- 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
re: Hypocrisy of Both Sides- Own It
Posted on 9/22/20 at 7:30 am to Locke Wiggin
Posted on 9/22/20 at 7:30 am to Locke Wiggin
from the Babylon Bee:
quote:
BREAKING NEWS: Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
“SAN FRANCISCO, CA—In a landmark ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In a close decision, the judges on the court have ruled RBG’s death unconstitutional and will block Trump from nominating a replacement.”
Posted on 9/22/20 at 7:32 am to Locke Wiggin
They wanted simple majority in order to gain short term wins.
They chose to manipulate the Senate rules. Mitch warned them. They changed the rules anyway. We are playing by their rules. F%^k them. No mercy.
They chose to manipulate the Senate rules. Mitch warned them. They changed the rules anyway. We are playing by their rules. F%^k them. No mercy.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 7:48 am to kingfish225
quote:
There is ZERO excuse if you're ok with this you don't give a shite about the constitution you didn't in 2016 and you don't today.
The above is utter horseshite.
1. Where in the constitution does it set forth that a president cannot appoint an SCJ in an election year?
2. Where in the constitution does it say that the Senate is required to consent to any SCJ nominee?
I guess that must be under the dying wish clause where judicial appointments pass by divine right of Kings
The constitution doesn’t just permit - it requires a power struggle btwn the 3 branches of gvt. The constitution is all about making sure that they gridlock each other. It’s all about regulating power and the only thing to slow power down is an equal opposing force.
There’s nothing unhealthy or unconstitutional about what Mitch McConnell did in 2016 re: Garland and it doesn’t violate any norms.
Packing the Supreme Court - Violates a Norm (dilutes the authority of court and makes it dependent on whim of legislature)
Eliminating the Electoral College - Violates a Norm (Dilutes power of individual states in favor of tyranny of majority)
Adding DC as a state - violates a norm (Makes the Capital of the US a state, which permits it more power than any other state).
Each of the above norms are norms bc they fix the structure of the Gvt. They make sure that every force in the Fed Gvt is opposed by an equal force. Mitch McConnell outplaying the Dems doesn’t undermine the system, it’s how the system was designed to work. Democrats are just too fricking emotional and stupid to see it. They frankly have no business appointing Supreme Court justices because they literally think that the constitution is there to protect against hurt feelings, instead of being there to be a fricking bedrock check against their antics. They are too stupid to understand the constitution, and they DGAF about it.
If you can’t see that, I’m not the one who is stupid.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 7:51 am to kingfish225
quote:He WOULD bring it to the floor. and defeat the nomination BECAUSE "Obama didnt have the votes". It would have passed like a fart in a breeze. Meaningless.
If Obama didn't have the votes why would Mitch not bring it to the floor.
quote:There is no "RULE" in the Constitution that covers such political jockeying. Obama in 2016 would have been defeated by the Constitution in 2016 with Garland - he DID NOT have the votes (a political assessment running into a Constitutional RULE).
There is ZERO excuse if you're ok with this you don't give a shite about the constitution you didn't in 2016 and you don't today.
quote:
The president is supposed to nominate a SC justice and the Senate is supposed to advise and consent. To hold that up for 9 months has NEVER BEEN DONE EVER. It caused in imbalance and Trump not making this pick right now corrects that injustice.
It does NOT matter a bit if the Republicans "held up" Garland for 9 days or 9 months - the Democrats DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES. (note the period)
President Trump is following the Constitution in every was in this current regard - it doesnt "correct" anything.
It is only another occurrence of a party following the Constitution. It is also ANOTHER attempt by the DEMOCRATS to rough roughshod over the same in their incessant howling. ..must be one of their critical theories taking them over yet again. "let this moment radicalize you" and the threats of "arrows in quivers".
Hmm, how about you do the right thing so as not to experience your ongoing destruction.
Remember when Democrats were American in values? It was a LONG LONG time ago...
Posted on 9/22/20 at 8:28 am to oklahogjr
quote:
This board is far too small minded for reasonable opinions.
Yes yes yes.... what we need are “reasonable” opinions here. You know... like
Russia stole the election.
Donald Trump helped Russia steal the election
Donald Trump is a Russian Agent
Donald Trump hired hookers to piss on a bed The US needs to give up on completing in manufacturing
The police are hunting minorities for sport
Burning down portions of cities is “mostly peaceful”
Donald Trump is removing mailboxes to stop the mail.
Crippling a police force is a great move to lower crime rates.
The US spending 90 Trillion dollars will save the planet.
Taking electric power plants offline and replacing them with solar panels and windmills is a great idea.
Neglecting forest management will save the world from the climate.
All just reasonable ideas to be shared among the TRULY intellectual.
Posted on 9/22/20 at 8:29 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Exactly so why the rush? It just seems like we're about to do something stupid to rush through and push someone into a lifetime appointment.
i am not sure if this is serious? it is a rush because in the rare case the DJT loses in November, you and your ilk will try to make RBG look like a moderate with the next appointment.
the left would do the very same thing...meaning rush an appointment.
and research has been done on a number of candidates already. there is nothing wrong with forcing politicians to actually work, and approve a nomination.
i should not have to explain something that is this apparent.
This post was edited on 9/22/20 at 8:56 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News