Let's be truthful about this Supreme Court appointment.

Woko Haram said:
Someone needs to ask Booker and pretty much every prominent black Democrat if they condemn black supremacy. It would have about the same level of relevance as the white supremacy question.
Click to expand...

Like to see Booker, Harris et al have their feet held to the fire over BLM and all the murders, rioting and looting carried out in their name.
 
Grajonca said:
Many were loaded questions, no good lawyer would allow themselves to fall into a bear trap. They were designed to create more heat than light, I think you know that already.
Click to expand...

Joe Biden himself admonished the Judiciary Committee in 1993 not to question prospective Justices about any issue that they might have to consider as members of the Supreme Court.
 
Darth Omar said:
The constitution grants the president the authority to appoint a SCOTUS replacement any time a seat becomes vacant.

As for ‘ethics’ it can’t be unethical if it’s done according to law. If you mean it’s not gentlemanly or whatever, the left set that bridge on fire in January 2017—then they blew up what was left of it.
Click to expand...

Not any more. The reds took it away from Obama . Then they took it away from the next president. It was noted that those red fiascos will result in the Dems acting in kind. The entire tenor which Trump has kneecapped will go lower now. There are repercussions.
 
Nordberg said:
Not any more. The reds took it away from Obama . Then they took it away from the next president. It was noted that those red fiascos will result in the Dems acting in kind. The entire tenor which Trump has kneecapped will go lower now. There are repercussions.
Click to expand...

Packing the courts will not work in the Democrats' favor in the long run.
 
Flash said:
Maybe, but my point was that there are very few cases each term that deal with constitutional issues. So, the 95% (guess) of other cases dealing with contracts, procedure, and federal legislation cannot be determined by an originalist philosophy.

I read her 37 page dissent in the gun case and it was an example of an "activist" judge. She did not defer to the laws passed by the federal and WI government prohibiting felons from owning firearms. She decided it should only apply to those who commit violent acts because they are the ones who are a threat to society (the guy in the case committed mail fraud).

Not an unreasonable position, but it should be the function of the legislative branch to make rather than "legislating from the bench." She based it primarily on early (14th century to early colonies and states) laws regulating firearms.

The government's position was that since felons could be executed back then banning their gun ownership was not such a big thing. Also, since felons could be prohibited from voting and voting would not endanger society, why should non-violent felons be permitted to own guns but not vote?
Click to expand...

The case you mentioned in Wis.? She specifically referenced the 15th amendment......the US constitution trumps any state constitution when there is written language concerning the case being decided. Watch the hearing as she schooled Dick Durbin who was comparing voting rights with gun rights. Even though both rights are guaranteed in the constitution both can be subject to regulation via legislation. She concluded that voting was a civil right while concluding that gun ownership was a personal right of self defense and the type of crime should determine if an individual should have his/her right of self defense removed for non violent crimes.
 
Last edited:
Crocodile said:
Why are you posting the MAGA's cackling jackass gif? It as a response seems akin to farting and fanning it someone. It's actually that lame and douchey.
Click to expand...

Most of your posts are akin to farting and fanning it at the OP in any given thread. Have a little self awareness. :fart:
 
Flash said:
The political part influenced by the voters is the appointment by the president and senate confirmation. The lifetime appointment takes it out of politics (somewhat).
Click to expand...
If half the population or more thinks its just a fix, it's hardly outside politics at all, surely, especially as it goes against everything that was said in the last days of President Obama?
 
Ralph said:
The case you mentioned in Wis.? She specifically referenced the 15th amendment......the US constitution trumps any state constitution when there is written language concerning the case being decided. Watch the hearing as she schooled Dick Durbin who was comparing voting rights with gun rights. Even though both rights are guaranteed in the constitution both can be subject to regulation via legislation. She concluded that voting was a civil right while concluding that gun ownership was a personal right of self defense and the type of crime should determine if an individual should have his/her right of self defense removed for non violent crimes.
Click to expand...

I understand this. But the Constitution makes no distinction about felons or violent felons when regulating guns. That is a policy decision made by the legislature. She is substituting her judgment for that of the political body and voting to strike down a law (activist) and legislating from the bench.

I do not oppose her confirmation, but claiming she is going by the text and being an originalist is not what she is doing in this case.
 
iolo eto said:
If half the population or more thinks its just a fix, it's hardly outside politics at all, surely, especially as it goes against everything that was said in the last days of President Obama?
Click to expand...

We do not make decisions based on public opinion and nothing said in the Obama days is binding. It is was, the Democrats would be pushing for the confirmation vote and Republicans would be opposing it.

There is no principle about whether an appointment should be made in an election year. It is a decision based on whether the party has the power to further their agenda.

Calling it a "fix" would mean any president appointing a Justice who shares their political ideology/party is a fix and that would be every appointment.
 
Crocodile said:
So far I don't really mind this candidate and even Kavanaugh doesn't seem to be quite as much of a nightmare. However, this is just stupid and wrong. While I agree with the idea that you shouldn't vote in an election year the current actions speak worlds. Pissing away ethics now makes denying the first African American president his right and duty as president look that much worse. People could say it was racially motivated just like a lot of the BS with their handling of Obama and you don't have anyway to counter anymore. You can't say they are wrong because your side pissed away their defense with this ethics nightmare. Now into the future we won't have much ethics to go by on this issue. All's fair in love and war and it looks like politics might follow suit. Do you really want to kneecap yourselves with the possible political prospects on the horizon?
Click to expand...

What you overlook is we haven't had a president that could work with both sides of the aisle since Reagan and Clinton. Obama, and Trump actually widened the gulf between parties. What we need is another real statesman in office, someone who will work for the betterment of the nation and not political ideologies.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
What you overlook is we haven't had a president that could work with both sides of the aisle since Reagan and Clinton. Obama, and Trump actually widened the gulf between parties. What we need is another real statesman in office, someone who will work for the betterment of the nation and not political ideologies.
Click to expand...
Obama didn’t widen it McConnell did. McConnell refused to work with Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top