RBG dead at 87!

[SpookySpectre308]

Confirm a Justice Now › American Greatness

The instant Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing was announced, the battle lines were drawn. Or, more accurately, one side girded for battle, while Republicans clucked with confusion about what to do…

amgreatness.com

Nothing new here. Put up the nomination.

 

[SpookySpectre308]

Must have been pretty awesome when you found a website that only publishes exactly what you want to read.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I appreciate the condescending tone. Typical ad hominem approach. I'll wait while you find the inaccuracies if you want to have an actual discussion. No need to get nasty.

 

[nrh6.7]

When it comes to the USSC, either side will do whatever they have to do to get their nominee pushed through. Regardless of what Mitch McConnell said in 2016, the simple fact is the Republicans held the Senate then and prevented Hussain Obama from getting Merrick Garland voted on, which is exactly what the Dems would've done had the roles been reversed. Now that the Republicans hold the WH and the Senate, there is NO way they will miss this opportunity for another justice.....just like the Dems would do if the roles were reversed. And honestly, considering how the left has treated DJT the last 4 years, I am looking forward to watching him get another pick! Childish threats about expanding the court or using impeachment again just shows them as the sore losers they are. Pick better candidates if you're not winning elections...

 

[Broomd]

Ive got zero faith in Roberts .. like none

Agreed, he's damaged goods; I suspect that there are pics, Epstein island, etc...you get the picture.

 

[realunlucky]

I appreciate the condescending tone. Typical ad hominem approach. I'll wait while you find the inaccuracies if you want to have an actual discussion. No need to get nasty.

You are definitely right, I should of just kept scrolling

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[rodney482]

Agreed, he's damaged goods; I suspect that there are pics, Epstein island, etc...you get the picture.

someone has something on him for sure

 

[nrh6.7]

Agreed, he's damaged goods; I suspect that there are pics, Epstein island, etc...you get the picture.

I firmly believe somebody has some dirt on him. I imagine he's been show "the picture"!

 

[SpookySpectre308]

You are definitely right, I should of just kept scrolling

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I like this meme. This is encountered daily on both sides of an issue. That aside, what do you read then? When does an outlet meet your approval? Can I have some of these sources so I may expand my view and sphere of knowledge?

 

[jlaner0408]

Dammmmm it’s a rough day in age to be pro-choice and pro-gun...

 

[gelton]

Dammmmm it’s a rough day in age to be pro-choice and pro-gun...

I think abortion should be left up to the states but I also believe that gay married couples should be able to protect their marijuana crops with AR 15's.

I Want Gay Married Couples To Protect Their Marijuana Plants With Guns Shirt

I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns. It's not that much to ask, is it? This super-soft, baby-knit t-shirt looks great on both men and women – it fits like a well-loved favorite. Made from 100% cotton, except for heather colors, which contain...

libertymaniacs.com

 

[bdg848]

I have seen multiple people saying things like "if he doesn't wait to nominate someone, then we will riot, you haven't seen riots yet"....All I can say is the United States of America doesn't negotiate with terrorist.

 

[Poser]

I

If a decision goes to the USSC and its a 4-4 tie then the case reverts to the decision made by the lower court. Roberts has proven in his decisions that when it comes to anything related to Trump he leans left.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that conservative justices are obligated to keep a Republican president in the WH if and when there are election fraud results following them election. Their job will be to determine the legalities of the election process, not vote to keep Trump president.

 

[Poser]

Hopefully she is replaced with a pro life justice.

Contrary to popular belief, overturning Roe vs Wade doesn’t outlaw abortion, it simply means that it’s no longer protected by the constitution. Outlawing abortion across the states by federal law would require an amendment. That will never happen. Your best case outcome as someone hinging anti abortion legal change on the SC justices is that abortion will be legal in NY and illegal in Alabama: folks with the resources to travel will continue to get abortions and folks that lack the resources will not.

Rather pointless if you ask me.

 

[FLAK]

God forgive her murderous soul.
And be replaced with a long lived conservative.

