RIP RBG

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,965
16,942
1,743
Tulsa, OK
But, if you feel that supporting or at least tacitly approving the lowest level of sleeze that either party can come up with is OK because you feel that you can say "But they would have done it too!" then we are getting the government that you select.
I guess I don't understand why this is the lowest form of sleaze....there is plenty worse than following the actual rules.

The president nominates and the senate confirms, those are the rules. If you have a split, especially close to an election, you can either compromise or hold out and make it an election issue. If you don't have a split there is no reason the party in power can't feel the vacancy.

I wasn't saying I would be upset if the Dems did this, just calling out the hypocrisy of those that say they wouldn't. In the past, the senate had the filibuster to force the issue but Reid got rid of that for judges. Actions have consequences.
 
May 31, 2007
1,732
437
1,713
Edmond, OK
I guess I don't understand why this is the lowest form of sleaze....there is plenty worse than following the actual rules.

The president nominates and the senate confirms, those are the rules. If you have a split, especially close to an election, you can either compromise or hold out and make it an election issue. If you don't have a split there is no reason the party in power can't feel the vacancy.

I wasn't saying I would be upset if the Dems did this, just calling out the hypocrisy of those that say they wouldn't. In the past, the senate had the filibuster to force the issue but Reid got rid of that for judges. Actions have consequences.
I’m baffled as to why people are pretending not to understand this. It’s not a partisan issue, it’s just common sense.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,254
31,624
1,743
oklahoma city
While I don't disagree with this video, and it has lots of merit...Abortion is a divide as was slavery...one cannot even watch this video if one doesn't have LIFE. One cannot have the liberty and pursuit of happiness unless one has LIFE. I don't think that is unclear to me or anyone else who puts this issue first with everything falling after it. Do they use us with our passion about it? I have little doubt...sadly.

Certainly we are polarized on the issue of life...we should not be, it should be easy and quite cut and dry that we need to protect it, but that is why we are so polarized, WE don't protect it. Also as a R I really don't want the Feds doing CRAP except protecting LIFE followed quite far behind by defending our Liberty and pursuit.

Protecting life means not only protecting the unborn but keeping us free and safe and VERY strong so we can be out of unnecessary wars and be in good relations with one another inside the country...I don't see the right as nearly as manipulated as I do the left in this country. IMHO the left leaning media is a non stop negative Nancy and Debbie downer but only when R's are in control and it results in what we have in our political discord...
Countries with illegal abortion do not have fewer abortions. As long as you keep telling yourself the untrue idea that making it illegal protects a life you have fallen directly into the trap they have set. Having good government that allows women opportunities is what lowers abortion rates. Good health care and contraception is what lowers abortion rates. We have fewer abortions in the country than in the past. Those rates have fallen more with Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. They advocate the things that lower the rates.

The painful irony is your votes have allowed more abortion, not less. Your main goal of illegal has not happened, likely will not happen anytime soon, and would not save anything if it did as proven in other countries that made it illegal and still have high rates due to bad government. You have fallen directly into the trap he is talking about and still can't see it. You can't fight math with feelings, but I know you will still try.

 
Oct 30, 2007
4,211
3,565
1,743
Any bets on who Trump picks? Does he pick the favorite in Amy Coney Barret, or does he go with Barbara Lagoa to strengthen his chances of winning the state of Florida?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,254
31,624
1,743
oklahoma city
I guess I don't understand why this is the lowest form of sleaze....there is plenty worse than following the actual rules.

The president nominates and the senate confirms, those are the rules. If you have a split, especially close to an election, you can either compromise or hold out and make it an election issue. If you don't have a split there is no reason the party in power can't feel the vacancy.

I wasn't saying I would be upset if the Dems did this, just calling out the hypocrisy of those that say they wouldn't. In the past, the senate had the filibuster to force the issue but Reid got rid of that for judges. Actions have consequences.
Show me any example of a moderate like Garland being held up by a divided senate in our history. What McConnell did is unprecedented. The framers of the constitution stated that the senate had to advise and consent. But, they did not think about this level of sleaze therefore did not make it a requirement. So, the senate for the first time in history simply refused to do its job for a year.

