What do you think of the SCOTUS mess?

Aug 2018
348
70
Shady Dale, Georgia
#21
So exactly what the Repubs did last time a SC seat opened up... The Repubs have no leg to stand on here.
The Republicans control the Senate and the White House. By Senate rules only a simple majority is required to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The reason that President Obama was unable to get his nominee through is simple, the Democrats did not control the Senate. The President wasn't able to negotiate, nor did he really try. He put forth a take it or leave it.
 
Likes: Ralph47
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#22
The Republicans control the Senate and the White House. By Senate rules only a simple majority is required to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The reason that President Obama was unable to get his nominee through is simple, the Democrats did not control the Senate. The President wasn't able to negotiate, nor did he really try. He put forth a take it or leave it.
Actually the stated and clearly obvious reason was that McConnell refused to allow a vote.
Turtleman
 
Aug 2018
348
70
Shady Dale, Georgia
#23
Actually the stated and clearly obvious reason was that McConnell refused to allow a vote.
Turtleman
Senator McConnell did not give Merrick Garland a vote, because he didn't have to. It's pretty simple. The Republicans controlled the Senate. I thought that McConnell was making a mistake because I was pretty convinced that Hillary R Clinton would win the election, pull Garland, replacing him with a far left nominee. But that isn't what happened. What happened is the Democrats lost an important election. President Trump nominated his choice for the Supreme Court and he was confirmed. President Trump has nominated a second justice who is now pending confirmation.

If any further justice decides voluntarily or otherwise to leave, President Trump will nominate their replacement and the Senate will vote on it.
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#24
Senator McConnell did not give Merrick Garland a vote, because he didn't have to. It's pretty simple. The Republicans controlled the Senate. I thought that McConnell was making a mistake because I was pretty convinced that Hillary R Clinton would win the election, pull Garland, replacing him with a far left nominee. But that isn't what happened. What happened is the Democrats lost an important election. President Trump nominated his choice for the Supreme Court and he was confirmed. President Trump has nominated a second justice who is now pending confirmation.

If any further justice decides voluntarily or otherwise to leave, President Trump will nominate their replacement and the Senate will vote on it.
Senator McConnell did not give Merrick Garland a vote, because he didn't have to. It's pretty simple. The Republicans controlled the Senate. I thought that McConnell was making a mistake because I was pretty convinced that Hillary R Clinton would win the election, pull Garland, replacing him with a far left nominee. But that isn't what happened. What happened is the Democrats lost an important election. President Trump nominated his choice for the Supreme Court and he was confirmed. President Trump has nominated a second justice who is now pending confirmation.

If any further justice decides voluntarily or otherwise to leave, President Trump will nominate their replacement and the Senate will vote on it.
…...I see....
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#25
The President wasn't able to negotiate, nor did he really try. He put forth a take it or leave it.
He shopped around for a Repub judge the Dems could vote for and then not only nominated said Repub judge but nominated the guy the Repubs explicitly named as an acceptable choice. Then McConnell cited a rule that only existed in his head about no votes 1 year before an election and killed it. It's 1 year before an election, McConnell should kill this vote as well if he's actually being honest (he isn't and won't). This is why I say the Repubs have no leg to stand on complaining about the Dems fighting their guy, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth on this.
 
Aug 2018
348
70
Shady Dale, Georgia
#26
He shopped around for a Repub judge the Dems could vote for and then not only nominated said Repub judge but nominated the guy the Repubs explicitly named as an acceptable choice. Then McConnell cited a rule that only existed in his head about no votes 1 year before an election and killed it. It's 1 year before an election, McConnell should kill this vote as well if he's actually being honest (he isn't and won't). This is why I say the Repubs have no leg to stand on complaining about the Dems fighting their guy, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth on this.
Now, you know, just like we all know that McConnell wasn't talking about a midterm but rather a presidential election. Let's not insult everyone's intelligence here by pretending that you do not know. Barack H Obama said elections have consequences. They do. One of them is that Trump gets to pick the Supreme Court justices. If, for some reason Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed, the Democrats will start over with their hatred toward Trump's next pick. Nothing new.
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#27
It would seem, according to the FOX interview that this man was the only college student in the history of history that did not drink or have sex in his school years and his wife just does not know what all the fuss is about or why women don't scream bloody murder every time a man acts like an a$$hole.
 
