Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Regan appointed Kennedy in 1987 after the Democrat controlled Senate failed to confirm Bork.  "When" the Senate moved to confirm was totally in the hands of the . . . wait for it . . . Democrats.  It was they, not the Republicans, who chose the time.

Since there were 100 senators and apparently 3 abstentions presumably Democrat, it would appear that in this Democrat controlled Senate, all but 3 voted with the Republicans.  In other words, more Democrats than Republicans voted for Kennedy.

But then Regan was well liked.

Last edited by budsfarm
budsfarm posted:

Regan appointed Kennedy in 1987 after the Democrat controlled Senate failed to confirm Bork.  "When" the Senate moved to confirm was totally in the hands of the . . . wait for it . . . Democrats.  It was they, not the Republicans, who chose the time.

Since there were 100 senators and apparently 3 abstentions presumably Democrat, it would appear that in this Democrat controlled Senate, all but 3 voted with the Republicans.  In other words, more Democrats than Republicans voted for Kennedy.

But then Regan was well liked.

____

Useful history there, but it does not refute or alter anything I posted above. The FACT is that Kennedy was nominated and appointed in an election year.   The process worked as the Constitution intended and not in the way the Turtle Man, Cruz, and other phony Constitutionalists would have it.

Those blundering Republicans now control the House (largest majority since 1920s) and the Senate.  Plus, 31 governors and two-thirds of the 99 state legislatures. Mostly, thanks to the actions of the Democrats.

Mostly due to redrawing state districts. If the democrats ever gerrymandered the way the republicans have, I would love to hear the screaming.

jtdavis posted:

Those blundering Republicans now control the House (largest majority since 1920s) and the Senate.  Plus, 31 governors and two-thirds of the 99 state legislatures. Mostly, thanks to the actions of the Democrats.

Mostly due to redrawing state districts. If the democrats ever gerrymandered the way the republicans have, I would love to hear the screaming.

JT, same old stale argument.  The state legislature districts were drawn, in most cases by Democrats.  The Dems lost their seats to Republicans in those districts. The Republicans did redraw some of the districts for the House.  Which was approved by a Democrat controlled DoJ.  Quit cha whining.

Last edited by direstraits

JT. Because of social insecurity!  He started the downfall of the U.S. by getting weak minded people to think big government is the working mans friend.  To his credit, he did believe in developing our armed forces to the extent that we could defend ourselves.  Unlike the current pos.  obama is guilty of importing enemies disguised as refugees for starters.

Contendahh posted:
mad American posted:

You are forgetting one thing in your post condie, all of the presidents on your list, with the exception of roosevelt  had the best interest of the United States as part of their agenda. oduma has no such interest, based on his actions.

___

You are entitled to your biased, irrational opinion.

That's the opinion of 78% of the country

First JT. just because something is government supplied, police, streets, military and fire department, does not make it socialist.  A government service is not a means of production. 

Second, since I am a tax payer, when it comes my time, and if it still exist, I will collect my S.S.  The government is still stealing my money at the current time. I wish that someone would see fit to let social security phase out and refund those that are still paying have what they and their employers have had taken from them.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Contendahh posted:
budsfarm posted:

Regan strike appointed substitute nomimated Kennedy in 1987 after the Democrat controlled Senate failed to confirm Bork.  "When" the Senate moved to confirm was totally in the hands of the . . . wait for it . . . Democrats.  It was they, not the Republicans, who chose the time.

Since there were 100 senators and apparently 3 abstentions presumably Democrat, it would appear that in this Democrat controlled Senate, all but 3 voted with the Republicans.  In other words, more Democrats than Republicans voted for Kennedy.

But then Regan was well liked.

____

Useful history there, but it does not refute or alter anything I posted above. The FACT is that Kennedy was nominated and appointed in an election year.   The process worked as the Constitution intended and not in the way the Turtle Man, Cruz, and other phony Constitutionalists would have it.

+++

I stand corrected. [re corrections above]  Regan nominated  Kennedy in 1987.

Some 70 days after the nomination, the Senate began confirmation hearings in 1988 and Kennedy was appointed the same [electoral] year.

Point is and facts are, beginning with Bork, the processes began in a non-election year.  Regan acted as expeditiously as possible to avoid an election year appointment.   Had the Democrats done the same, none of this would have happened.

Demos have a long history of blocking/delaying appointments.

 

1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.

“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”

3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.

In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”

The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.

4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.

There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.

Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.

“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.

5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.

6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.

“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administration withdrew Estrada’s nomination.

7. The AFL-CIO union vowed to block then-President Ronald Reagan’s nominee Robert Bork by soiling his public reputation so badly that any Democratic senator who voted in favor of confirming him would have to explain it to his constituents. Kennedy continued this line of rhetoric in a well-known floor speech. He infamously said:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.

8. Joe Biden wrote the playbook for how to “bork” a Supreme Court nominee, a descriptive verb that now means to publicly pillory a nominee’s reputation to make it politically difficult for senators to vote for them. It’s named, of course, after what Democrats did to Robert Bork.

Then-Senator Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee, and he put together what’s now been deemed a “Biden report,” a document detailing Bork’s judicial history and personal background. The judiciary committee voted against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 9-5.

9. Democratic groups vowed to “bork” Justice Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They failed, but the personal attacks on Thomas were brutal.

“We’re going to bork him,” said National Organization for Women’s Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”

10. In 2008, Democrats banded together to filibuster Bush’s decision to nominate Priscilla Owen to a federal circuit court.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, urged Senate Democrats to “stand up and fight as they have been doing with Miguel Estrada.”

Dems wrote the book on borking and otherwise defaming candidates.  Also, advocated delaying appointing SCOTUS judges in the last 18 months of a Republican administration. Obama now regrets filibustering the appointment of a justice. Condie invokes his mother and the “so’s your old man” argument. They’re all sorrowful when the shoe’s on the other foot. But, one knows that if the situation was once more reversed they’d be up to their old dirty tricks before the corpse was cold.

One reason Trump succeeds so well is he doesn’t fight like a Republican, which consternates establishment Republicans.  Trump fights like a Democrat.  The Republican establishment doesn’t know how to counter him.  The Democrats recognize Trump’s methods and it scares the merde out of them.  Suck it up hypocrites.

Last edited by direstraits

During the last presidential election, the Dems ran ads accusing Romney of practically murdering persons. Untrue, of course.  Harry Reid accused Romney of not filing taxes for two years. He was careful to do so in the well of the Senate, knowing full well he couldn’t be sued if he spoke from the well of the Senate.  Later, questioned about the charge, he bragged that Romney was elected, was he.  Romney being old school establishment floundered – he was not familiar with this kind of dirt bag politics.  In a more decent time, Reid would have been immediately removed as Majority Leader. Then Democrats in the Senate should have demanded he resign for his disgraceful actions.  Didn’t happen, of course.  He was a Democrat.  To survive, Republicans must keep their objectives, but change their tactics,  Fight like Democrats, and don’t apologize. 

Contendahh posted:

HYFLYER2, my mama always told me that two wrongs do not make a right. And a "So's yer old man" or a list of same does not make a right either. Maybe your mama did not instruct you in these kinds of civilities.

 

 

Always the same with you "We the demo liberals can do whatever we want", and do not dare to call us on it! 

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

HIFLYER2 posted:
Contendahh posted:

HYFLYER2, my mama always told me that two wrongs do not make a right. And a "So's yer old man" or a list of same does not make a right either. Maybe your mama did not instruct you in these kinds of civilities.

 

 

Always the same with you "We the demo liberals can do whatever we want", and do not dare to call us on it! 

Like the tale of letting the snake in to warm at the fire. Then, the snake bites the women who saved his life.  She asks why?  The snake says, "you know that is my nature."

direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Yes, the law states that SCOTUS  has 9 justices.  However, like the president deciding which laws to enforce, there is no method to force the Senate to so.  Can't imagine a judge ordering the Senate to do so.  While a judge has a life time term and his pay can't be cut, his court is solely the creation of congress Imagine waking up and finding your new court is in Nome.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, the Congress has authority to "ordain and establish" the "inferior courts" (Constitution at Article III, par. 1) from which, theoretically, a judge might be found who would issue such an order to the Senate.  But the notion that any such  judge's decision, having irritated the sensitivities of contrary members of Congress, could result in his exile to Nome or any other dreary outpost, is fatuous.  Should some dingbat legislator be found who would introduce such an absurd proposal, I have enough residual confidence in even the current disordered Congress to believe that such a vengeful measure would surely fail.

 

 

If, any federal judge had the temerity to order congress to perform such an action, he would face the fury of the entire body, all parties.  When judges order the federal government to make a civil judgment, they do so from a special appropriation set aside for that.  Federal judges are notorious for ordering states to pay up -- without worrying how the state will cover it.  (Alabama faces such a judgment for its prison system, if something isn't done soon).  However, those same judges would never make such a judgment against congress -- knowing full well that appropriations are solely the business of congress.  Just as are how it rules on SCOTUS and the existence of the lower courts.

____

The "action" of an "inferior" federal judge, in ordering the Congress to perform a duty, need not entail the paying of a "civil judgment" from any appropriation.

The action would be a mandamus action, not a monetary award.

The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above.

 

Last edited by Contendahh

"The authority of the Congress to "rule on SCOTUS" is strictly limited by the Constitution as I described above."-------'duh

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.

http://www.history.com/this-da...s-court-packing-plan

The supposedly non-political Supreme Court has long been a target of politicians and can be impacted by their actions.  

Attachments

Images (1)
  • blobid0

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×