 

[rodney482]

even with 6-3 they wont touch RVW

Contrary to popular belief, overturning Roe vs Wade doesn’t outlaw abortion, it simply means that it’s no longer protected by the constitution. Outlawing abortion across the states by federal law would require an amendment. That will never happen. Your best case outcome as someone hinging anti abortion legal change on the SC justices is that abortion will be legal in NY and illegal in Alabama: folks with the resources to travel will continue to get abortions and folks that lack the resources will not.

Rather pointless if you ask me.

 

[Trevor73402]

I just love reading the comments from the very few left wingers that post here in an endless sea of Conservatives.

 

[Poser]

even with 6-3 they wont touch RVW




[


QUOTE="Poser, post: 1814509, member: 6152"]
Contrary to popular belief, overturning Roe vs Wade doesn’t outlaw abortion, it simply means that it’s no longer protected by the constitution. Outlawing abortion across the states by federal law would require an amendment. That will never happen. Your best case outcome as someone hinging anti abortion legal change on the SC justices is that abortion will be legal in NY and illegal in Alabama: folks with the resources to travel will continue to get abortions and folks that lack the resources will not.

Rather pointless if you ask me.

[/QUOTE]

Another thought is that if a trump nominated judge is confirmed before the election and then immediately cast into a scenario where they are asked to hand down a decision that ultimately decides the outcome of the election, it would be perfectly reasonable for that new justice to recuse him or herself from this decision as a Trump nominated and newly appointed justice. Anyway it plays out, the shit show will not be avoided.

 

[full choke]

Is anyone else saddened that our LAWS are left up to partisan POLITICS?

For the record- I think I am mostly Libertarian. I don't like ANY politician, nor do I feel we need them. Politics are for PTA's and local water districts. We need term limits for everyone of them. No reason ANYBODY should be a career politician. 40 yrs in the senate? SMH...

 

[Marbles]

Yes absolutely integrity should exist. I was stating the fact that integrity in DC politics no longer exists. It’s a travesty and will ultimately lead to destruction of our country from within.

Would be interested to constructively hear your opinion as to why Obama was not a lame duck president by 2016. I believe his track record and policies speak for themselves in terms of long term betterment or lack thereof for the country.

It comes down to semantics and procedures.

The semantics can be debated. However, lame duck is almost always used to refer to the time between an election and the swearing in of a replacement. At this point it can be said that the people have clearly bestowed their consent on anther and, if the outgoing person stood in the election, even withdrawn consent from him.

In the context McConnell is using it in, the above should apply. As an insult and judgement on Obama's effectiveness, sure go ahead and use it, but don't conflate the two.

For a democracy to work an elected individual must be assumed to have the consent of the governed until it is removed through either an election or conviction following a trial in the Senate after impeachment. There are checks and balances built into the system that prevent that consent from being used as a carte blanche.

The procedure bit comes down to a formality, however such things protect valuable precedent and allow those who disagree to work together. Something that is essential in a democratic republic.

Like I said in my first post, the Senate had the right not to confirm an Obama appointee and the ability as the Republicans held the majority. However, buy refusing to even consider the nominee on a principal based argument that at the time came down to SCOTUS justices should not be appointed in an election year McConnell set precedent. A precedent he now does not want to live with resulting in backfilling his argument.

I never voted for Obama and I'm not going to start arguing on his behalf now. Whether an individual sees his (or Trumps) presidency as a success or failure largely comes down to political affiliation. Which is why I believe adherence to formalities is important, rather than diving into largely subjective arguments, when it comes to setting precedent. Subjective arguments have their place amongst both the voters and the individual representatives, so don't take this as me throwing them out completely.

This is a short, and unsatisfactory, explanation, but this is a topic that risks getting as long winded and boring as Clausewitz' in On War. I lack the time and doubt anyone on a hunting form wants to read it anyway.

In short, I believe that both outcomes and how those outcomes are achieved matters.

 

[rodney482]

Another thought is that if a trump nominated judge is confirmed before the election and then immediately cast into a scenario where they are asked to hand down a decision that ultimately decides the outcome of the election, it would be perfectly reasonable for that new justice to recuse him or herself from this decision as a Trump nominated and newly appointed justice. Anyway it plays out, the shit show will not be avoided.
[/QUOTE]

And no matter what democrats will become violent. And at some point conservatives are going to have to meet that violence with violence.