ALF Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 Sen Whitehouse presented the most compelling and thorough argument that I have ever seen. He is one heck of a lawyer, follow the money.
Cinga Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, ALF said: Sen Whitehouse presented the most compelling and thorough argument that I have ever seen. He is one heck of a lawyer, follow the money. And Cruz followed with a complete teardown of Whitehouse assertions 3 3
Cinga Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 Klobachar, repeating the same Lincoln claim Harris tried doesn't make it a truth. Congress was not in session so nominating someone would have been fruitless. He did however on the first day they returned to session. 3
keepthefaith Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 13 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Oh for the days when only the left loved to tax and spend. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-09/trump-has-approved-a-revised-stimulus-plan-kudlow-says https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-total-cost-of-trumps-new-tariffs/ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932 Somewhere there's a small government Republican Party left. I'm just not sure exactly where. Agree, both parties suck on fiscal responsibility. I don't know which is worse right now. The lefties that are the spenders out in the open or the righties that B word and moan when they aren't in power and then when they are they ignore the matter. Sorry to carry on off topic.
Uncle Joe Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) Klobuchar following the tracks and doing some hunting and shooting down Amy's stances,. Obviously they have differing opinions. Edited October 13, 2020 by Uncle Joe
Westside Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Yes I would be fine with it as long as it's within whatever rules exist at that time. Why are you crapping your pants over Barrett? The president has every right to fill that seat. 2
keepthefaith Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 How about the parties agree to 9 justices and that the Senate must take up nominations within so many days of the President making such? Fix the constitution on this. Otherwise, the party in power does what they want.
The Frankish Reich Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, keepthefaith said: How about the parties agree to 9 justices and that the Senate must take up nominations within so many days of the President making such? Fix the constitution on this. Otherwise, the party in power does what they want. That's kind of what the Calabresi plan would do, as well as rotating Supreme Court justices out after 18 year terms. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/ginsburg-supreme-court-confirmation.html There are other variants of the plan that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, just a statutory fix (for example: justices appointed for life, but rotating out to hear lower appeals or trial court cases after they turn 70 if they decide not to retire) IF the Dems take the presidency and the Senate I hope they don't squander this opportunity. There'd have to be something in it for them -- for example, adding one or two of "their" picks right away -- in order for them to give up the prospect of filling a seat or two for life during the course of the next 4 years.
ALF Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 22 minutes ago, Cinga said: And Cruz followed with a complete teardown of Whitehouse assertions Sen Cruz was very impressive (I'm not watching live version) . btw I'm pro life so I favor restrictions and I respect the law that they decide on. 2
spartacus Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: That's kind of what the Calabresi plan would do, as well as rotating Supreme Court justices out after 18 year terms. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/ginsburg-supreme-court-confirmation.html There are other variants of the plan that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, just a statutory fix (for example: justices appointed for life, but rotating out to hear lower appeals or trial court cases after they turn 70 if they decide not to retire) IF the Dems take the presidency and the Senate I hope they don't squander this opportunity. There'd have to be something in it for them -- for example, adding one or two of "their" picks right away -- in order for them to give up the prospect of filling a seat or two for life during the course of the next 4 years. always the Democratic plan is to change the rules to their benefit with no heed for having those rules come back to bite them in the ass thank you Harry Reid 3 minutes ago, ALF said: Sen Cruz was very impressive (I'm not watching live version) . btw I'm pro life so I favor restrictions and I respect the law that they decide on. more fun thought if Trump wins and holds enough votes in Senate without Cruz, Cruz could be the next Trump nominee to replace a retiring conservative 3
The Frankish Reich Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, spartacus said: always the Democratic plan is to change the rules to their benefit with no heed for having those rules come back to bite them in the ass thank you Harry Reid What Prof. Calabresi (by the way, NOT a liberal -- more of a conservative-libertarian) is proposing is not a way to change the rules to benefit one side. It's a compromise to get past these pitched battles in which each President chooses younger and younger nominees so that they can bind future generations to their view of the proper role of the Supreme Court c. 2020. It's become ridiculous, and we need to think of a better way. 18 years terms were selected because as a practical matter that's 6 years longer than any one party has held the presidency since the days of FDR-Truman. Do we really want to go through this all over again when Justice Breyer (82) becomes ill? If Trump wins again do we want to see him hanging on for dear life till he's 86 and a Democrat may be in office? Or vice versa with, say, Justice Thomas (70)? Edited October 13, 2020 by The Frankish Reich
spartacus Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: What Prof. Calabresi (by the way, NOT a liberal -- more of a conservative-libertarian) is proposing is not a way to change the rules to benefit one side. It's a compromise to get past these pitched battles in which each President chooses younger and younger nominees so that they can bind future generations to their view of the proper role of the Supreme Court is c. 2020. It's become ridiculous, and we need to think of a better way. 18 years terms were selected because as a practical matter that's longer than any one party has held the presidency since the days of FDR-Truman. Do we really want to go through this all over again when Justice Breyer (82) becomes ill? If Trump wins again do we want to see him hanging on for dear life till he's 86 and a Democrat may be in office? Or vice versa with, say, Justice Thomas (70)? maybe a better answer is to stop using the Court as an activist platform BOTH parties could then nominate the best candidates to enforce the Constitution as written again - stop changing the rules because you can't get your way 2 1
The Frankish Reich Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 22 minutes ago, spartacus said: maybe a better answer is to stop using the Court as an activist platform BOTH parties could then nominate the best candidates to enforce the Constitution as written again - stop changing the rules because you can't get your way We will just have to wait and see. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Dems hold the Presidency, the Senate, and the House after January 20, it will be the Republicans who are lining up to "change the rules" -- a/k/a reform the process. 1
Uncle Joe Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 The gameplans: Dems vs Kavanaugh - he's a rapist Dems vs Barrett - she will repeal ACA, anyone with a pre-existing condition will die 2 1
The Frankish Reich Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said: I was hoping for some Boofing with Amy! Random rape accusations! A quote of "I LOVE BEER!" Am I going to be disappointed? Exactly what kind of Irish Catholic from New Orleans is she? A. The boring kind. A kind I didn't know existed. This is an affront to all Irish Americans, all Catholics, and everyone who just wants to laissez les bontemps rouler! Edited October 13, 2020 by The Frankish Reich
fansince88 Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: What would the rights reaction be if the Democrats nominate a Muslim? If said Muslim rules by the law? Got a great friend that is Muslim. Wht are you implying? Edited October 13, 2020 by fansince88
Doc Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 Just to reiterate, if the Dems were in the same positions the Repubs are, you can bet the farm they'd be doing the same thing. 2
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 13, 2020 Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, westside2 said: Why are you crapping your pants over Barrett? The president has every right to fill that seat. ...and she has more lawyering smarts than most if not all of the "purported" lawyers questioning her... 3 1
3rdnlng Posted October 14, 2020 Posted October 14, 2020 I listened to the hearing as I traveled through PA Trump country for 8 hours today. Every dem senator made speeches for the sole purpose of slamming Trump, hoping to hurt his reelection possibility. Whitehorse did not ask Barrett one question during his 30 minutes. Mazie Hirona has to be the stupidest Senator ever. Klobachar is a very accomplished liar. I like her less than I did previously and that says a lot.
Recommended Posts