Now, if you want to pretend that is just the way it has been to feel like you still have principles, just go ahead. But, just like the government had to make it illegal for a doctor to not see a patient in an emergency if they cannot pay. If you were creating a health system that would probably not be a consideration as you would not think a doc would let a person die because of money. But, Reagan fixed that after 200 years as it was happening.

Similarly, the founders probably never considered that the Senate leader would "follow the rules" by not doing his job for a year so did not put it in the rules. If you think that makes it not sleaze, that is your principles. It clearly is sleaze to me and the fact that they are now doing this just doubles the sleaze. Ask a Nazi, legal or within the rules does not make something the right thing to do.

And, unlike you, they could trade every R for a D in this and I would feel exactly the same way about it.

You are correct that actions have consequences. And, the future far-left policies that are going to be justified by the Republican party losing its principles are going to affect all of us. Politics is always a pendulum. Those of us in the middle just get whacked by it going both ways because extremists doing unprincipled stuff like this.
 
Mar 11, 2006
2,876
1,878
1,743
Show me any example of a moderate like Garland being held up by a divided senate in our history. What McConnell did is unprecedented. The framers of the constitution stated that the senate had to advise and consent. But, they did not think about this level of sleaze therefore did not make it a requirement. So, the senate for the first time in history simply refused to do its job for a year.

Now, if you want to pretend that is just the way it has been to feel like you still have principles, just go ahead. But, just like the government had to make it illegal for a doctor to not see a patient in an emergency if they cannot pay. If you were creating a health system that would probably not be a consideration as you would not think a doc would let a person die because of money. But, Reagan fixed that after 200 years as it was happening.

Similarly, the founders probably never considered that the Senate leader would "follow the rules" by not doing his job for a year so did not put it in the rules. If you think that makes it not sleaze, that is your principles. It clearly is sleaze to me and the fact that they are now doing this just doubles the sleaze. Ask a Nazi, legal or within the rules does not make something the right thing to do.

And, unlike you, they could trade every R for a D in this and I would feel exactly the same way about it.

You are correct that actions have consequences. And, the future far-left policies that are going to be justified by the Republican party losing its principles are going to affect all of us. Politics is always a pendulum. Those of us in the middle just get whacked by it going both ways because extremists doing unprincipled stuff like this.
Translation:
ignore Harry Reid’s major 2013 filibuster rule change that would have essentially stopped R’s from filling the Ginsburg seat now;
ignore threats to pack the courts;
ignore fact that 100% of Dems voted against Kavanaugh and only 3 Democrats voted for Gorsuch;
and ignore Bork

Only remember Garland.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,254
31,624
1,743
oklahoma city
Translation:
ignore Harry Reid’s major 2013 filibuster rule change that would have essentially stopped R’s from filling the Ginsburg seat now;
ignore threats to pack the courts;
ignore fact that 100% of Dems voted against Kavanaugh and only 3 Democrats voted for Gorsuch;
and ignore Bork

Only remember Garland.
You want so badly for me to be a partisan democrat as that makes it easy to point out something that partisan democrats have done as an arguement against me. Maybe if you could bring up ANYWHERE I mentioned Reid and advocated his position your post would have a teeny bit of logic instead of 100% whataboutism.

I wrote a message board post not a comprehensive history of the senate. Changing a filibuster rule 7 years ago was wrong. Bork was wrong. There are tons of past wrongs. They are completely different things than the current actions related specifically to the actions of current leaders regarding the SCOTUS confirmation.

In other words, you can't really argue against what I am saying so you bring in extraneous details from the past that aren't even something I support to give yourself something to argue for since you can't argue my actual point that supporting this is unprincipled.

Has my wife hacked your account?
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,835
2,828
743
33
While I don't disagree with this video, and it has lots of merit...Abortion is a divide as was slavery...one cannot even watch this video if one doesn't have LIFE. One cannot have the liberty and pursuit of happiness unless one has LIFE. I don't think that is unclear to me or anyone else who puts this issue first with everything falling after it. Do they use us with our passion about it? I have little doubt...sadly.

