"Let's make this election a referendum on the court vacancy"

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
Are you kidding me?

We have an election where there are huge problems and issues surrounding our economy, the debt, jobs, foreign policy, energy, immigration, healthcare, et al.

And we should make the ENTIRE ELECTION about one court vacancy? A vacancy that is supposed to be filled by the President in conjunction with Congress, because the founders specifically did NOT want it left up to a popular vote among the general populace?

The pundits & politicians are just going full stupid these days. I can't believe some of the stuff I'm hearing.
 
Thing1 said:
Are you kidding me?

We have an election where there are huge problems and issues surrounding our economy, the debt, jobs, foreign policy, energy, immigration, healthcare, et al.

And we should make the ENTIRE ELECTION about one court vacancy? A vacancy that is supposed to be filled by the President in conjunction with Congress, because the founders specifically did NOT want it left up to a popular vote among the general populace?

The pundits & politicians are just going full stupid these days. I can't believe some of the stuff I'm hearing.
Click to expand...

Your crocodile tears are making me laugh. We warned you libtards but you stood by while your party trampled the Constitution. Now lay back and take it
 
Thing1 said:
Are you kidding me?

We have an election where there are huge problems and issues surrounding our economy, the debt, jobs, foreign policy, energy, immigration, healthcare, et al.

And we should make the ENTIRE ELECTION about one court vacancy? A vacancy that is supposed to be filled by the President in conjunction with Congress, because the founders specifically did NOT want it left up to a popular vote among the general populace?

The pundits & politicians are just going full stupid these days. I can't believe some of the stuff I'm hearing.
Click to expand...

1) Who stated that the entire election should be about the SCOTUS seat?

2) No one is suggesting the public elect the next SCOTUS.
 
I'm going to go read this in context and see what I think. On the surface I may agree that it could be a good strategy for the republicans.
 
He really sets a great precedent for a Cruz Presidency w/ this one:

" “You know what? The Senate is advising right now. We're advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court, that we're going to have an election.”

So, if he wins election, he'll only have 2 years in which he can name any justice to the court.
 
Thing1 said:
LOL - okay, Yurt. Do you really think Cruz didn't say that?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...e-the-2016-election-referendum-on-the-supreme

You really haven't been paying attention. He has said that repeatedly over the course of the week.
Click to expand...

No moron... I wanted to see the context in which he said it. Which was not apparent based on your quote. Which is why I asked you for a link.

So you see that in the above link he stated...

"“We are facing our fundamental rights in the balance,” the Texas senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,“ citing “abortion on demand,” “religious liberty” and the Second Amendment."

so in saying it should be a referendum on the SCOTUS seat, he is including how that will affect many other issues. On that he is correct.

While I do not agree with him completely, I get his point. There are a lot of decisions in front of SCOTUS that are going to be affected by who replaces Scalia.


 
Superfreak said:
No moron... I wanted to see the context in which he said it. Which was not apparent based on your quote. Which is why I asked you for a link.

So you see that in the above link he stated...

"“We are facing our fundamental rights in the balance,” the Texas senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,“ citing “abortion on demand,” “religious liberty” and the Second Amendment."

so in saying it should be a referendum on the SCOTUS seat, he is including how that will affect many other issues. On that he is correct.

While I do not agree with him completely, I get his point. There are a lot of decisions in front of SCOTUS that are going to be affected by who replaces Scalia.
Click to expand...

I read that a couple of times just to be sure, but I think I can confirm at this point: you did not save any face w/ this lame explanation.

Cruz is saying we should make the election about the vacancy. My point stands, strongly.
 
The election should not be a referendum on the Supreme Court appointment.


There is a very good reason Supreme Court Justices are not elected officials and a good reason they have life time terms....

These Justices, the defenders of our Constitution are intentionally insulated from the whims of the Mob. When the populace is scared after a terrorist attack or otherwise riled up, majority rule is often quick to violate Constitutional rights in exchange for some measure of freedom. The Supreme Court is intentionally insulated from elections because they are the protectors of the minority from the tyranny and whims of the majority.

A supreme court justice needs to be free of fear for his job when it becomes unpopular to uphold a Constitutional principal.
 
Jarod said:
The election should not be a referendum on the Supreme Court appointment.


There is a very good reason Supreme Court Justices are not elected officials and a good reason they have life time terms....

These Justices, the defenders of our Constitution are intentionally insulated from the whims of the Mob. When the populace is scared after a terrorist attack or otherwise riled up, majority rule is often quick to violate Constitutional rights in exchange for some measure of freedom. The Supreme Court is intentionally insulated from elections because they are the protectors of the minority from the tyranny and whims of the majority.

A supreme court justice needs to be free of fear for his job when it becomes unpopular to uphold a Constitutional principal.
Click to expand...

and yet, they often side with the mob, such as they did after 9/11, waco, etc. the dems and repubs have basically turned the USSC in to an extended branch of a political party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top