Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23574
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:10 pm

AirframeAS wrote:
luckyone wrote:
AirframeAS wrote:

I don't think Cruz is eligible to hold POTUS. I honestly don't think it matters where the parents are born. Care to show me where it states that foreign born U.S. citizens can become POTUS?


https://www.politifact.com/article/2015 ... nt-update/


In other words, there is really no anwser even though we have the Naturalization Act of 1790. At some point, I hope the SCOTUS will rule on how to handle this issue. Hopefully, Cruz will never become POTUS.


With all the courts packed to the far right, they will deem Cruz eligible to be president. Not that he would win...
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
WIederling
Posts: 10016
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sun Apr 25, 2021 11:41 am

NIKV69 wrote:
Trump didn't force anything through, he filled an empty seat. It's a non issue as well since Biden doesn't have Sinema or Manchin on board with court packing.


it is an escalating ping pong game.
Each side introducing ever more partisan candidates.

Nonetheless: the GOP side is in the lead in going overboard to maim the system to their advantage.

There once was the idea of loyal opposition.

Weaponizing system properties has a massive downside: The only counter
to one side doing it is for the other side to also do it apparently.
This keeps the balance but the breaking tensions increases with every step.
Wait for the energy release when things give.

Rather unpleasant to watch.
Murphy is an optimist
 
N867DA
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:10 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
A non-issue? Some quotes from his speech:

"Their first priority is to change the rules to stay in power."
"They don't believe in democracy"
"They don't believe in the voters"
"There's a real simple path to that - convince the voters your ideas are right"

and my favourite:

"They are trying to change voting in America so that Democrats never lose".

Sounds awfully familiar.


Ask yourself this. If the Supreme court was predominately liberal and The District Of Columbia was far right and red would the Dems be doing what they are doing?


This is correct. It's never been about right and wrong or acting consistently and ethically. It's always been about power. There's no point in calling out politicians for hypocrisy; just make sure your side does everything possible to legally retain power and steer the conversation. Nothing illegal about filling a seat, creating new states, or changing Senate rules.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14254
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:50 pm

I watch TYT a bit for this kind of content and the other day they were saying that until now, since Reagan, Democrats have been too naive, letting the GOP having power even when they had lost elections. Which of course the GOP doesn't return when they win. Now things seem to be changing a bit. Hence the soon to be announced tax increases, when many thought this would be pushed back later, meaning never since then there are midterms etc.

Virtual737 wrote:
A non-issue? Some quotes from his speech:

"Their first priority is to change the rules to stay in power."
"They don't believe in democracy"
"They don't believe in the voters"
"There's a real simple path to that - convince the voters your ideas are right"

and my favourite:

"They are trying to change voting in America so that Democrats never lose".

Sounds awfully familiar.


Proof that Ted Cruz is still quite smart compared to other Republicans. He's still the old kind of Republican, screwing his country, supporters, and everybody else, for his benefit, knowing full well he's an asshole.

Newer Republicans have drunk the cool-aid and really believe the nonsense they're spouting.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14250
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:53 pm

seb146 wrote:
With all the courts packed to the far right, they will deem Cruz eligible to be president. Not that he would win...


The SCOTUS is not "packed" to the far right. The seats became open and a sitting president did what the constitution says he could do and the Senate confirmed. Elections have consequences.
90 Day Fiancé has taught me that Russian woman are excellent.
 
Virtual737
Topic Author
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:57 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Elections have consequences.


If only you had said that on January 6th :)
 
FGITD
Posts: 1528
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:36 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
With all the courts packed to the far right, they will deem Cruz eligible to be president. Not that he would win...


The SCOTUS is not "packed" to the far right. The seats became open and a sitting president did what the constitution says he could do and the Senate confirmed. Elections have consequences.


So as sitting president, why wasn’t Obama allowed to fill a seat that become open?
 
StarAC17
Posts: 4013
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:37 pm

Saw that the video was Ted Cruz and no one should have any expectation that this man has any integrity or self-awareness.

Virtual737 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
Though I’m no fan of Rafa Cruz, his birth in Canada prevents him from being a Senator.
Unfortunately, it doesn't. Read the Constitution, Article One, Section 3.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/


I thought Cruz had Presidential ambitions. At least that path should be closed to him.


A man this universally disliked has no chance at the presidency. For those of us who like to be amused, Ted Cruz has very little awareness of this.

I think it was McConnel (it might have been John Boehner) who said someone could kill Ted Cruz on the senate floor and the house would vote to acquit the killer. He is that disliked.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23574
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:07 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
With all the courts packed to the far right, they will deem Cruz eligible to be president. Not that he would win...


