 100 years and by doing that made a massive leap towards politicizing the supreme court. The number of justices for example, is also not explicitly established in the constitution and has been changed multiple times. Would everyone be ok with Biden expanding the supreme court by 3 seats? Doubt it. Right. Saying this was a bad political move which will create a spiraling judiciary arms race is a far cry from saying it’s unconstitutional. That said, the politicalization of the court had been entrenched long before this.
June 21, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, TEW said: Right. Saying this was a bad political move which will create a spiraling judiciary arms race is a far cry from saying it’s unconstitutional. Exactly. It was a d-ick move from the biggest d-ick in government, but there was nothing unconstitutional about it.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 22 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Now you’re telling me Garland pulls for the Republicans? No, what I said was that he was well-respected in Republican circles. It was well-documented, and it was the reason Obama nominated him. He picked Garland to throw a bone to the Republicans, thinking that they would support a guy that they had supported in the recent past. 6 minutes ago, TEW said: Right. Saying this was a bad political move which will create a spiraling judiciary arms race is a far cry from saying it’s unconstitutional. That said, the politicalization of the court had been entrenched long before this. "Unconstitutional" is basically a technical term that I never used. What I said was that it was arguably a violation of the Constitution. Something less than a blatant breach, but still an evasion or disregard of Constitutional duties. Let's call it an end-run.
June 21, 20223 yr Author I forgot this part: In 2009, McConnell reportedly suggested Obama nominate Garland as a centrist candidate that Republicans could accept. He declined to do so early in his term but then did at the end of his presidency, thinking that he would be acceptable based on previous conversations with McConnell.
June 21, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I forgot this part: In 2009, McConnell reportedly suggested Obama nominate Garland as a centrist candidate that Republicans could accept. He declined to do so early in his term but then did at the end of his presidency, thinking that he would be acceptable based on previous conversations with McConnell. Even so, the Senate of 2009 was different from the Senate of 2016 12 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: No, what I said was that he was well-respected in Republican circles. It was well-documented, and it was the reason Obama nominated him. He picked Garland to throw a bone to the Republicans, thinking that they would support a guy that they had supported in the recent past. "Unconstitutional" is basically a technical term that I never used. What I said was that it was arguably a violation of the Constitution. Something less than a blatant breach, but still an evasion or disregard of Constitutional duties. Let's call it an end-run. Well they didn’t. Too bad so sad Arguably nothing. If those are your standards for what’s "arguable” there’s nothing that can’t be argued … unless you have proof that Obama asked the Senate who they’d like and the Senate refused to make any suggestions…even then it’s still a stretch but I suppose that would be "arguably” a breach i think you’re confused about who it is that’s supposed to throw the bone
June 21, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: "Unconstitutional" is basically a technical term that I never used. What I said was that it was arguably a violation of the Constitution. Something less than a blatant breach, but still an evasion or disregard of Constitutional duties. Let's call it an end-run. You didn’t say "arguably.” You said it was "gross violations.” 4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Once again, TEW is flexing his libertarian wings by emphatically supporting gross violations of a republic's constitution. And for the record, there is no argument that this violated the constitution. No one with a clue makes the argument that this was a violation of the constitution.
June 21, 20223 yr 10 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I forgot this part: In 2009, McConnell reportedly suggested Obama nominate Garland as a centrist candidate that Republicans could accept. He declined to do so early in his term but then did at the end of his presidency, thinking that he would be acceptable based on previous conversations with McConnell. And he thought wrong. McConnell suggested him in 2009 because Democrats had control. Obama later nominated him because the Republicans had control. He was basically a tool used by both sides when they didn’t have control to try to bait the other side into a compromise. Neither side agreed.
June 21, 20223 yr 26 minutes ago, pallidrone said: Exactly. It was a d-ick move from the biggest d-ick in government, but there was nothing unconstitutional about it. I'd say "D move" doesn't even quite cover it. He kicked open the already cracked door when it comes to blatant manipulation of the highest court to support your political or even personal stances. So many horribly partisan things are on the table now that are technically not unconstitutional but we'd all agree are undoubtedly damaging...unless it helps our "side" But yes, technically he was allowed to do it. Just like technically I'm allowed to mail an envelope full of hair freshly trimmed from my grundle to his office every year (I think, I'm not a lawyer, just a man with a hairy taint and a calling).
June 21, 20223 yr So we're back to Garland again. Perhaps if Obama didn't spend so much time being a d*** when unnecessary he wouldn't have gotten shafted. As it was, it turned out that the toes he liked stepping on were connected to the foot he got in the arse.
