Frozen4sioux Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 24 minutes ago, MrEdway said: Looking forward to Nads & Shiffs attacks on whoever is nominated. Should swing a lot of women voters to Trump. I just feel for the poor victim who is about to be sexually abused by the Supreme court nominee 15 to 20 years ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 22 hours ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said: We shall see if they have the votes. If those same senators who are in close races lose, you gotta believe they will vote after the election to approve the nomination. These people are Republicans after all. They may say they don’t want to vote before the next president so that they don’t lose the independent vote then switch their opinion on the matter if they lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 20 hours ago, Hayduke1 said: Yeah. Just like in 2016. Effing hypocrite Bahahahaha sucks to not be in charge of the chamber that approves the nominee. In 2016 they could have voted him down anyways, instead they saved the nominee the hassle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaMikeFoxtrot Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 38 minutes ago, homer said: Again, can you be certain even if the shoe was on the other foot and the Rep do nothing now that they wouldn’t fill the seat? I’m not real confident they would follow the handshake deal than the Reps will I'd be just as disappointed in dems for doing the same thing. And they likely will play dirty the next time they can using McConnell as an excuse. It'll be hard to argue against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said: I'd be just as disappointed in dems for doing the same thing. And they likely will play dirty the next time they can using McConnell as an excuse. It'll be hard to argue against it. If the Dems hold power and can nominate and approve a SC justice no matter what part of the term more power to them. Using your power legally is not dirty. stacking the court would be dirty and would allow every other president in the future to do the same. This all boils down to blaming one person for this mess. Harry Reid will be the one who destroyed the democracy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 1 hour ago, UNDlaw80 said: The larger issue centers around McConnell’s use of power politics at every turn, every opportunity. McConnell had no rule or precedent in blocking Obama’s choice, but he had the majority so he soldiered on. Then he changed confirmation rules (51 votes instead of 60) once Trump was President. Now he’s thoroughly contradicting himself even though he gave himself the legal capacity to justify it; again through an exercise in majority power. Unfortunately, this will embolden the Democrats to act in the same manner if/when they grab the majority. Issues once deemed untouchable via mutual respect will no longer be considered as such. Look for them to expand the supreme court, push to give DC statehood, etc. The US has officially become a party over country entity. Putin is likely laughing his *** off right now. You can’t be that stupid right? How was it McConnels fault that the threshold went to 51? Willful ignorance or you just can’t use google? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 2 hours ago, Hayduke1 said: and hypocrites. Look in a mirror. Can't be a hypocrite if it's a genuinely different situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 1 hour ago, MafiaMan said: That’s nothing more than a damn lie! The nuclear option was instituted by none other than Democrat Harry Reid in 2013 in order to stop those nasty “obstructionist” Republicans. Once the Republicans were in power in the Senate, McConnell only extended that rule. What goes around, comes around... lol Mitch warned Reid and the Democrats in 2013 that they would regret doing what they did. It's on camera. So yeah UNDlaw is either uninformed or he is a liar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaMikeFoxtrot Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, Sioux>Bison said: If the Dems hold power and can nominate and approve a SC justice no matter what part of the term more power to them. Using your power legally is not dirty. stacking the court would be dirty and would allow every other president in the future to do the same. This all boils down to blaming one person for this mess. Harry Reid will be the one who destroyed the democracy. Removing BK is what I'm expecting of the Dems. He wasn't properly vetted, and they will exploit it. Not trying to re-open that can of worms, it's just my guess at their approach would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said: Removing BK is what I'm expecting of the Dems. He wasn't properly vetted, and they will exploit it. Not trying to re-open that can of worms, it's just my guess at their approach would be. They could do that if they make the case. Would that need 60 votes to impeach? They might not get enough votes but they can try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said: Removing BK is what I'm expecting of the Dems. He wasn't properly vetted, and they will exploit it. Not trying to re-open that can of worms, it's just my guess at their approach would be. 2/3 vote of the Senate, if they can get that many votes then it’s within their rights to impeach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 17 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said: Removing BK is what I'm expecting of the Dems. He wasn't properly vetted, and they will exploit it. Not trying to re-open that can of worms, it's just my guess at their approach would be. In what way wasn't he property