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.
Sep 22, 2011
3,873
2,833
743
33
So changing decades-long Senate rules are okay near the end of a term to get justice you want are fine.... but nominating and voting upon a SC justice under normal rules is not?

You were correct earlier with your statement that this “thread is really separating the rank partisans from the people with principles”. Just maybe not in the way you were imagining it.
Lol, the cloture vote “filibuster” Is one of the silliest pieces of bureaucratic idiocy that was ever dreamed up. I feel that whether it is used in favor of policies i agree with or against them. That is what a Principle is
 

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
11,003
5,452
1,743
29
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
If dems aren't going to play by the rules why on earth should Republicans? Being "principiled" is equivalent to being a sucker when going up against the dems. Why do you think they are already talking about expanding the courts, removing the filibuster, giving statehood to dc and Puerto Rico, and giving voting rights to illegals?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I would be curious where your line is. Your thoughts are so petty and shortsighted, I wonder what you would be ok with if it owned the libs in your mind.
Has nothing to do with "owning" the libs lol. It has to do with listening to what they are saying they are gonna do. Why should Republicans do any different? There frankly isn't any line im not willing to cross that is legal, because I know the dems will blow right by the line when they are in power.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,060
1,937
1,743
Lol, the cloture vote “filibuster” Is one of the silliest pieces of bureaucratic idiocy that was ever dreamed up. I feel that whether it is used in favor of policies i agree with or against them. That is what a Principle is
So since you personally are okay with changing decades long SeNate because it is silly in your opinion, that is being principled?

So is “packing the court“ and changing the amount of SC justices for the first time in over 150 years a principled action? ( a la Ed Markey and Joe Kennedy’s statements in just the last 24 hours).
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,873
2,833
743
33
Has nothing to do with "owning" the libs lol. It has to do with listening to what they are saying they are gonna do. Why should Republicans do any different? There frankly isn't any line im not willing to cross that is legal, because I know the dems will blow right by the line when they are in power.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
The fact that anything legal is your moral compass explains a lot about your postings, do you have any sense of right and wrong? Or are you just concerned with winning?
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,873
2,833
743
33
So since you personally are okay with changing decades long SeNate because it is silly in your opinion, that is being principled?

So is “packing the court“ and changing the amount of SC justices for the first time in over 150 years a principled action? ( a la Ed Markey and Joe Kennedy’s statements in just the last 24 hours).
Yes its dumb, no I dont think the number of judges needs to go up, if anything i think it should go down to 5 maybe even 3 and the senate should have to find some proof that nominees aren't suited or qualified to be a justice. See how easy it is to answer questions when you aren't tied up in knots over whether it is good for one party or another?
 