June 21, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Nonsense, the court has been political since about the 1870s While it has always been political to a degree, how many times in the past 100 years has the Senate just sat on a SCOTUS nominee for over a year? This was absolutely an escalation by McConnell.
June 21, 20223 yr 10 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Nonsense, the court has been political since about the 1870s What made you pick the 1870s?
June 21, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: What made you pick the 1870s? It’s when the incorporation doctrine started
June 21, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: While it has always been political to a degree, how many times in the past 100 years has the Senate just sat on a SCOTUS nominee for over a year? This was absolutely an escalation by McConnell. Perhaps if we hadn’t gotten this "health mandate is really a tax” nonsense ruling…
June 21, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Perhaps if we hadn’t gotten this "health mandate is really a tax” nonsense ruling… Like I said, for many people blatant partisan manipulation is OK as long as it benefits their personal ideology. You're a prime example.
June 21, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, DEagle7 said: Like I said, for many people blatant partisan manipulation is OK as long as it benefits their personal ideology. You're a prime example. I wouldn’t say any of the ones we picked are what is correct as far as interpreting the constitution, so in that sense you’re right they support my ideology more than yours, but they are a lot closer to correctly interpreting the constitution than your guys, who seem to be put there for the intended purpose of changing the constitution without having to invoke article v
June 22, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: I wouldn’t say any of the ones we picked are what is correct as far as interpreting the constitution, so in that sense you’re right they support my ideology more than yours, but they are a lot closer to correctly interpreting the constitution than your guys, who seem to be put there for the intended purpose of changing the constitution without having to invoke article v So again, you're OK with blatant manipulation of our established political processes in order to get judges that better fit you want from a supreme court justice. Because that's what happened. And what will likely continue to happen and an accelerated rate on both sides now. Congrats.
June 22, 20223 yr Author 1 hour ago, TEW said: You didn’t say "arguably.” You said it was "gross violations.” And for the record, there is no argument that this violated the constitution. No one with a clue makes the argument that this was a violation of the constitution. It was arguably a gross violation, yes, because, although there is some vagueness, the Constitution clearly establishes that the Senate has a function to perform here, and Mitch ensured that they were not able to do so. But I'll settle for simply calling it gross negligence or, better yet, a "disgusting and unscrupulous abuse of power."
June 22, 20223 yr Author 51 minutes ago, lynched1 said: Perhaps if Obama didn't spend so much time being a d*** when unnecessary he wouldn't have gotten shafted. Black man bad!
June 22, 20223 yr 38 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: So again, you're OK with blatant manipulation of our established political processes in order to get judges that better fit you want from a supreme court justice. Because that's what happened. And what will likely continue to happen and an accelerated rate on both sides now. Congrats. I admit I pull for the right, but as far as what’s in the constitution, you’re the one arguing for a process not contemplated by the constitution
June 22, 20223 yr 17 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Black man bad! Run for that dark cover when I'm right. 🤣🤣🤣 Happens to whitey too. Ask Trump. I set people up like that all the time.
June 22, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I asserted that the Constitution says that the Senate shall provide advice and consent, and that the Senate has established rules for how that is done. Since Mitch violated the rules for providing advice and consent and denied the opportunity for the Senate to do so, he thus violated the Constitution. Forget knowing how to read law, this basic logic is apparently lost on you. The projection here is hilarious. You literally have zero clue what you're talking about, but I'm happy to make you look like clueless in this thread. Speaking of advice, here's some: Stick to things you actually have a background in, like econ and finance. You are so, so far removed from your area of expertise in this matter that it's embarrassingly obvious. You'd be better off admitting that you don't really care about whether elected officials play by the rules and want them to do whatever it takes to seize power, because the low-key white nationalism that you display on this forum goes right in line with that. You're not fooling anyone. low-key? ER's got jokes
June 22, 20223 yr 16 hours ago, Paul852 said: Can you please just open a dictionary and drop this stupid back and forth? Does that still work these days?
June 24, 20223 yr Author Quote Roe v. Wade overturned by Supreme Court, ending national right to abortion A divided Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the national legalization of abortion that has been in place in the U.S. for nearly 50 years. The 1973 Roe v. Wade court decision affirmed the right to receive an abortion under the 14th Amendment, ruling that abortions were constitutionally protected up until about 23 weeks when a fetus could be able to live outside the womb. The majority opinion is from Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which challenged the constitutionality of a Mississippi law passed in 2018 that banned abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. A decision on the case was leaked to Politico in May, telegraphing the court's intent to strike down Roe v. Wade. In that leaked decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that "the Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." https://www.wmur.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-decision-roe-v-wade/40297652#
Create an account or sign in to comment