The SCOTUS is not "packed" to the far right. The seats became open and a sitting president did what the constitution says he could do and the Senate confirmed. Elections have consequences.


Obama was not allowed even a hearing on his nominee eight months before an election because McConnell said it was too close to an election and We The People should decide but the former one term president rammed his nominee through just weeks before an election because McConnell said he had every right to do that. Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
N867DA
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:18 am

seb146 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
With all the courts packed to the far right, they will deem Cruz eligible to be president. Not that he would win...


The SCOTUS is not "packed" to the far right. The seats became open and a sitting president did what the constitution says he could do and the Senate confirmed. Elections have consequences.


Obama was not allowed even a hearing on his nominee eight months before an election because McConnell said it was too close to an election and We The People should decide but the former one term president rammed his nominee through just weeks before an election because McConnell said he had every right to do that. Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican


It's time for Democrats to stop playing by some moral code and start listening to the letter of the law, which does not cap the number of justices or number of states.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:20 pm

Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 13338
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:59 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.


It is time to reset it. We had 3 of the most partisan and dishonorable selections occur in the last 4 years by a fraudulent racist, lying traitor, and then pushed through by a partisan line GOP Senate that contained members that tried to overthrow the US election. We cannot expect or get good and impartial judgments from 1/3 of this court. They were pushed with an agenda that runs counter to the US Constitution. It is time to overthrow "Precedence" if the Constitution allows for change.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did..So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.--Mark Twain
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23574
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.


Republicans are overturning election laws all over this country. Hell, they even tried to overturn a federal election by force on 1/6!
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Newark727
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:32 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.


Precedent is a shifty concept though, isn't it? In 2016, McConnell overturned prior precedent with the Merrick Garland nomination, deciding that the president's power to nominate SCOTUS judges shouldn't count in an election year. In 2020, he didn't abide by the precedent that he declared, instead allowing the sitting president to fill Ginsburg's vacant seat as quickly as possible before the election. What precedent is really being set here? That when it comes to a prize as valuable as a Supreme Court seat, the Republicans will do whatever they have the votes to do, not what they have the precedence for. Why shouldn't the opposing party follow that precedent? Much more convenient, wouldn't you agree?

And maybe it would be a good thing, too. If there were more than nine seats to go around, or each seat had a limited term, maybe we wouldn't see a Senate-breaking apocalyptic political battle every time one of them comes up empty. McConnell's approach toward toward SCOTUS seats destroys the attitude of compromise, comity, and restraint that he claims to be valuing in his defense of minority rights e.g. the filibuster.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:54 pm

Newark727 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.


Precedent is a shifty concept though, isn't it? In 2016, McConnell overturned prior precedent with the Merrick Garland nomination, deciding that the president's power to nominate SCOTUS judges shouldn't count in an election year. In 2020, he didn't abide by the precedent that he declared, instead allowing the sitting president to fill Ginsburg's vacant seat as quickly as possible before the election. What precedent is really being set here? That when it comes to a prize as valuable as a Supreme Court seat, the Republicans will do whatever they have the votes to do, not what they have the precedence for. Why shouldn't the opposing party follow that precedent? Much more convenient, wouldn't you agree?

And maybe it would be a good thing, too. If there were more than nine seats to go around, or each seat had a limited term, maybe we wouldn't see a Senate-breaking apocalyptic political battle every time one of them comes up empty. McConnell's approach toward toward SCOTUS seats destroys the attitude of compromise, comity, and restraint that he claims to be valuing in his defense of minority rights e.g. the filibuster.



Well, “following the law” was the standard and no where does McConnell or any other politicians pronouncements rise to being legal precedents. The only law that counts is the Constitution—President appoints, Senate approves.

I might agree that more justices could be an improvement, BUT what your lot wants is to pack the Court because you can’t win or get rulings using 162 years of law, so just rewrite the law.
 
johns624
Posts: 3647
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:55 pm

Both parties always want to "fix" things when they are in power, never thinking ahead to when the other party is in power (and they will be) and it comes back to bite them in the ass. Nine justices has always worked. Too many and it gets unwieldy.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:12 pm

johns624 wrote:
Both parties always want to "fix" things when they are in power, never thinking ahead to when the other party is in power (and they will be) and it comes back to bite them in the ass. Nine justices has always worked. Too many and it gets unwieldy.


No, not "always". The Court has varied from 5 to 10 Justices in the past.


GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.


It's not quite that simple. The Judiciary Act of 1869 was a move by Congress to overturn the previous precedents; prior to that Act, the numbers on the Supreme Court fluctuated from five (under Adams) to 10 (Lincoln). The number nine was settled on to allow Justices - who, in earlier times, actually set on Circuit Courts throughout the country, a historical oddity that is no longer relevant - to oversee those Circuit Courts. Since there is no Constitutional mention of the number of Justices, any change now would merely be Congress exercising its authority to decide how many Justices should serve; i.e., it would effectively become "The Judiciary Act of 2021". Just like any other law, it is within Congress' purview to do that.


https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution#:~:text=During%20Civil%20War%2C%20the%20Justice,in%20the%20expanding%20American%20West.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
Newark727
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:41 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Well, “following the law” was the standard and no where does McConnell or any other politicians pronouncements rise to being legal precedents. The only law that counts is the Constitution—President appoints, Senate approves.

I might agree that more justices could be an improvement, BUT what your lot wants is to pack the Court because you can’t win or get rulings using 162 years of law, so just rewrite the law.


By the "only law that counts" according to you, the 162 years of law are meaningless. Congress could write a new judiciary act tomorrow, the president could appoint additional justices, and the Senate could approve them. So again, what precedent is actually in effect here? Why should the Democrats feel bound by the Judiciary Act of 1869 if it's not "the only law that counts?"
Last edited by Newark727 on Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1528
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:43 pm

alfa164 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Both parties always want to "fix" things when they are in power, never thinking ahead to when the other party is in power (and they will be) and it comes back to bite them in the ass. Nine justices has always worked. Too many and it gets unwieldy.


No, not "always". The Court has varied from 5 to 10 Justices in the past.


GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.


It's not quite that simple. The Judiciary Act of 1869 was a move by Congress to overturn the previous precedents; prior to that Act, the numbers on the Supreme Court fluctuated from five (under Adams) to 10 (Lincoln). The number nine was settled on to allow Justices - who, in earlier times, actually set on Circuit Courts throughout the country, a historical oddity that is no longer relevant - to oversee those Circuit Courts. Since there is no Constitutional mention of the number of Justices, any change now would merely be Congress exercising its authority to decide how many Justices should serve; i.e., it would effectively become "The Judiciary Act of 2021". Just like any other law, it is within Congress' purview to do that.


https://www.history.com/news/supreme-court-justices-number-constitution#:~:text=During%20Civil%20War%2C%20the%20Justice,in%20the%20expanding%20American%20West.


Perfectly relevant, but for the fact that at some point in the last 70-100 years the US has somehow elevated the constitution to sacred text status, and we mustn't ever consider changing it! Despite the fact that it was meant to be a framework, and a somewhat fluid guideline...originally intended to be revised every few decades.

I'll say it over and over...the founding fathers were for the most part young men intent on creating a government that was to their benefit...in the 1770s. Over time, they've been made into these American deities whose words we can only hope to interpret.


...they would be equally impressed and horrified if they knew what became of their little country.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:26 pm

Go ahead and change it—there’s several processes to do just that—a group of anti-drink women combined with power-hungry progressives have us Prohibition. It’s been amended several times on those 70-100 years, you just don’t want to do the work required. Big difference
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14250
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:39 pm

FGITD wrote:


So as sitting president, why wasn’t Obama allowed to fill a seat that become open?


He didn't have the votes in the senate. Again elections have consequences. Trump had the votes in the Senate to get his appointees confirmed.

N867DA wrote:
It's time for Democrats to stop playing by some moral code and start listening to the letter of the law, which does not cap the number of justices or number of states.


Thankfully Joe Manchin disagrees with you.
90 Day Fiancé has taught me that Russian woman are excellent.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:41 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Go ahead and change it—there’s several processes to do just that—a group of anti-drink women combined with power-hungry progressives have us Prohibition. It’s been amended several times on those 70-100 years, you just don’t want to do the work required. Big difference


Perhaps you do not comprehend... the size of the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution. Nowhere. Never. Nada. It is a mere Congressional Act... like changing the speed limit.

Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment. They are far different.


NIKV69 wrote:
FGITD wrote:
So as sitting president, why wasn’t Obama allowed to fill a seat that become open?

He didn't have the votes in the senate. Again elections have consequences. Trump had the votes in the Senate to get his appointees confirmed.


Again... that is false. You don't know whether or not Obama had the votes and there is ample evidence that he would have, based on both parties' support for Garland as a Circuit Judge - because McConnell blocked consideration of his appointment.

That, too, is far different from your claim that Obama "didn't have the votes".
Last edited by alfa164 on Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
alfa164
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:44 pm

dupe
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
FGITD
Posts: 1528
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:11 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
FGITD wrote:


So as sitting president, why wasn’t Obama allowed to fill a seat that become open?