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
11,003
5,452
1,743
29
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
Has nothing to do with "owning" the libs lol. It has to do with listening to what they are saying they are gonna do. Why should Republicans do any different? There frankly isn't any line im not willing to cross that is legal, because I know the dems will blow right by the line when they are in power.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
The fact that anything legal is your moral compass explains a lot about your postings, do you have any sense of right and wrong? Or are you just concerned with winning?
I do but unfortunately we aren't dealing with a willing and moral partner. The only purpose now for conservatives is to desperately keep something that resembles the republic of the United States for the next generation. Everything at this point should go to preserving what we can from those hell bent on destroying it.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,873
2,833
743
33
I do but unfortunately we aren't dealing with a willing and moral partner. The only purpose now for conservatives is to desperately keep something that resembles the republic of the United States for the next generation. Everything at this point should go to preserving what we can from those hell bent on destroying it.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I am going to let you in on a secret, there is nothing existential about this election, you are buying into propaganda meant to separate us into teams and keep the oligarchs in power.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,267
945
743
Edmond
I am going to let you in on a secret, there is nothing existential about this election, you are buying into propaganda meant to separate us into teams and keep the oligarchs in power.
so are you , all the blustering form april of this year about packing the court. How does that not push the had of the r's . Extremes are ever so prevalent on both sides.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-in-2016-ginsburg-senate-election-year-vacancy
Ginsburg had an opinion on that back in 2016, too. Speaking before the New York City Bar Association in October of that year, Ginsburg appeared alongside her fellow New York native Justice Sonia Sotomayor and remarked that a divided court with an even number of justices is not an ideal way to move forward even in the short term.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,873
2,833
743
33
so are you , all the blustering form april of this year about packing the court. How does that not push the had of the r's . Extremes are ever so prevalent on both sides.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-in-2016-ginsburg-senate-election-year-vacancy
Ginsburg had an opinion on that back in 2016, too. Speaking before the New York City Bar Association in October of that year, Ginsburg appeared alongside her fellow New York native Justice Sonia Sotomayor and remarked that a divided court with an even number of justices is not an ideal way to move forward even in the short term.
I agree, it was wrong then, it is wrong now, the spot should be filled just like garland should have been confirmed as well. Im just here for the hypocrisy at this point, because all of you who are going to bat for a pre election confirmation were the exact ones making the case for the year long delay of garland, you are bad faith partisan actors and i will continue to call you out for it because you have no credibility to argue from on this.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,267
945
743
Edmond
I agree, it was wrong then, it is wrong now, the spot should be filled just like garland should have been confirmed as well. Im just here for the hypocrisy at this point, because all of you who are going to bat for a pre election confirmation were the exact ones making the case for the year long delay of garland, you are bad faith partisan actors and i will continue to call you out for it because you have no credibility to argue from on this.
Wait , just because garland would have been taken in front of the senate. That doesn't mean he would be confirmed. He still had to get the votes.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,198
4,117
743
Then tell me the last time an opposite party Justice was confirmed in this situation.
Who cares what is right? We did it this way in the past! Rofl, honestly guys please keep it up, i havent had this much fun on the politics board in a long time
If it's not been done that way in the past then oh well. Personally, if you have the votes, confirm. Obama didn't have the votes. Plain and simple.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,198
4,117
743
So since you personally are okay with changing decades long SeNate because it is silly in your opinion, that is being principled?

So is “packing the court“ and changing the amount of SC justices for the first time in over 150 years a principled action? ( a la Ed Markey and Joe Kennedy’s statements in just the last 24 hours).
Yes its dumb, no I dont think the number of judges needs to go up, if anything i think it should go down to 5 maybe even 3 and the senate should have to find some proof that nominees aren't suited or qualified to be a justice. See how easy it is to answer questions when you aren't tied up in knots over whether it is good for one party or another?
Personally I think 7 or 9 is fine. That gives them plenty to hear cases even if some have to recuse themselves. What I would like to see changed is the de facto lifetime appointments. Set an age limit or a certain term length to avoid problems like what is happening now. You know when someone's appointment is up and the President at the time plans accordingly. Make the Senate have to work on confirmation once a nominee is put forth.


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
16,815
10,329
1,743
40
Fairmont, MN
I agree, it was wrong then, it is wrong now, the spot should be filled just like garland should have been confirmed as well. Im just here for the hypocrisy at this point, because all of you who are going to bat for a pre election confirmation were the exact ones making the case for the year long delay of garland, you are bad faith partisan actors and i will continue to call you out for it because you have no credibility to argue from on this.
I don't know that it's a 100% apples to apples comparison. Scalia passed in February 2016 which was early in the primary season so neither party had an official candidate. With Ginsburg, we are close enough to the election that some people have already voted.

As to when it becomes a decision for the current President and when does it become one for the winner of the next election? Just a rough guess but I think about 90 days is fair to select, vet, and vote on a nomination. 5 years ago, I would have thought differently but the current Senate Majority leader created a new precident and well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Also, to be fair, Supreme Court selections are overblown from a partisan standpoint. From a legal standpoint this represents the best of the best so in general they probably play to their nominating Presidents base a lot less than people think. Case in point, the two kinda swing vote justices right now are Roberts and Cavanaugh.