Certainly we are polarized on the issue of life...we should not be, it should be easy and quite cut and dry that we need to protect it, but that is why we are so polarized, WE don't protect it. Also as a R I really don't want the Feds doing CRAP except protecting LIFE followed quite far behind by defending our Liberty and pursuit.

Protecting life means not only protecting the unborn but keeping us free and safe and VERY strong so we can be out of unnecessary wars and be in good relations with one another inside the country...I don't see the right as nearly as manipulated as I do the left in this country. IMHO the left leaning media is a non stop negative Nancy and Debbie downer but only when R's are in control and it results in what we have in our political discord...
In practical terms, abortion is a non issue. Even if you feel strongly about it wither way, the law is settled. Women have a right to an abortion up to a point. You can fiddle around the edges and make state laws that make it harder and harder. But Roe v Wade is never going away, steross has multiple times expressed my feelings on this subject better than I can and you and I would agree on that there are some people on the left who have strayed into what I would call “pro-abortion” stances rather than what i feel is the majority opinion and where i fall of elimination through the reduction of unwanted pregnancy.

How do you feel about giving long term contraceptives to teenagers? How about sex ed? Morning after pill/ plan B? Thise are the things that have successfully driven down the abortion rates over time, other than giving equal rights to women and minorities which was probably the biggest downward driver.

I want zero abortions in the world, but it has been proven time and time again that outlawing it does nothing but drive women to illegal and dangerous drugs and butchers.

Putting all of that aside, your beliefs are being used by the oligarchs to keep you on side and away from thinking for yourself
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
3,939
1,979
1,743
46
DFW
I mentioned my very conservative Republican brother/sister-in-law paid for my daughter to fly to DC and see Ruth Bader Ginsburg lie in state at the Supreme Court. Here’s a summary of the trip for those interested.
8698980A-F51B-4BF4-B4C1-C875A556916B.jpeg


My daughter and I arrived Tuesday evening and went to the vigil across from the courthouse. She had written a note of thanks to her hero RBG. A kind officer delivered it for her to makeshift memorial at the front of the courthouse. She placed a bouquet of lilies in the security fence and we stayed for a bit. It was a very solemn and reflective time. She broke into tears intermittently and I hugged her.
366FDB76-D9A6-4552-ABD6-F75F5FBF5532.jpeg


The next morning, I got up and ran 5k alongside the Potomac with a view of the Capitol dome and Washington Monument in the distance across the river. That was special.
4C29D0F7-9F2E-45BE-BE99-3852A0C36106.jpeg
We got in line early for the viewing, roughly 8am. There were only about 50 people ahead of us. My daughter talked with some of the other folks about RBG as they discussed her legacy and her impact on their lives. Lots of concerns were shared about the imminent nomination of a replacement.

6C3F7ED7-41D1-4E4A-B530-3BC11FDBCEB6.jpeg
Before 11am, they escorted us to the front of the Courthouse steps. We could see RGB’s casket in the portico at the top of the steps. We knew Her casket was set upon Lincoln’s catafalque, which is a tremendous honor and the first time for a woman. We couldn’t really see it though. There was an even greater sense of reverence and loss as we stood there. More tears. More hugs.

C5A0E71A-7EE1-4BFF-B7DB-8162436102B9.jpeg


We eventually walked around to the area across the street from the courthouse and watched for a while longer.
82DF8552-0D30-4D46-B9C4-9B7C58470F92.jpeg


Once we were done, we walked toward the White House. While standing at an intersection, a caravan with security escorts came our way. I looked at the escorted vehicle and saw a man in the back. He was looking down at his phone, his glasses at the tip of his nose. I saw a shock of white hair. It was Bill Clinton, with Hillary next to him. They were on their way to pay their respects.