vetted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 28 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said: Removing BK is what I'm expecting of the Dems. He wasn't properly vetted, and they will exploit it. Not trying to re-open that can of worms, it's just my guess at their approach would be. Lol why are you just making crap up now? They can't remove him without their own people being removed. But I suppose Dems do love destroying norms and then getting mad when it comes back to bite them lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaMikeFoxtrot Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 15 minutes ago, Bison Dan said: In what way wasn't he property vetted? Let's not pretend like he doesn't have skeletons in the closet. There but for the grace of <deity> goes many of us, but we aren't facing the scrutiny he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaMikeFoxtrot Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said: Lol why are you just making crap up now? They can't remove him without their own people being removed. But I suppose Dems do love destroying norms and then getting mad when it comes back to bite them lol LOL! Elaborate on your first sentence in the second paragraph. It's not us vs. them to me, when Dems are back in power I'll shift my skepticism to that party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 9 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said: LOL! Elaborate on your first sentence in the second paragraph. It's not us vs. them to me, when Dems are back in power I'll shift my skepticism to that party. Libs can't impeach a justice for some nonsensical reason without opening up all of their judges to the same behavior. Democrats aren't known for thinking things through but this particular thing would be exceptionally dumb on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said: Libs can't impeach a justice for some nonsensical reason without opening up all of their judges to the same behavior. Democrats aren't known for thinking things through but this particular thing would be exceptionally dumb on their part. They could impeach him because they think he is a rapist but good luck getting 67 votes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaMikeFoxtrot Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 26 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said: Libs can't impeach a justice for some nonsensical reason without opening up all of their judges to the same behavior. Democrats aren't known for thinking things through but this particular thing would be exceptionally dumb on their part. That's not elaborating, that's restating with more words. Who specifically of the justices would have problems if their past was scrutinized? EDIT: forgot to end the first sentence with LOL!!1! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 Wait until democrats gain the majority in the Senate and win the White House. They'll introduce legislation (and pass it) to expand the number of SCOTUS justices by 3 or 4 and then Biden will fill the seats. Talk about heads exploding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, mikejm said: Wait until democrats gain the majority in the Senate and win the White House. They'll introduce legislation (and pass it) to expand the number of SCOTUS justices by 3 or 4 and then Biden will fill the seats. Talk about heads exploding. If they did that then a Republican president would do the same when the power shifts. Bad precedent to set 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, mikejm said: Wait until democrats gain the majority in the Senate and win the White House. They'll introduce legislation (and pass it) to expand the number of SCOTUS justices by 3 or 4 and then Biden will fill the seats. Talk about heads exploding. So basically wanting to rewrite history to fit their narrative and agenda because 9 hasn't worked for how many years? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke1 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 10 minutes ago, mikejm said: Wait until democrats gain the majority in the Senate and win the White House. They'll introduce legislation (and pass it) to expand the number of SCOTUS justices by 3 or 4 and then Biden will fill the seats. Talk about heads exploding. Yeah, but FDR tried that. Pesky Constitution. Let Law chime in on that. Under the best of circumstances it is tough to get a nominee confirmed in the time left before the election. Much less with a little over 40 days left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 Just now, Hayduke1 said: Yeah, but FDR tried that. Pesky Constitution. Let Law chime in on that. Under the best of circumstances it is tough to get a nominee confirmed in the time left before the election. Much less with a little over 40 days left There is no Constitutional limit on the size of the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 27 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said: That's not elaborating, that's restating with more words. Who specifically of the justices would have problems if their past was scrutinized? EDIT: forgot to end the first sentence with LOL!!1! You see, idk which would have problems. Thats why we need to impeach them...so we can properly scrutinize them. Sotomayor after all has made statements consistent with some sort of Latino Supremacy. Following your logic, we need to have an ongoing investigation of all federal judges pasts. Or...we could be reasonable and sane people and not threaten judges for impeachment merely because we don't like how they feel about abortion or the death penalty or whatever hot button issue is in vogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts