What were people saying about SCJ picks not having any material impact?
https://twitter.com/johnwdean/status/1307932472244461568?s=21
A despicable “man”
https://www.newsweek.com/mcconnell-op-ed-scotus-pick-ginsburg-1533184
You know what? I'm a moderate, who leans left more often than not. But I recognize that there are massive flaws in both parties. "Politics" is a dirty game and it's gotten worse since Trump has taken office.
But this idea that the republicans want to push through their own replacement for the empty supreme court seat is pathetic, especially when you consider their stance 4 years ago. Hard-lined republicans won't care that their party are trying to do exactly what they prevented Obama from doing. But I'm hoping independents and undecided voters see this garbage and put them to the sword in November, Dems are threatening all kinds of stuff (which might also backfire for them), but they should just let this speak for itself.
Weak sauce republicans......
Trollminator wrote:
What were people saying about SCJ picks not having any material impact?
https://twitter.com/johnwdean/status/1307932472244461568?s=21
The Republicans are very good at linking elections to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court to everyday life, on the abortion issue.
The Democrats have to get as good or better at this. They should hammer away at how the SC is going to determine what happens with the ACA and, by extension, what happens to insurance coverage for millions of Americans. This includes coverage for pre-existing conditions. And that their vote in November influences who will be on the SC and, ultimately, who will be making those decisions.
This SC vacancy is a gift to the Democrats running for office. Not only is it exposing how spineless and sleazy the Republicans are, but it allows them to credibly argue that they will lose their insurance coverage if they elect Republicans. Even is it doesn't swing undecided voters to the Democrats, what's happening with the SC now should blast Dem turnout through the roof.
sally is an abuser wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
Actually, we went house-hunting today. And it was teasing not "berating."
Deer Sally, the girl who became a boy ..... 0/10.
Debasing someone for the ethnicity is RACISM.
Blaming an Asian for causing Trump's mass deaths is IGNORANCE.
It is not TEASING it is EMOTIONAL ABUSE.
https://www.empowher.com/mental-health/content/emotional-abuse-invisible-marriage-killerhttps://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/my-spouse-is-verbally-and-emotionally-abusive/
I never "debased" anyone for her ethnicity. China was totally at fault here. Totally at fault. I teased (I said berated but that was not the word I meant - Has anyone here ever used the wrong word than what was intended?) my wife about how China lied to the world about the Coronavirus and that is why we have millions of deaths. I blamed and blame CHINA for the millions of deaths. Your phrase "Blaming an Asian for causing Trump's mass deaths is IGNORANCE" - you do not even know what "ignorance" means. "Ignorance" means "unaware." Please learn how to use the word properly.
Also, you here are condemning me for teasing my wife about something bad CHINA did is laughable and pretty screwed up. The 2 cops ambushed and shot in the head - were at the hospital and in extremely dire circumstances. Dems were blocking them from getting to the hospital and even shouting incredibly terrible things like "death to the cops!" or something akin to that. Were you condemning that? Of course not. You are just doing what Dems do so naturally - be hypocrites. Well done!
Trollminator wrote:
A despicable “man”
https://www.newsweek.com/mcconnell-op-ed-scotus-pick-ginsburg-1533184
Here is a more despicable man ...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/7/chuck-schumer-thug-all-other-democrats/Do the Libs/Dems here support the Black Lives Matter movement? Because the 2 co-founders have admitted being trained Marxists. How low will Dems/Libs here go to support such a movement?
Sally Vix wrote:
Here is a more despicable man ...
Explain to me why Democrats should not be livid that Merrick Garland did not receive a hearing.
the Repubs are trying out the 'well whatever, we CAN do it so we WILL do it' defense.
These same Rs are going to scream bloody murder next year.
Everyone that's fired up about preventing a Republican Supreme Court nomination is already voting for Biden and Democrats.
The idea of appointing conservative Justices is what gets conservative leaning people that do not like Trump's character to vote for Trump instead of Biden.
That's the Sally vote.
He said he doesn't like Trump as a person but doesn't want Democrats putting judges in.
Monkeys typing wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Here is a more despicable man ...
Explain to me why Democrats should not be livid that Merrick Garland did not receive a hearing.
I actually think he should have received a hearing.
L L wrote:
Everyone that's fired up about preventing a Republican Supreme Court nomination is already voting for Biden and Democrats.
The idea of appointing conservative Justices is what gets conservative leaning people that do not like Trump's character to vote for Trump instead of Biden.
That's the Sally vote.
He said he doesn't like Trump as a person but doesn't want Democrats putting judges in.
Yes, that is my vote. John Roberts has ruled with the liberals in more than one instance. He is fairly moderate. Clarence thomas is of course conservative but the justices nominated by Democratic presidents and confirmed have been extremely radically left - see Kagan, RBG and Sotamayor. They don't base any of their rulings on the Constitution - they just rule on their radically left political ideology. Any justice nominated by a Dem president is going to be far left (and often EXTREMELY far left) while those nominated by Repubs will be more moderate.
Sally Vix wrote:
Any justice nominated by a Dem president is going to be far left (and often EXTREMELY far left) while those nominated by Repubs will be more moderate.
It's almost like you didn't acknowledge the existence of Merrick Garland 10 minutes ago.
unbelievable stuff.
the party of 'family values' 'christianity' and 'law and order'
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1308036581006082049?s=20
L L wrote:
Everyone that's fired up about preventing a Republican Supreme Court nomination is already voting for Biden and Democrats.
The idea of appointing conservative Justices is what gets conservative leaning people that do not like Trump's character to vote for Trump instead of Biden.
That's the Sally vote.
He said he doesn't like Trump as a person but doesn't want Democrats putting judges in.
I see this a bit differently. If the Republicans appoint a justice before the election, there will be no reason for some religious conservatives to vote. But independents and moderates will be angry and angry people vote.
If the Republicans didn't appoint a justice before election, there would be greater incentive for them to vote.
CircusClown wrote:
You know what? I'm a moderate, who leans left more often than not. But I recognize that there are massive flaws in both parties. "Politics" is a dirty game and it's gotten worse since Trump has taken office.
But this idea that the republicans want to push through their own replacement for the empty supreme court seat is pathetic, especially when you consider their stance 4 years ago. Hard-lined republicans won't care that their party are trying to do exactly what they prevented Obama from doing. But I'm hoping independents and undecided voters see this garbage and put them to the sword in November, Dems are threatening all kinds of stuff (which might also backfire for them), but they should just let this speak for itself.
Weak sauce republicans......
Yep - 8 months with an empty SCJ was totally ok in 2016 but in 2020 it's extremely urgent and a constitutional duty. Where I disagree is the part where Dems let this speak for itself. They need to respond in kind and escalate the issue, sticking to what would be within their authority of course. Dems are saying you screwed us in 2016 bigly and we could do nothing about it, but now you break your own word and tradition, AND you are not listening to the people. The reason the GOP gave for not even considering Obama's pick was that an outgoing president (and in this case a potentially outgoing majority senate as well) should not be making such a critical decision for the long term future of the country. That is why they had this established tradition which has been followed until now.
If the Dems had the senate in 2016 and decided to jam in their nominee then I would say they should not cry foul then when there is political retaliation. Once you drop a long standing norm to score a win then rest assured new precedents will be established. Maybe that is reconfiguration of the SC every decade or so. If the GOP doesn't desire that they should think twice about doing something the public doesn't want.
Two other things: 1) If Trump was not POTUS, I actually think it's possible the GOP would honor their word. 2) If the public view was that trump should have the pick, then I would not support Dems crying about it.
This is just another broken process in our broken american system. It's very hard to defend it. There should be some term limit and controls to limit parties from rigging the process. Maybe there should be a referendum or public election of SCJs.