B991F0FC-BF88-4CA6-87CE-96C80916D926.jpeg


The area around the White House seemed like a complete mess. Barriers and fencing everywhere. It was hard to navigate anywhere near it and equally challenging to get a good view of the White House itself.
E5C75491-6333-4AFD-A6A8-9D838AF1AA17.jpeg


We visited Black Lives Matter Boulevard a few blocks from the White House. The murals and signage in memory of victims was sobering. The lettering on the streets is epic to behold.
7A73A35C-BEA6-44CD-9035-A1F1C75CDB98.jpeg


Overall, it was a fascinating trip my daughter will never forget. She got to participate in a historic moment. The honoring of RBG. The visuals of the BLM movement. The constant reminder of Covid as everyone constantly wore masks. It was a strange cross-section of events that marked this trip with a unique fingerprint.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,965
16,942
1,743
Tulsa, OK
I realize it was football Saturday but can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet. Not that it is much of a surprise, I think pretty much everyone knew this would be Trump's nominee.
The only real question is how hard will the self proclaimed party of women fight to keep a woman off the supreme court?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...y-coney-barrett-for-supreme-court-11601128552

President Trump formally nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday, kicking off what is expected to be a rapid confirmation process aimed at installing another conservative-leaning judge just weeks before Election Day.

Judge Barrett, 48 years old, is a member of the Chicago-based Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a former law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. A finalist for a previous Supreme Court opening that went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she was seen as a likely choice given her conservative credentials, strong support among Republican senators and the president’s desire to nominate a woman to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump said in the Rose Garden, with Judge Barrett at his side. “She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.”
 

snuffy

Calf fries are the original sack lunch.
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 28, 2007
34,615
30,054
1,743
Oklahoma
I realize it was football Saturday but can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet. Not that it is much of a surprise, I think pretty much everyone knew this would be Trump's nominee.
The only real question is how hard will the self proclaimed party of women fight to keep a woman off the supreme court?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...y-coney-barrett-for-supreme-court-11601128552

President Trump formally nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday, kicking off what is expected to be a rapid confirmation process aimed at installing another conservative-leaning judge just weeks before Election Day.

Judge Barrett, 48 years old, is a member of the Chicago-based Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a former law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. A finalist for a previous Supreme Court opening that went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she was seen as a likely choice given her conservative credentials, strong support among Republican senators and the president’s desire to nominate a woman to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump said in the Rose Garden, with Judge Barrett at his side. “She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.”
https://twitter.com/weezwrites/status/1309632458745315329?s=21
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,835
2,828
743
33
I realize it was football Saturday but can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet. Not that it is much of a surprise, I think pretty much everyone knew this would be Trump's nominee.
The only real question is how hard will the self proclaimed party of women fight to keep a woman off the supreme court?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...y-coney-barrett-for-supreme-court-11601128552

President Trump formally nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday, kicking off what is expected to be a rapid confirmation process aimed at installing another conservative-leaning judge just weeks before Election Day.

Judge Barrett, 48 years old, is a member of the Chicago-based Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a former law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. A finalist for a previous Supreme Court opening that went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she was seen as a likely choice given her conservative credentials, strong support among Republican senators and the president’s desire to nominate a woman to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump said in the Rose Garden, with Judge Barrett at his side. “She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.”
I was just pissed off that they cut to the press conference in the middle of our game, I recorded the game so I couldn’t change to ESPN news So i had to put it on mute and watch with half the screen

She will get confirmed because everyone cares more about their team winning than having consistent principles. The march toward further oligarchy control will continue, and we will all continue to be rubes voting for our team and making it easy on them
 

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
14,314
9,208
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
I was just pissed off that they cut to the press conference in the middle of our game, I recorded the game so I couldn’t change to ESPN news So i had to put it on mute and watch with half the screen

She will get confirmed because everyone cares more about their team winning than having consistent principles. The march toward further oligarchy control will continue, and we will all continue to be rubes voting for our team and making it easy on them
Wait what? You can't change channels when you are recording? Are you recording on a VHS player?
 

drbwh

Territorial Marshal
Sep 20, 2006
9,686
3,723
1,743
Nobody said he couldn’t. They just wouldn’t confirm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll play your semantics game. Why is it okay to not confirm in year 8? Why not extend that to year 7. What makes it okay just because it is an opposing party. Why not just never confirm an opposing party's nomination?
What makes it ok?
THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk