Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 228

Thread: Balancing the Supreme Court

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    True. So what? None of it was "unconstitutional" as Concart claimed. Like it or not, Congress' action was legal and constitutional. All Americans have a chance to rectify that by next Tuesday.
    Yes, it is.

    ".. and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,..."

    The Senate cannot abdicate it's Advice and Consent role until they get a President they like.

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    My proposal is intended to demonstrate that such a decision would not be rooted in partisan politics but rather correcting an unconstitutional act. And under this proposal conservatives still hold a 6-5 edge.
    Sorry, but you are wrong. It's a partisan act but constitutional. Democrats are unhappy about a 6-3 conservative court. If it was a 6-3 court, the Democrats would be happy and it would be the Republicans whining about "unconstitutional" and increasing the size of the court. Pure partisan politics.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  3. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Yes, it is.

    ".. and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,..."

    The Senate cannot abdicate it's Advice and Consent role until they get a President they like.
    Sure they can. If you don't like your Senators and Representatives, vote them out, recall them or otherwise pressure them to act as you want.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  4. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Dutch Uncle,

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    True. So what? None of it was "unconstitutional" as Concart claimed. Like it or not, Congress' action was legal and constitutional. All Americans have a chance to rectify that by next Tuesday.
    If this doesn't motivate liberals to vote Trump out nothing will. Conservatives now have what they want. No reason for them to vote to make anything happen. It already happened.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Doc Dutch (10-27-2020)

  6. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakuda View Post
    No shit but we have to listen to them moralize about how "evil" trump is. Cowardly bastards
    It's the typical double standard. Republican do it and it's wrong but they do it and "it's different".

  7. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Sure they can. If you don't like your Senators and Representatives, vote them out, recall them or otherwise pressure them to act as you want.
    They can, but the action violates the Constitution. Yes, we should vote them out. That does not change the fact that their role is enshrined in the Constitution, and they abdicated that role.

  8. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    They can, but the action violates the Constitution. Yes, we should vote them out. That does not change the fact that their role is enshrined in the Constitution, and they abdicated that role.
    You still haven't provided support for your claim from the constitution

  9. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Dutch Uncle,

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Sorry, but you are wrong. It's a partisan act but constitutional. Democrats are unhappy about a 6-3 conservative court. If it was a 6-3 court, the Democrats would be happy and it would be the Republicans whining about "unconstitutional" and increasing the size of the court. Pure partisan politics.
    What is the definition of 'Constitutional?'

    Something that does not violate the Constitution or something that adheres to the spirit or intent?

    Should the framers have anticipated every instance when an elected official simply refuses to do what is described in the Constitution and provide some penalty or recourse for that?

    That goes down a bad road where operatives look for loopholes and exploit them for partisan reasons.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Doc Dutch (10-27-2020)

  11. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Dutch Uncle,

    If this doesn't motivate liberals to vote Trump out nothing will. Conservatives now have what they want. No reason for them to vote to make anything happen. It already happened.
    Agreed about Liberals voting, not so much about Conservatives not caring about the election.

    Like all politically partisan people, neither side will give up until they have complete power and authority over the United States of America.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  12. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Sorry, but you are wrong. It's a partisan act but constitutional. Democrats are unhappy about a 6-3 conservative court. If it was a 6-3 court, the Democrats would be happy and it would be the Republicans whining about "unconstitutional" and increasing the size of the court. Pure partisan politics.
    There is nothing in the constitution about the size of the court. In fact, the constitution is not silent on this, it says that Congress is responsible for organizing the court. The Senate is charged with an Advice and Consent role, BY THE CONSTITUTION. How can you possibly argue that it is constitutional to ignore that role? Sorry, but that's just laughable.

  13. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Dutch Uncle,



    What is the definition of 'Constitutional"

    Something that does not violate the Constitution or something that adheres to the spirit or intent?

    Should the framers have anticipated every instance when an elected official simply refuses to do what is described in the Constitution and provide some penalty or recourse for that?

    That goes down a bad road where operatives look for loopholes and exploit them for partisan reasons.
    Letter of the law. While I agree to adhering to the "spirit", as the nomination of Amy Barrett proved, the Democrats don't give a shit about that either.

    Thomas Jefferson thought the Constitution should be rewritten every generation or so.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  14. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    There is nothing in the constitution about the size of the court. In fact, the constitution is not silent on this, it says that Congress is responsible for organizing the court. The Senate is charged with an Advice and Consent role, BY THE CONSTITUTION. How can you possibly argue that it is constitutional to ignore that role? Sorry, but that's just laughable.
    Correct. It's up to Congress. I'm not arguing that the Senate should ignore anything. You're the one advocating that the Senate violated the Constitution but you've failed to make your case.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  15. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Correct. It's up to Congress. I'm not arguing that the Senate should ignore anything. You're the one advocating that the Senate violated the Constitution but you've failed to make your case.
    So, I showed you the appointments clause of the Constitution. The Senate did not fulfill that role. What exactly would you call that failure to act? Please.

  16. #89 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Yes, it is.

    ".. and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,..."

    The Senate cannot abdicate it's Advice and Consent role until they get a President they like.
    They chose not move with the nomination and, per the Constitution, they were legal to do so. Morally not so much.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  17. #90 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    They chose not move with the nomination and, per the Constitution, they were legal to do so. Morally not so much.
    So, if Congress passes a law that bans all newspapers, it isn't unconstitutional. Got it. Who cares about that pesky document, Congress can do whatever they want. Cool.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2020, 09:37 AM
  2. The (U.K.) Supreme Court has seized supreme power
    By Tranquillus in Exile in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-28-2019, 02:38 PM
  3. Replies: 73
    Last Post: 10-01-2018, 06:54 PM
  4. APP - It is all about the Supreme Court
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2016, 09:47 AM
  5. Balancing the Budget
    By Mott the Hoople in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 05:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •