- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Clarence Thomas Issues Warning About The Supreme Court
Posted on 3/13/22 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 3/13/22 at 1:49 pm
quote:
“My fear isn’t for me. But it is for your kids and your grandkids and the next generation. What are we going to leave them? Are we leaving them a mess or are we leaving them a country? Are we leaving them chaos or are we going to leave them a court?” he said at the Salt Lake City event.
“You can cavalierly talk about packing or stacking the court. You can cavalierly talk about doing this or doing that. At some point, the institution is going to be compromised,” he said, according to NPR.
LINK
10
Posted on 3/13/22 at 1:50 pm to Jjdoc
He’s correct, but he’s simultaneously too late with his warning.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 1:54 pm to Jjdoc
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons. But Thomas apparently didn't complain about that hypocrisy.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 1:55 pm to Jjdoc
I agree with him. Even when we have Republican presidents, they still do a shite job of appointing justices. Out of the last two GOP presidents, we've had 5 appointments and only 2 of those have been constitutionalists (Alito and Gorsuch). Kavanagh, Roberts, and Barrett never should have been picked.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 1:58 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons. But Thomas apparently didn't complain about that hypocrisy.
The difference is that the opposing party was in power for one and not the other. How do you not understand this? And if you think Garland would have not been a political appointment, you're nuts. Have you missed his current attack directly on American parents? You lucked out with two centrists being appointed in Kavanagh and Barret. You think a Dem president would ever appoint a centrist?
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:01 pm to Lucius Clay
This post was edited on 8/23/22 at 11:31 am
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:07 pm to Landmass
quote:
The difference is that the opposing party was in power for one and not the other. How do you not understand this?
I guess you didn't take Constitutional Law.In both cases, the President had a right to make a nomination. It doesn't matter which party controls the Senate.
In the case of Garland, McConnell said any nomination by Obama should be blocked because it was too close to the 2016 presidential election that was eight months away. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice," McConnell said.
In the case of Barrett, she was nominated by Trump 38 days before the 2020 election. McConnell had no issue with the American voters not having a say for that pick. lol
Hypocrisy pure and simple.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:09 pm to Lucius Clay
This post was edited on 8/23/22 at 11:37 am
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:11 pm to TigerIron
quote:
(no message)
Because speech fails where this is no logic.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:15 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
I guess you didn't take Constitutional Law.In both cases, the President had a right to make a nomination.
Maybe you skipped a few classes. The President has the right to make the nomination.
Now tell me what rights the Senate has.
quote:
In the case of Barrett, she was nominated by Trump 38 days before the 2020 election. McConnell had no issue with the American voters not having a say for that pick. lol
Hypocrisy pure and simple.
And the Dems would have blocked it using their what? Say it out loud....
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:15 pm to Lucius Clay
This post was edited on 8/23/22 at 11:36 am
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:16 pm to Mo Jeaux
That’s not a fair criticism of Thomas.
He and Alito are basically holding the Supreme Court together at this point. He’s been sounding the alarm for years in his strong and man of few words way.
Roberta is an intellectual midget compared to the actual intellectual leader of the SCOTUS.
He and Alito are basically holding the Supreme Court together at this point. He’s been sounding the alarm for years in his strong and man of few words way.
Roberta is an intellectual midget compared to the actual intellectual leader of the SCOTUS.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:17 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
Because speech fails where this is no logic.
The President is not a monarch. We have a republic. It's as simple as that.
The President nominates who he wants.
The Senate's mandate is to what?
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:20 pm to Lucius Clay
Yeah the better option is paying a bat shite crazy woman to create horrible lies and try to destroy a man’s life to prevent them from making it onto the court.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:57 pm to JackieTreehorn
quote:
Yeah the better option is paying a bat shite crazy woman to create horrible lies and try to destroy a man’s life to prevent them from making it onto the court.
The Marxist ways!
Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:00 pm to Lucius Clay
Hypocrisy thy name is Democrat.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:01 pm to Wednesday
quote:
That’s not a fair criticism of Thomas.
It was tongue in cheek, but the Court is indeed already lost.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:18 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
guess you didn't take Constitutional Law.In both cases, the President had a right to make a nomination.
He did. You aren’t a bright one.
Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:23 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons. But Thomas apparently didn't complain about that hypocrisy.
You are missing some very important background in this post….which you just happen to leave out!
Insert The Great Divider & Chief, AKA Bitch arse Barry’s “Election have consequences” GIF
This post was edited on 3/13/22 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:31 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
Hypocrisy pure and simple.
Wow.
A lib calling pot kettle.
I'd there wasn't such thing as double standards democrats would have no standards at all
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News