He didn't have the votes in the senate. Again elections have consequences. Trump had the votes in the Senate to get his appointees confirmed.


Can you cite the part of the constitution where it says the majority leader can simply opt to not have a vote, on the basis of them personally not believing the appointee has the necessary votes?

Your argument is trash because old Moscow Mitch literally announced on the day Scalia died that he wouldn’t consider any appointee...before Garland was even considered.

Why do we even have elections? Next time we’ll just have the speaker of the house look around and then say “nah I don’t think this candidate was gonna lose, pack it in folks”

It’s funny how elections have consequences, but when the dems try to change something, it cannot be done due to precedent, tradition, blah blah blah

The hypocrisy is astounding.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:51 pm

FGITD wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
FGITD wrote:


So as sitting president, why wasn’t Obama allowed to fill a seat that become open?


He didn't have the votes in the senate. Again elections have consequences. Trump had the votes in the Senate to get his appointees confirmed.


Can you cite the part of the constitution where it says the majority leader can simply opt to not have a vote, on the basis of them personally not believing the appointee has the necessary votes?

Your argument is trash because old Moscow Mitch literally announced on the day Scalia died that he wouldn’t consider any appointee...before Garland was even considered.

Why do we even have elections? Next time we’ll just have the speaker of the house look around and then say “nah I don’t think this
candidate was gonna lose, pack it in folks”

It’s funny how elections have consequences, but when the dems try to change something, it cannot be done due to precedent, tradition, blah blah blah

The hypocrisy is astounding.


Article 1, Section 5 paragraph two says

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Pretty much says what it says. McConnell had the majority, who backed him, Obama did not have 51 votes. What’s so difficult about this one? I swear reading skills are defunct
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14250
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:58 pm

alfa164 wrote:
Perhaps you do not comprehend... the size of the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution. Nowhere. Never. Nada. It is a mere Congressional Act... like changing the speed limit.

Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment. They are far different.




One that needs Manchin's and Sinema's vote which you do not have.

alfa164 wrote:

Again... that is false. You don't know whether or not Obama had the votes and there is ample evidence that he would have, based on both parties' support for Garland as a Circuit Judge - because McConnell blocked consideration of his appointment.

That, too, is far different from your claim that Obama "didn't have the votes".


You really think a GOP controlled senate would have confirmed him? Sounds delusional.

Again Elections matter, GOP controlled the Senate. How many Dem Senators voted against Barrett that voted for her in the circuit?
90 Day Fiancé has taught me that Russian woman are excellent.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6227
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:13 pm

NIKV69 wrote:

You really think a GOP controlled senate would have confirmed him? Sounds delusional.


Once again, thank you for proving the dishonesty of the Republican party.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:21 pm

So, how many Democrats have approved Republican nominees? It goes two ways on this street.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1528
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:43 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
FGITD wrote:

Article 1, Section 5 paragraph two says

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Pretty much says what it says. McConnell had the majority, who backed him, Obama did not have 51 votes. What’s so difficult about this one? I swear reading skills are defunct


But therein lies the problem...there was no proceedings. So in this case the rules of the proceedings were that there would be none. Of course I can’t argue a legal precedent, as people far more versed in this than you or I have clearly looked into it. But even you must agree this sets a dangerous tone.

Arguments about bills being voted on party lines is one thing, but we’re rapidly approaching a point where seats on the highest court will simply be held indefinitely or filled instantly based on made up rules by whoever happens to be in control.

Personally I think it wouldn’t be bad to set an age limit (too many geriatrics in govt as is) and a time limit to appoint a replacement...say, 2 months. Government moves too slow as is. We pay these people a fortune, they may as put in a days work at least once a year.

Clear definite rules, levels the playing field.
 
johns624
Posts: 3647
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:46 pm

alfa164 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Both parties always want to "fix" things when they are in power, never thinking ahead to when the other party is in power (and they will be) and it comes back to bite them in the ass. Nine justices has always worked. Too many and it gets unwieldy.


No, not "always". The Court has varied from 5 to 10 Justices in the past.

Okay, 150+ years. This has nothing to do with whether there has ever been a court problem with only 9 justices, this is strictly party politics, so my contention stands.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6227
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:50 pm

NIKV69 wrote:

You really think a GOP controlled senate would have confirmed him? Sounds delusional.


