Skip to main content

As it stands the next Supreme Court nominee, since the current one will not be considered, is likely to be (if Hillary is elected) a political choice rather than one that will interpret the original intent of the Founders and the Constitution.   Many even feel that we, our nation, has outgrown the Constitution and that technological changes and societal changes warrant consideration of a new Constitution or scraping the one we have for a new one.   I think that's dangerous thought and talk and a recipe for anarchy and civil conflict on a scale we haven't seen since the civil war.

That said I remember seeing the news where Hillary made the statement that Obama would be a good choice for the vacancy and she might consider that if she was President.  That statement, to conservatives and Republicans is akin and very similar to say Trump saying if he's elected he would appoint Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.  

With our nation at the point it is and with such large potential changes looming for the Court the talk of the Anyone but Trump movement is disastrous.  Ted Cruz would make a decent pick for the court but with the animosity and vulgar way he goes at Trump I doubt that Trump would ever consider him, much less appoint him.  If Trump is the eventual nominee the Republican elite and establishment would be making a historically disastrous decision if they failed to get behind Trump and reconcile with his supporters.   Handing the election and the Supreme Court vacancy appointment over to Hillary Clinton would certainly secure a liberal politically driven court for a generation to come and quite likely do away with the 2nd Amendment as well as many Religious liberties that the 1st Amendment guarantees unto us.  

While no one knows who Trump would appoint or nominate I can guarantee you it would be someone far more acceptable than Hillary Clinton would nominate.   

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

jtdavis posted:

Nominate someone, congress interview them, vote for or against, start running the government again.

____

That is all too simple for the wingers, JT.  That is what the Constitution, that they purport  to revere, says to do when there is a vacancy on SCOTUS.  They heed not  the Constitution, but kowtow to Mitch McConnell and his obstructionist allies.

Who says that the Senate won't confirm Obama's candidate? They could be waiting to see if Garland would be the best they can get. If Clinton wins, she could nominate an even worse candidate or if Cruz or Trump wins, they might get someone who believes the Constitution means what it says. The Republicans in the Senate could confirm Garland the next day after the election if he's the best they'll get. I wouldn't doubt that if Clinton wins that the Dems put the kibosh on the nomination hoping they get a "better" pro-statist nominee. 

direstraits posted:

The government is running, it didn't stop because of the loss of one associate justice.  The constitution does not give a time limit upon the senate's action. Republican are playing by Democrat rules and the Dems hate it.

Dire, the man just doesn't have a clue!! All he knows is to vote demoslop because they're going to give him stuff.

Dire, the man just doesn't have a clue!! All he knows is to vote demoslop because they're going to give him stuff.

I started paying into SS before I was old enough to get a drivers license. I retired after I turned 65. If the government (both sides) will just not "borrow" all of the SS trust fund, maybe they will give me some of that "free" money.

jtdavis posted:

Dire, the man just doesn't have a clue!! All he knows is to vote demoslop because they're going to give him stuff.

I started paying into SS before I was old enough to get a drivers license. I retired after I turned 65. If the government (both sides) will just not "borrow" all of the SS trust fund, maybe they will give me some of that "free" money.

 Jt, it's awfully hard to believe anything you post. Talk to your demmie pals about stealing from SS. BTW, you never told me what free stuff we get because we're in business. I'd like to know, because right now we're not getting it.

Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Nominate someone, congress interview them, vote for or against, start running the government again.

____

That is all too simple for the wingers, JT.  That is what the Constitution, that they purport  to revere, says to do when there is a vacancy on SCOTUS.  They heed not  the Constitution, but kowtow to Mitch McConnell and his obstructionist allies.

Remind me, who did Obama and the rest of the left kowtow to when they set out to obstruct? You don't believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Contendahh posted:
jtdavis posted:

Nominate someone, congress interview them, vote for or against, start running the government again.

____

That is all too simple for the wingers, JT.  That is what the Constitution, that they purport  to revere, says to do when there is a vacancy on SCOTUS.  They heed not  the Constitution, but kowtow to Mitch McConnell and his obstructionist allies.

Schumer said the senate should wait 18 months until a new president was elected before approving a SCOTUS associate justice.

Biden said the senate should wait 12 months until a new president was elected before approving a SCOTUS associate justice.

Republicans follow the Democrat playbook and the Dems threaten to hold their breaths until they turn blue, while stamping their little feet.  Democrats are now the crybaby party.

crybaby dems

Before Harry Reid was the Majority Leader, a simple majority could bring the appointment to the floor for debate and a vote, as well as, on any act.

Reid and his fellow 50 skunk pack breeched 200 years of parliamentary rules written by Thomas Jefferson to give this power solely to the Majority Leader.  For a temporary gain the Democrats ended 200 years of protection of minority rights within majority rule.  If Harry Reid doesn't allow hundreds of bills to come to the floor or disallows amendments and debate, its completely OK. If Mitch McConnell does it he's an obstructionist.  The stench of the hypocrite is strong with the Dems.   Dems man up, quitya biatching and return to the party we all remember.

dodo dems

Attachments

Images (2)
  • crybaby dems
  • dodo dems
Last edited by direstraits
jtdavis posted:

Remind me, who did Obama and the rest of the left kowtow to when they set out to obstruct? 

Remind me, tell who it was.

Dire, you have a selective memory.

A majority of the voters who are against Obamacare. Those whose rights were protected under the old minority rights check, as in check and balance. The shoe is on the other foot and Dems don't like it -- hypocrites, much.

jtdavis posted:

Remind me, who did Obama and the rest of the left kowtow to when they set out to obstruct? 

Remind me, tell who it was.

Dire, you have a selective memory.

LOL! Selective memory? Sounds like that is you. Just like you "forgot" what biden said about obama. Jt, honestly, how can you even participate in the voting process when you are so uninformed, and only voting for people who are going to give you "stuff", making you willing to sell your country down the river? Pity is, all the gimmethats are just like you, without a clue, or a care about what happens to the country.

Dire, you gave opinions, not facts                                                                                            ==================================

Selective memory? Oh my God, are you serious? Just answer our question.

Mr Gifted, I asked the question                                                                                                      ====================

Best, same old make somebody look bad slur. Of course I don't expect anything better from you.

 

 

Further debate concerning the approving the appointment of an Associate Justice for SCOTUS.

The first party, Harry Reid, 2016:

"The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible. It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate's most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...ock-scalia-successor

To counter his argument, Harry Reid, 2005,

"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c...y-give-nominees-vote

I shall leave it to the reader to determine which to believe.  As for me, I'll quote from an old western.  "Heap Big Senator speak with forked tongue."

 

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

Last edited by direstraits
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

_____

Cite all the past actions of Democrats or Republicans on this issue that you can dig  up and none of it will change what the Constitution prescribes and what the Senate itself has adopted to implement the appointment of justices to SCOTUS.  Just try to take the high road for once, dire and acknowledge that at the very least, the Senate is obliged to convene a hearing.  As to the voting from that point on, let the chips fall, but to deny a hearing is un-Constitutional. End of story.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

_____

Cite all the past actions of Democrats or Republicans on this issue that you can dig  up and none of it will change what the Constitution prescribes and what the Senate itself has adopted to implement the appointment of justices to SCOTUS.  Just try to take the high road for once, dire and acknowledge that at the very least, the Senate is obliged to convene a hearing.  As to the voting from that point on, let the chips fall, but to deny a hearing is un-Constitutional. End of story.

The sad floundering of a Democrat faced with his own party's imbecilic statements.

We have educated ourselves to imbecility -- Malcom Muggeridge.  I suspect the good Welshman was pondering the Labour Party.

jtdavis posted:

If a one or two statements by a democrat is justification for congress operations on judge nominations, should all democrat statements be used for all congressional operations?

That's three Democrat senators, one now the VP.  They were leaders in the Senate and set the rules.  Now, Republicans play by the rules set down by their predecessors and the Dems don't like it. Put on you big boy pants and learn to play by the rules you've set down.

jtdavis posted:

So you agree, any statement by a democrat should be the rules the republican congressmen follow.

Not at all, Jt. The ŕule is, if it's legal, and Republicans choose to do it, how can Democrats protest when they have done the same? I know being fair never enters a Democrat's thoughts, but  try to think of it like Dems "playing fair and not being hypocritical" about it. You did it when it was your turn, how can you complain now?

Last edited by giftedamateur
giftedamateur posted:
jtdavis posted:

So you agree, any statement by a democrat should be the rules the republican congressmen follow.

Not at all, Jt. The ŕule is, if it's legal, and Republicans choose to do it, how can Democrats protest when they have done the same? I know being fair never enters a Democrat's thoughts, but  try to think of it like Dems "playing fair and not being hypocritical" about it. You did it when it was your turn, how can you complain now?

In the past, Republicans didn't play by the rules set down by the other side, believing in the quaint old notion of fair play.  Now after being beaten up enough, Republicans are in the ascendency.  Its the Dems turn in the barrel and they hate being treated as they treated others. 

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

_____

Cite all the past actions of Democrats or Republicans on this issue that you can dig  up and none of it will change what the Constitution prescribes and what the Senate itself has adopted to implement the appointment of justices to SCOTUS.  Just try to take the high road for once, dire and acknowledge that at the very least, the Senate is obliged to convene a hearing.  As to the voting from that point on, let the chips fall, but to deny a hearing is un-Constitutional. End of story.

The sad floundering of a Democrat faced with his own party's imbecilic statements.

We have educated ourselves to imbecility -- Malcom Muggeridge.  I suspect the good Welshman was pondering the Labour Party.

____

Dire, your deflection and smoke-screening seem to worsen with each occasion of your being pinned down. Pitiful and incompetent! Vagueness and caustic generalities don't of the job.

Last edited by Contendahh
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

_____

Cite all the past actions of Democrats or Republicans on this issue that you can dig  up and none of it will change what the Constitution prescribes and what the Senate itself has adopted to implement the appointment of justices to SCOTUS.  Just try to take the high road for once, dire and acknowledge that at the very least, the Senate is obliged to convene a hearing.  As to the voting from that point on, let the chips fall, but to deny a hearing is un-Constitutional. End of story.

The sad floundering of a Democrat faced with his own party's imbecilic statements.

We have educated ourselves to imbecility -- Malcom Muggeridge.  I suspect the good Welshman was pondering the Labour Party.

____

Dire, your deflection and smoke-screening seem to worsen with each occasion of your being pinned down. Pitiful and incompetent! Vagueness and caustic generalities don't of the job.

I've given you hard evidence, quotes from prominent Democrats within the Senate, one now VP, that they considered what the Republicans are now doing as fully appropriate.  If you fail to comprehend this or desire to deflect with wordiness, with no meaning as indicative of the above sentence I understand. Don't you realize anyone can see thru your silly rant? 

jtdavis posted:

Dire, you're the one who said that republicans should go by what Harry Reid said 10 years ago. My question was, if that's so, should all democrat statements rule the republicans? (I honestly hope not, we need both sides input)

I said what I said and meant what I meant, not anything more. Simply stated, what's good for goose is good for the gander. 

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

_____

Cite all the past actions of Democrats or Republicans on this issue that you can dig  up and none of it will change what the Constitution prescribes and what the Senate itself has adopted to implement the appointment of justices to SCOTUS.  Just try to take the high road for once, dire and acknowledge that at the very least, the Senate is obliged to convene a hearing.  As to the voting from that point on, let the chips fall, but to deny a hearing is un-Constitutional. End of story.

The sad floundering of a Democrat faced with his own party's imbecilic statements.

We have educated ourselves to imbecility -- Malcom Muggeridge.  I suspect the good Welshman was pondering the Labour Party.

____

Dire, your deflection and smoke-screening seem to worsen with each occasion of your being pinned down. Pitiful and incompetent! Vagueness and caustic generalities don't of the job.

I've given you hard evidence, quotes from prominent Democrats within the Senate, one now VP, that they considered what the Republicans are now doing as fully appropriate.  If you fail to comprehend this or desire to deflect with wordiness, with no meaning as indicative of the above sentence I understand. Don't you realize anyone can see thru your silly rant? 

___

In all that fluff and all your prior fluff, you refuse to deal with the Constitutional issue and instead you substitute a litany of grievances against Democrats who in various ways opposed SCOTUS nominees.  This is not about WHO was right or wrong in past actions, dire; it is an issue of what the Constitution actually and factually requires and you refuse  address the constitutional issue in its pure and plain essence.  When, if ever, will you run out of smoke?

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

 

From dire, above:

"It [the Constitution]says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” 

_____________________________________________

More smoke from you dire.  The Senate itself has adopted what is the sole existing process by which it advises and consents re the Presidential nominee for SCOTUS and that process requires a HEARING and the hearing will result in a VOTE and if the VOTE is to send the nominee's name to the full Senate, then there will be another VOTE. If the Senate refuses to implement the sole modality by which its advice and consent are to be effected, then the  Senate fails to carry out its Constitutionally-prescribed duty. Is there something about "shall be made" that you fail to understand?

I've presented statements by Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid to the contrary.  Obama contributed to a filibuster of Alito, which he now says he regrets. Contenduhh, take your argument up with those persons, not me.  Ask them were they lying then, or are they lying now.  For Dems its situational ethics, 24/7.  When opposing Republcans, anything is fair.  When, its their ox being gored, its not. Hypocrites, much!

_____

Cite all the past actions of Democrats or Republicans on this issue that you can dig  up and none of it will change what the Constitution prescribes and what the Senate itself has adopted to implement the appointment of justices to SCOTUS.  Just try to take the high road for once, dire and acknowledge that at the very least, the Senate is obliged to convene a hearing.  As to the voting from that point on, let the chips fall, but to deny a hearing is un-Constitutional. End of story.

The sad floundering of a Democrat faced with his own party's imbecilic statements.

We have educated ourselves to imbecility -- Malcom Muggeridge.  I suspect the good Welshman was pondering the Labour Party.

____

Dire, your deflection and smoke-screening seem to worsen with each occasion of your being pinned down. Pitiful and incompetent! Vagueness and caustic generalities don't of the job.

I've given you hard evidence, quotes from prominent Democrats within the Senate, one now VP, that they considered what the Republicans are now doing as fully appropriate.  If you fail to comprehend this or desire to deflect with wordiness, with no meaning as indicative of the above sentence I understand. Don't you realize anyone can see thru your silly rant? 

___

In all that fluff and all your prior fluff, you refuse to deal with the Constitutional issue and instead you substitute a litany of grievances against Democrats who in various ways opposed SCOTUS nominees.  This is not about WHO was right or wrong in past actions, dire; it is an issue of what the Constitution actually and factually requires and you refuse  address the constitutional issue in its pure and plain essence.  When, if ever, will you run out of smoke?

Contenduhh, you must really be thick today. I've stated that nothing the Republicans are doing in the Senate is against the Constituiton. Nor, is there anything in the Constitution to punish or force them into the action they have chosen, other than the will of the voters.

Add Reply

Post

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