Aug 2018
348
70
Shady Dale, Georgia
#28
It would seem, according to the FOX interview that this man was the only college student in the history of history that did not drink or have sex in his school years and his wife just does not know what all the fuss is about or why women don't scream bloody murder every time a man acts like an a$$hole.
Which man are you speaking of in your post? If you are speaking of President Donald J Trump, it's well known that he does not drink, nor has he ever. He has been seen holding a drink at events for a toast or even once opening a beer can but no one has ever seen him drinking or drunk. He says that he's a teetotaler. I see no reason not to believe him. Senator Mitt Romeny also doesn't drink, nor has he ever had a problem with alcohol.
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#29
Which man are you speaking of in your post? If you are speaking of President Donald J Trump, it's well known that he does not drink, nor has he ever. He has been seen holding a drink at events for a toast or even once opening a beer can but no one has ever seen him drinking or drunk. He says that he's a teetotaler. I see no reason not to believe him. Senator Mitt Romeny also doesn't drink, nor has he ever had a problem with alcohol.
Kavenaugh
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#31
In the video that you linked to, Kavanaugh mentions that Ford's friend who was supposed to be present, says that she does not know Kavanaugh and was never at a party that he was at. If there were five people at that party, why is only Ford that remembers it?
Are you simply trying to avoid discussing what you asked about?
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#35
Should I take it as a yes, every time that you posted it in response to my posts in other threads?
You of course, are free to take things as you wish. When I did so however it was a means of avoiding interaction that would likely become unplieasaant vs. avoiding discussion because a question answered had problems I could not deal with. Perhaps avoiding idcussion is a good idea however.
 
Aug 2018
348
70
Shady Dale, Georgia
#36
You of course, are free to take things as you wish. When I did so however it was a means of avoiding interaction that would likely become unplieasaant vs. avoiding discussion because a question answered had problems I could not deal with. Perhaps avoiding idcussion is a good idea however.
It is easier for some people to only talk with like minded people. Some people are not able to have a good discussion with someone who is politically opposed to themselves. I get that. Rather than actually debate the topic, just post a simple one line avoidance.
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#37
It is easier for some people to only talk with like minded people. Some people are not able to have a good discussion with someone who is politically opposed to themselves. I get that. Rather than actually debate the topic, just post a simple one line avoidance.
I take it you mean the "No sex in college" topic that you dismissed in preference of another topic? It is absolutely accurate that some individuals do not engage well with opposing viewpoints which makes them a royal pain in a political debate forum. There are also some however that use the distract and dodge tactic...both are to be avoided.
 
Oct 2012
2,048
417
NC
#38
from what I've heard so far the women don't seem credible.
One was not sure of when or where, the other is not or was not sure it was even him until her leftist-hate-zombie disease flared up and she became quite sure.

for the left to disrupt trump is a higher calling than anything else.
they're are saving women's rights!

and if you do something very heroic like that , well what's a little white lie that ruins a career? meh.
 
Aug 2018
348
70
Shady Dale, Georgia
#39
from what I've heard so far the women don't seem credible.
One was not sure of when or where, the other is not or was not sure it was even him until her leftist-hate-zombie disease flared up and she became quite sure.

for the left to disrupt trump is a higher calling than anything else.
they're are saving women's rights!

and if you do something very heroic like that , well what's a little white lie that ruins a career? meh.
Character Assassination used to require specifics but now just something general, with no corroborating witnesses, especially if it is a conservative. There is no prosecutor in this country that would go to court with what little Ford has provided. But it’s a not a court verdict they are seeking, it’s a smear campaign.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Oct 2012
3,915
635
Louisville, Ky
#40
Character Assassination used to require specifics but now just something general, with no corroborating witnesses, especially if it is a conservative. There is no prosecutor in this country that would go to court with what little Ford has provided. But it’s a not a court verdict they are seeking, it’s a smear campaign.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The women do not seem to be part of a campaign other than one to expose him as unacceptable for SCOTUS, which they have. This latest one has signed sworn documentation saying his virgin past was untrue. Thursday should be very interesting.
 

Similar Discussions