As someone else on this thread pointed out, it was McConnel who blocked it in the first place. Do you honestly think that he did this because he thought the votes were not there? I think not. You must remember this is the same guy who got up in front of the world and said his main goal during Obama's first was to ensure that he was a one term president. Not to try and find a middle ground and do what's best for the American people. Make Obama a one term president was his main goal. Since he failed in that, I believe the Garland thing was one last act of pettiness from a bitter old man.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:08 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
So, how many Democrats have approved Republican nominees? It goes two ways on this street.


Happened all the time until a few years ago. IIRC all of Bush's nominees got Dem votes.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:17 pm

Newark727 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
So, how many Democrats have approved Republican nominees? It goes two ways on this street.


Happened all the time until a few years ago. IIRC all of Bush's nominees got Dem votes.


Roberts got 23 and Alito got 3.
 
N867DA
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:25 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
FGITD wrote:


So as sitting president, why wasn’t Obama allowed to fill a seat that become open?


He didn't have the votes in the senate. Again elections have consequences. Trump had the votes in the Senate to get his appointees confirmed.

N867DA wrote:
It's time for Democrats to stop playing by some moral code and start listening to the letter of the law, which does not cap the number of justices or number of states.


Thankfully Joe Manchin disagrees with you.


There's nothing to be thankful for. It's a game, and right now Team Republican is winning on this one issue. Team Democrat will win some too, don't worry. I'm getting past the age where idealism is seen as a good thing, and feel politicians are people who never were idealists preying on people who are. Joe will retire, the seat will be filled by a a Republican. The platform will go further right, until it can't and then it will go the other way. Democrats will enjoy the rift of corpo-woke support while it lasts--but everyone remembers not a decade ago they were railing against corporatism in policy. Parties have literally turned against their own ideas if the opposition starts to support them. There is no hypocrisy or ethics to speak of...as I said, it's just power.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
Newark727
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:29 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Newark727 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
So, how many Democrats have approved Republican nominees? It goes two ways on this street.


Happened all the time until a few years ago. IIRC all of Bush's nominees got Dem votes.


Roberts got 23 and Alito got 3.


So in other words Roberts got more votes from the opposition party than the Republican party would give all three of Obama's supreme court nominees combined. Two-way street...
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18616
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:31 pm

Santorum to Ted Cruz—hold my teacup of Trump nether region sweat, “ CNN commentator Rick Santorum receives backlash after saying 'there isn't much Native American culture in American culture'“

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 384340002/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.

Umm...the “old” were hoodwinked by the dumbest conman in generations and this very SCOTUS is riding roughshod over precedent left and right. The projection here could power us to Mars.
I don't take responsibility at all
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:10 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
Santorum to Ted Cruz—hold my teacup of Trump nether region sweat, “ CNN commentator Rick Santorum receives backlash after saying 'there isn't much Native American culture in American culture'“

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 384340002/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.

Umm...the “old” were hoodwinked by the dumbest conman in generations and this very SCOTUS is riding roughshod over precedent left and right. The projection here could power us to Mars.


The hoodwinked were the Democrats who, on the pay of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley, abandoned their core voters were ran to Trump’s messsge. Working class voters had enough of Dem lies. How else can you explain the 2016 vote?
 
Newark727
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:34 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The hoodwinked were the Democrats who, on the pay of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley, abandoned their core voters were ran to Trump’s messsge. Working class voters had enough of Dem lies. How else can you explain the 2016 vote?


Interesting to bring up those names specifically, given that SV billionaire Peter Thiel spoke at the 2016 RNC and former Goldman Sachs exec Steve Mnuchin was Trump's Secretary of the Treasury.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8653
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:50 am

NIKV69 wrote:
So what did the GOP do to change the rules? What hypocrisy? There is no rule that says you can't fill an empty SCOTUS seat just because its an election year.

The "Biden Rule" (which present day NIKV69 says doesn't exist) was worth defending back then (as 2017 NIKV69 did), but in 2020 with RBG dying weeks before an election...what Biden Rule?

We should call it the McConnell Rule, given how he conveniently moved the goalposts: The Senate is under no obligation to confirm a SCOTUS justice months before an election (2016, Obama, GOP Senate, Scalia with Garland)...unless the Senate and White House are held by the same party; then, even if a justice died/retired the day before the election, the Senate will act and confirm a justice (2017, Trump, GOP Senate, RBG with ACB). Given that the oldest justices are Breyer and Thomas, I can only hope that Breyer steps aside now so that if Thomas buys the farm prematurely, the Democrats can replace him with someone right away (because McConnell said that if the Senate and WH are held by the same party, it's been precedent to NOT deny the president their pick).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:00 am

Newark727 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The hoodwinked were the Democrats who, on the pay of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley, abandoned their core voters were ran to Trump’s messsge. Working class voters had enough of Dem lies. How else can you explain the 2016 vote?


Interesting to bring up those names specifically, given that SV billionaire Peter Thiel spoke at the 2016 RNC and former Goldman Sachs exec Steve Mnuchin was Trump's Secretary of the Treasury.


Care to look at the ties the Clintons have with Goldman, does Robert Rubin ring a bell. Who did Silicon Valley and the Davos Men support? The Democrats are neck deep in these crooks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/us/p ... sachs.html
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:04 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
So what did the GOP do to change the rules? What hypocrisy? There is no rule that says you can't fill an empty SCOTUS seat just because its an election year.

The "Biden Rule" (which present day NIKV69 says doesn't exist) was worth defending back then (as 2017 NIKV69 did), but in 2020 with RBG dying weeks before an election...what Biden Rule?

We should call it the McConnell Rule, given how he conveniently moved the goalposts: The Senate is under no obligation to confirm a SCOTUS justice months before an election (2016, Obama, GOP Senate, Scalia with Garland)...unless the Senate and White House are held by the same party; then, even if a justice died/retired the day before the election, the Senate will act and confirm a justice (2017, Trump, GOP Senate, RBG with ACB). Given that the oldest justices are Breyer and Thomas, I can only hope that Breyer steps aside now so that if Thomas buys the farm prematurely, the Democrats can replace him with someone right away (because McConnell said that if the Senate and WH are held by the same party, it's been precedent to NOT deny the president their pick).


The ONLY rule that matters is President nominates, the Senate advises and may give consent. That’s IT. Biden, Schmiden Rule—it’s party politics. The Dems who were crying for Garland to get a Senate vote were stalling to, prevent a nomination and vote on Barrett. Mirror image.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18616
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:22 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Santorum to Ted Cruz—hold my teacup of Trump nether region sweat, “ CNN commentator Rick Santorum receives backlash after saying 'there isn't much Native American culture in American culture'“

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 384340002/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.

Umm...the “old” were hoodwinked by the dumbest conman in generations and this very SCOTUS is riding roughshod over precedent left and right. The projection here could power us to Mars.


The hoodwinked were the Democrats who, on the pay of Goldman Sachs

The delusion...it really is a mental disorder.

Lloyd Blankfein: So Many Goldman Sachs Alums in Trump Admin Is 'Inconvenience'

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/busine ... ce-n757076

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
How else can you explain the 2016 vote?

White rage. Or "eConoMiC anXieTy". as y'all like to call it.

Newark727 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The hoodwinked were the Democrats who, on the pay of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley, abandoned their core voters were ran to Trump’s messsge. Working class voters had enough of Dem lies. How else can you explain the 2016 vote?


Interesting to bring up those names specifically, given that SV billionaire Peter Thiel spoke at the 2016 RNC and former Goldman Sachs exec Steve Mnuchin was Trump's Secretary of the Treasury.

Working class voters just really wanted a zillion Goldman Sachs alumns and military generals to speak for their values. *cough* White *cough* working class...
I don't take responsibility at all
 
Newark727
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:17 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Newark727 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The hoodwinked were the Democrats who, on the pay of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley, abandoned their core voters were ran to Trump’s messsge. Working class voters had enough of Dem lies. How else can you explain the 2016 vote?


Interesting to bring up those names specifically, given that SV billionaire Peter Thiel spoke at the 2016 RNC and former Goldman Sachs exec Steve Mnuchin was Trump's Secretary of the Treasury.


Care to look at the ties the Clintons have with Goldman, does Robert Rubin ring a bell. Who did Silicon Valley and the Davos Men support? The Democrats are neck deep in these crooks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/us/p ... sachs.html


Your mistake is thinking I care about the Clintons. I'm in just the right demographic for Republican screeching about them to basically be just the background noise of my life. But let's look at this honestly. Who, in American politics, cares about breaking up the big banks, getting big money out of politics, and holding the Goldman Sachses of the world accountable when they break things? The GOP may grumble about it now, now that a couple of their golden geese no longer lay eggs for them, but what were they saying ten years ago? Twenty years ago? The people who actually consistently care about these issues are rare - but when they caucus with one of the two major parties, it's with the Democrats. You can find Bernie Sanders on tape with all this stuff back in the 1980s. While he was doing that, Republicans were busy workshopping all the phrases like "job creators" and "death tax" that the trust fund toadies of the world use to justify the billions they sit on - and buy politicians with.

And now the GOP has the gall to pitch a fit that some of them don't think the most pressing issues facing the nation are trans girls playing sports and the overabundance of voting booths in downtown Atlanta?
Last edited by Newark727 on Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23574
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:32 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Newark727 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Actually, the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the composition on the SCOTUS, at 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associates. What you’re suggesting is overturning 162 years of precedence and settled law. But, as Bill Maher said, the young are the most gullible generation.


Precedent is a shifty concept though, isn't it? In 2016, McConnell overturned prior precedent with the Merrick Garland nomination, deciding that the president's power to nominate SCOTUS judges shouldn't count in an election year. In 2020, he didn't abide by the precedent that he declared, instead allowing the sitting president to fill Ginsburg's vacant seat as quickly as possible before the election. What precedent is really being set here? That when it comes to a prize as valuable as a Supreme Court seat, the Republicans will do whatever they have the votes to do, not what they have the precedence for. Why shouldn't the opposing party follow that precedent? Much more convenient, wouldn't you agree?

And maybe it would be a good thing, too. If there were more than nine seats to go around, or each seat had a limited term, maybe we wouldn't see a Senate-breaking apocalyptic political battle every time one of them comes up empty. McConnell's approach toward toward SCOTUS seats destroys the attitude of compromise, comity, and restraint that he claims to be valuing in his defense of minority rights e.g. the filibuster.



Well, “following the law” was the standard and no where does McConnell or any other politicians pronouncements rise to being legal precedents. The only law that counts is the Constitution—President appoints, Senate approves.

I might agree that more justices could be an improvement, BUT what your lot wants is to pack the Court because you can’t win or get rulings using 162 years of law, so just rewrite the law.


Again:

REPUBLICANS led by MCCONNELL refused to seat or have hearings on Obama's court nominees so all those seats remained vacant until after the 2016 election. Whine all you want about Democrats and "liberals" and Clinton and Obama, but this is squarely on REPUBLICAN and MCCONNELL and MAGA shoulders.

Not Clinton
Not Obama
Not "liberals"
Not Pelosi

The courts were packed AFTER the 2016 election when MAGA got control.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 13338
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:03 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Newark727 wrote:

Precedent is a shifty concept though, isn't it? In 2016, McConnell overturned prior precedent with the Merrick Garland nomination, deciding that the president's power to nominate SCOTUS judges shouldn't count in an election year. In 2020, he didn't abide by the precedent that he declared, instead allowing the sitting president to fill Ginsburg's vacant seat as quickly as possible before the election. What precedent is really being set here? That when it comes to a prize as valuable as a Supreme Court seat, the Republicans will do whatever they have the votes to do, not what they have the precedence for. Why shouldn't the opposing party follow that precedent? Much more convenient, wouldn't you agree?

And maybe it would be a good thing, too. If there were more than nine seats to go around, or each seat had a limited term, maybe we wouldn't see a Senate-breaking apocalyptic political battle every time one of them comes up empty. McConnell's approach toward toward SCOTUS seats destroys the attitude of compromise, comity, and restraint that he claims to be valuing in his defense of minority rights e.g. the filibuster.



Well, “following the law” was the standard and no where does McConnell or any other politicians pronouncements rise to being legal precedents. The only law that counts is the Constitution—President appoints, Senate approves.

I might agree that more justices could be an improvement, BUT what your lot wants is to pack the Court because you can’t win or get rulings using 162 years of law, so just rewrite the law.


Again:

REPUBLICANS led by MCCONNELL refused to seat or have hearings on Obama's court nominees so all those seats remained vacant until after the 2016 election. Whine all you want about Democrats and "liberals" and Clinton and Obama, but this is squarely on REPUBLICAN and MCCONNELL and MAGA shoulders.

Not Clinton
Not Obama
Not "liberals"
Not Pelosi

The courts were packed AFTER the 2016 election when MAGA got control.


It all comes down to this. Republicans are not democracy centric. They are fascist centric at this point, because they know they can't keep forcing minority oppression on the majority without it.

The current court makeup is going to probably help further destroy Republican centric states economies as more people move to the purple and blue states.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did..So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.--Mark Twain
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:21 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Newark727 wrote:

Precedent is a shifty concept though, isn't it? In 2016, McConnell overturned prior precedent with the Merrick Garland nomination, deciding that the president's power to nominate SCOTUS judges shouldn't count in an election year. In 2020, he didn't abide by the precedent that he declared, instead allowing the sitting president to fill Ginsburg's vacant seat as quickly as possible before the election. What precedent is really being set here? That when it comes to a prize as valuable as a Supreme Court seat, the Republicans will do whatever they have the votes to do, not what they have the precedence for. Why shouldn't the opposing party follow that precedent? Much more convenient, wouldn't you agree?

And maybe it would be a good thing, too. If there were more than nine seats to go around, or each seat had a limited term, maybe we wouldn't see a Senate-breaking apocalyptic political battle every time one of them comes up empty. McConnell's approach toward toward SCOTUS seats destroys the attitude of compromise, comity, and restraint that he claims to be valuing in his defense of minority rights e.g. the filibuster.



Well, “following the law” was the standard and no where does McConnell or any other politicians pronouncements rise to being legal precedents. The only law that counts is the Constitution—President appoints, Senate approves.

I might agree that more justices could be an improvement, BUT what your lot wants is to pack the Court because you can’t win or get rulings using 162 years of law, so just rewrite the law.


Again:

REPUBLICANS led by MCCONNELL refused to seat or have hearings on Obama's court nominees so all those seats remained vacant until after the 2016 election. Whine all you want about Democrats and "liberals" and Clinton and Obama, but this is squarely on REPUBLICAN and MCCONNELL and MAGA shoulders.

Not Clinton
Not Obama
Not "liberals"
Not Pelosi

The courts were packed AFTER the 2016 election when MAGA got control.


As was it their right to do so. As Obama said, “elections have consequences”.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:26 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Santorum to Ted Cruz—hold my teacup of Trump nether region sweat, “ CNN commentator Rick Santorum receives backlash after saying 'there isn't much Native American culture in American culture'“

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 384340002/


Umm...the “old” were hoodwinked by the dumbest conman in generations and this very SCOTUS is riding roughshod over precedent left and right. The projection here could power us to Mars.


The hoodwinked were the Democrats who, on the pay of Goldman Sachs

The delusion...it really is a mental disorder.

Lloyd Blankfein: So Many Goldman Sachs Alums in Trump Admin Is 'Inconvenience'

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/busine ... ce-n757076

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
How else can you explain the 2016 vote?

White rage. Or "eConoMiC anXieTy". as y'all like to call it.

Newark727 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The hoodwinked were the Democrats who, on the pay of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley, abandoned their core voters were ran to Trump’s messsge. Working class voters had enough of Dem lies. How else can you explain the 2016 vote?


Interesting to bring up those names specifically, given that SV billionaire Peter Thiel spoke at the 2016 RNC and former Goldman Sachs exec Steve Mnuchin was Trump's Secretary of the Treasury.

Working class voters just really wanted a zillion Goldman Sachs alumns and military generals to speak for their values. *cough* White *cough* working class...


Enjoy your victimhood, you’ve earned it!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:29 pm

casinterest wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:


Well, “following the law” was the standard and no where does McConnell or any other politicians pronouncements rise to being legal precedents. The only law that counts is the Constitution—President appoints, Senate approves.

I might agree that more justices could be an improvement, BUT what your lot wants is to pack the Court because you can’t win or get rulings using 162 years of law, so just rewrite the law.


Again:

REPUBLICANS led by MCCONNELL refused to seat or have hearings on Obama's court nominees so all those seats remained vacant until after the 2016 election. Whine all you want about Democrats and "liberals" and Clinton and Obama, but this is squarely on REPUBLICAN and MCCONNELL and MAGA shoulders.

Not Clinton
Not Obama
Not "liberals"
Not Pelosi

The courts were packed AFTER the 2016 election when MAGA got control.


It all comes down to this. Republicans are not democracy centric. They are fascist centric at this point, because they know they can't keep forcing minority oppression on the majority without it.

The current court makeup is going to probably help further destroy Republican centric states economies as more people move to the purple and blue states.


As the Democrats have moved left, they are the ones who have been shedding voters outside of major cities. They can’t win under the Constitutional rules, so they’re hell bent on changing them to favor themselves. I’d call that unconstitutional by people who claim to embrace it.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:31 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
As was it their right to do so. As Obama said, “elections have consequences”.


It seems as though the only argument you're willing to come back to in this thread is "they did it and it was okay, because they had the power to do it." Which is effectively an argument in favor of the Democrats also doing whatever they have the power to do, including pack the court, is it not?

Which in turn begs the question of what is really being accomplished by all this.
 
Virtual737
Topic Author
Posts: 1040
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Just when I thought US politicians could never surprise me again...

Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:34 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
They can’t win under the Constitutional rules...


The most recent election would seem to disagree with you.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: art, c933103, Dutchy, flyguy89, iAvgeek737, Jetsgo, JJJ, kelval, mke717spotter, petertenthije, System07 and 80 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos