Larry Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. An Arabic proverb attributed to a prince who was betrayed and decapitated by his own subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, Larry said: An Arabic proverb attributed to a prince who was betrayed and decapitated by his own subjects. Please, and you think the internet gets stuff wrong...those Ancient Arabs were notorious for their incorrect memes, even Abraham Lincoln made a facebook post about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Please, and you think the internet gets stuff wrong...those Ancient Arabs were notorious for their incorrect memes, even Abraham Lincoln made a facebook post about it. You read that on infowars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: You read that on infowars? That's funny!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Larry said: Is that anything like Catch 22? Closer to order 66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 13 hours ago, twa said: Lifetime appoints are fine but we should have a culling program every decade if none die/retire just to keep it fresh. Send em to a island to determine among themselves who gets cut. FDR had an interesting idea about what to do with all those old justices: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125789097 Quote Roosevelt's idea was that for any justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire, the president could appoint a new justice to sit beside the current justice and do his work. "If the plan passed and no one [on the current court] retired, Roosevelt would instantly get to appoint six new liberal justices to the Supreme Court," explains Shesol. "Because he couldn't push the conservatives off the court, he thought, 'Well, at least I can outnumber them.' And what most people didn't realize then or today is that this is entirely constitutional. There's nothing in the Constitution that sets the number of justices at nine. The Constitution says nothing about how many justices there are." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 How can anyone compare this to what happened with Garland? That was not partisan. McConnell actually did a very risky thing, because most people thought Clinton was going to win; therefore we were at risk of an even more liberal justice. Obama got Kagan and Sotomayor.....that's the comparison to Gorsuch...not Garland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: How can anyone compare this to what happened with Garland? That was not partisan. Of course it was. It was partisan and completely ridiculous and unacceptable. Obama picked someone who was older and more moderate than expected and the Republicans wouldn't even let a vote happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-is-a-donald-trump-style-authoritarian/ Quote Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Is a Donald Trump-Style Authoritarian . . . Trump campaigned as the “law and order candidate,” and was extremely reluctant to hold police accountable for violence. Gorsuch, from his first year on the federal bench, expressed a similar devotion to police impunity. . . . Gorsuch’s beliefs about qualified immunity for government officials will take on a greater significance at the national level. In addition to insulating police brutality from civil suits, qualified immunity has shielded officials in the Bush administration from lawsuits over the torture program, and has been invoked by the Obama administration to protect the drone program from legal scrutiny. Gorsuch’s rulings have also chipped away at Constitutional protections from warrantless searches. He has repeatedly ruled in favor of police searching vehicles without a warrant after routine traffic stops (see here, here, and here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 8 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: How can anyone compare this to what happened with Garland? That was not partisan. If that wasn't partisan, I don't even know what could be considered partisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I have to be missing something. Im pretty sure that the Garland fiasco is listed as the absolute example of partisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 What world am I now living in where the Garland fiasco is being argued that it wasn't partisan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 It's been well established that Supreme Court Justices should not be done at the end of a Presidential term.......go see what Joe Biden said in the early 90's, as an example... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: It's been well established that Supreme Court Justices should not be done at the end of a Presidential term.......go see what Joe Biden said in the early 90's, as an example... No. It hasnt. And what Joe Biden said was ALSO partisan. And what some Dems are claiming they will do now is ALSO partisan. Just own it and defend why you think it's okay to be partisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Just now, Kilmer17 said: No. It hasnt. And what Joe Biden said was ALSO partisan. And what some Dems are claiming they will do now is ALSO partisan. Just own it and defend why you think it's okay to be partisan. I don't view it as partisan because I don't think what he did was necessarily good for Republicans. I view it more as an unwritten rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: I don't view it as partisan because I don't think what he did was necessarily good for Republicans. I view it more as an unwritten rule. There is no unwritten rule. The idea that for a quarter of a POTUS' term he should not have to ability to fill a vacant spot on the SC is ridiculous. Everyone knows that if the GOP controls the Senate during Trumps last year in office and if a seat became available on the court, the GOP will push forward to fill it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: No. It hasnt. And what Joe Biden said was ALSO partisan. And what some Dems are claiming they will do now is ALSO partisan. Just own it and defend why you think it's okay to be partisan. I have ZERO problem being partisan on this...with THIS fool of a President and with the deceitful cretans who call themselves the Republican elected. Be partisan! The GOP has demonstrated that they have ZERO intention of doing otherwise, anything less than partisanship at this point is simply a capitulation to their deceit. Statesmanship is dead in the country, and those who murdered it will only use statesmanship and goodwill against those who insist on using them in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Of course there is a unwritten rule, it is just that the ones supporting it changes with who is appointing justices. Kinda like filibusters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: No. It hasnt. And what Joe Biden said was ALSO partisan. And what some Dems are claiming they will do now is ALSO partisan. Just own it and defend why you think it's okay to be partisan. Can't like this enough, the bull**** rationalizations and justifications only serve to cloud the issues (from BOTH sides!). Believe what you want but dammit stop the doubletalking and lies, say what you mean! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, twa said: Of course there is a unwritten rule, it is just that the ones supporting it changes with who is appointing justices. Kinda like filibusters Kinda like putting holds or delaying a massive amount of judicial nominees or abusing their individual powers in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, twa said: Of course there is a unwritten rule, it is just that the ones supporting it changes with who is appointing justices. Kinda like filibusters Oh I'm sorry but which GOP SCOTUS nominee never got a hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Justice Kennedy was nominated November 30, 1987 and confirmed on Feb 3, 1988. Reagan was out of office the following January (and likely was out of his mind a few years prior). Garland should have at least had a vote. The GOP's refusal to vote on a nomination for 11+ months has set precendent for the opposition party to do the same. It's not right, But nothing usually is in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Justice Kennedy was nominated November 30, 1987 and confirmed on Feb 3, 1988. Reagan was out of office the following January (and likely was out of his mind a few years prior). Garland should have at least had a vote. The GOP's refusal to vote on a nomination for 11+ months has set precendent for the opposition party to do the same. It's not right, But nothing usually is in politics. I'm sorry, was he denied a hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said: I'm sorry, was he denied a hearing? I wasn't responding to you. Calm the **** down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.