News in that she passed away today.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/10030...ity-dies-at-87
|
News in that she passed away today.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/10030...ity-dies-at-87
A legal giant.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
I don't want to get into all the implications . Suffice it to say ;with the chaos I believe is coming due to the election ; The worst possible scenario is a 4-4 court having to intervene .
I hardly ever agreed with her . But she came from a different time when there was still civility . She had a deep friendship with Justice Scalia . I would've loved to sit in on some of their lunch meetings .
R.i.p. R.b.g.!
Now Trump's reelection becomes vital for conservatives, this is the opportunity to truly win the victories they can savour
Complete and utter nonsense. RBG is hardly cold and that is already the talking point of the Republicans. Many cases have been argued before a 4-4 court without any problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Major hypocrite McConnell has already declared - within one hour of RBG's death - that the Senate will vote on Trump's nominee. This is after he refused to even talk to Obama's nominee because it was TOO LONG BEFORE THE ELECTION. That was 10 months, now is 46 DAYS!!!
Strange times, don't do as I do, do as I say
Nonsense you say . Do you see any scenario where either side will accept a SCOTUS case that decides the Presidency ? I don't . Now take it further and let me know how a disputed election will be decided with a 4-4 tie .
Normally I would say that the courts have no business deciding elections . But that ship already sailed .
As for the appropriateness of selecting a replacement justice ;why not invoke the Biden rule ? Oh wait ..... in 2016 Quid argued furiously against the Biden rule .
I have a compromise candidate for you .... Miguel Estrada . Let the Dems try the Kavanaugh smears on him ! You remember him . He was a Circuit court nominee the Dems filibustered because internal memos said he was "especially dangerous " because he was Hispanic ,and Bush was grooming him to be a SCOTUS justice .The Dems did not want a Republican President to put the first Hispanic on SCOTUS.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106877910996248300
The Dems did not stop with Estrada . They filibustered a total of 9 Bush nominees to the circuit courts . It was the first full scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.
Then the Dems first used the nuclear option when they gained the Senate majority and the emperor's Presidency to pack the court system with lefties ;doing away with the long standing procedure of judges needing a super majority for confirmation .Gone was the filibuster they had used during Bush's term. I'd say the chickens are coming home to roost.
Trump is going to do exactly what the emperor did. He will nominate a qualified candidate to fill the SCOTUS vacancy, and Senate Republicans will confirm his nominee. There is nothing the left can do about it. If Dems are upset, too bad. They should have confirmed Miguel Estrada.
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."Quote:
RBG is hardly cold and that is already the talking point of the Republicans.
RBG is hardly cold and that is already the talking point of the Democrats .You weren't the first to post that quote . I saw it minutes after the news of her passing .
All of that is irrelevant in the face of Moscow Mitch breaking his own rules about letting the people decide the next SCOTUS. Should the dufus lose or Mitch loses the senate, count on a lame duck vote for SCOTUS.
the Dems cast the die with the breaking of the filibuster rule and using the nuclear option to confirm judges .
Susan Collins is going to throw a monkey wrench in the idea of a quick confirmation . So will Mittens .
Stupid dems they should have just gone along with repubs and Mitch after that shellacking. Of course the sarcasm and derision is thick and dripping.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
To little to late with Collins, and maybe a few more conservative senators. Lame duck revenge?
whatever ... as the emperor said ; Elections have consequences . When the Senate wouldn't consider Garland , the Repubs had the majority . That is why they could get away without considering his nomination . Now in this case there is a Repub President and a Repub Senate (sorta + or - some RINOs ) . So when the President nominates Amy Coney Barrett the Senate will confirm her .
If Quid is elected and the Dems take the Senate ,I'm sure the Dems will have a whole bunch of plans (like court packing ) that the Repubs will not be able to stop .
LOL, no doubt the dufus rather have SCOTUS and the conservative social issues as a campaign talking point rather than the economy and sickness and death. It restocks his red meat rhetoric for his hungry followers who could care less about repub hypocrisy and abrogation of the constitution.
The right wing is drunk with power and the dufus is the bartender, and Mitch will certainly get what he wants, but he better be careful in the way he goes about it.
yeah that's it . And the Dems are not sending out email and text alerts about the coming apocalypse over the conservatives on the court and a future Trump nominee reversing Roe ? I know they are . I am on their mailing lists . It always follows with a donation request .
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...th/5839031002/
Geez Tom, repubs do it too, and it's not just publicly solicited cyber donations, it's the "dark money" too on BOTH sides. It's a good paying industry. I'm on the list too...isn't everybody on one list or another?
Repub have lists too!
for a donation of $1 I have access to all their propaganda
I get the propaganda FREE! 8D
Amy Coney Barrett is perfect for Dem talking points . They said in her Circuit Court hearings that she was too Catholic ("the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern" said FrankenFeinstein .... Guess she forgot about the Article VI no religious test clause ). They can't use the race card .Along with her 5 biological children ,she has two adopted children from Haiti . If Yertle really wants to set their hair on fire he should say we can take this nomination to the Senate floor for an immediate vote and bypass the Senate judiciary hearingsQuote:
LOL, no doubt the dufus rather have SCOTUS and the conservative social issues as a campaign talking point
Catholic Barrett has claimed her legal career is only "a means to building the Kingdom of God". That's a troubling comment from a jurist who is sworn to not let her religious beliefs interfere with her legal judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I won't get into a deep theological discussion .Suffice it to say she speaks for and about herself only in her desire to doing justice and God's will in her work .
But that is ok .....attack her for pronouncing a common belief of Jews and Christians ;that their purpose is to build a Kingdom of God . Go ahead and use that line of reasoning . In fact I hope Quid ,a professed Catholic uses that line of attack against her in heavily Catholic Pennsylvania .
I guess Ginsburg was troubling too ...
Presiding Bishop Michael Curry issued the following statement on Sept. 18 following the death of long-serving Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
The late John Fitzgerald Kennedy once said, “while on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
The sacred cause of liberty and justice, dignity and equality decreed by God and meant for all has been advanced because while on earth Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made God’s work her own. Because of her the ancient words of the prophet Micah to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God have found fulfillment. May we follow in her footprints. May she rest in the arms of the God who is love and the author of true justice.
Rest In Peace, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Shalom.
The Most Rev. Michael B. Curry
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church
No, Jews don't proselytize.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Her beliefs didn't interfere with her legal judgment.Quote:
I guess Ginsburg was troubling too ...
None of your quotes came from potential Supreme Court nominees. Her belief is fine, as long as it doesn't influence her judgement. Stating her belief in a public forum remains troubling.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
and neither did she .She was speak of a personal belief for herself ;Not to impose on others . “What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”Micah 6:8Quote:
No, Jews don't proselytize.
Any other twisted interpretation is an intention distorting of her words. AND she was not proselytizing ,She was instead addressing the Catholic Students at Catholic Notre Dame university who for the most part believe whatever they do in life is also a means to the end of building God's kingdom.
But as Meghan McCain already pointed out ;if nominated ,she will be slandered as the left is wont to do to conservative nominees .
And as the right does to a centrist or left-leaning nominee.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
In the NEWSPEAK of the right-wing, "slander" is employed when "truth" is meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yes slander is telling inconvenient truths
Slander is the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You never see the other side , do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
What you hear here all the time are slanderous statements
exactly ........reference the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings ;or the slandering of Robert Bork forever now called 'borking ' a nominee.Quote:
Slander is the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
I would like to see the comparable example.Quote:
And as the right does to a centrist or left-leaning nominee.
OK Collins and Murkowski are not on board. Collins is losing her race in Maine ;and Murkowski is a RINO from Alaska She is the product of nepotism having been appointed by her dad when he resigned the Senate to become Alaska's Governor . She then was forced to run as an independent because she lost in a primary .Murkowski has won three full terms to the Senate, she has never won a majority of the vote; she won pluralities in each of her three race. Mittens will vote with the majority .There will be a lot of drama about his vote because he likes the attention . But in the end he will vote for the President's choice ,especially if internal polling shows Trump winning re-election . Even if he weren't ;Pence breaks a tie.
Joe Manchin WVa could cross the aisle . He has been calling out Repubs for hypocrisy. But he voted to confirm Kavanaugh and Gorsuch ;so I kinda doubt he would draw the line on a female nominee . There may be some other Dems who could cross over too . But I suspect they will hold ranks other than perhaps Manchin.
You had said it, thus I responded.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
tomder: if nominated ,she will be slandered as the left is wont to do to conservative nominees .
still waitingQuote:
And as the right does to a centrist or left-leaning nominee.
The birther slander, Obama accused by conservatives of not being born in the US. Elizabeth Warren derisively called "Pocahontas" by conservatives. The Pizzagate conspiracy theory slandered Hillary Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Pretty simple. Repubs have the political power to fill a seat and they will either do so before or after they face being swept from office. We've seen this movie before so why the exploding heads by dems? Repubs have promised this for awhile so here it is while dems want to mourn a fallen icon. Cry later dems, make 'em pay at the election like was planned since the dufus took office and make him a one term president the way the tried to do with Obama.
Getting Joe and dems in power is the best reaction to repub shenanigans. If this latest antic doesn't fire up the dems nothing will, and the dufus would have destroyed both parties.
ok I'll address them .
the name calling ....I'll equate that as no more than what Kennedy and other Dems said about Bork during confirmation hearings .
Birthers were the worse of your charges . As a conservative I was there debunking it if you recall.Quote:
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 would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
Alt Right I completely disassociate with them Pizza-gate was silly .
Not one of your 3 examples compares to parading a conga line of false accusers to the Senate chamber to smear an associate Justice nominee . That goes for both Kavanaugh and the ridiculous spectacle that the Dems pulled on Clarence Thomas with the debunked Anita Hill accusations .
Just to clarify - your opinion is just that - an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Kavanaugh's accusers have never retracted their accusations.
Anita Hill likewise. The right (David Brock) wrote a book condemning Anita Hill and later confessed it wasn't true - just character assassination. He apologized to Hill.
Thomas wrote his own book calling Hill an incompetent and a liar and three other women who made similar claims against Thomas were characterized in his book as "bad employees". Thomas' wife made that bizarre phone call to Hill years later.
You hardly have the high road here, tom, just another road where you're repeating unfounded charges. Then there's pizzagate, birthers and Pocahontas which you haven't defended. Those latter three have been proven!
I did not set out to defend . I use name calling all the time . I don't call Warren Pocahontas . I call her the blond hair blue blue eyed native American .Birther nonsense I debunked when it was an issue
here is what I wrote here is 2008 :
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...96#post1349896Quote:
Regarding Obama's birth certificate ;
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth":
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
So even if the evidence shows that he was born outside the US and his Hawaii birth certificate was a fraud ;he would still be qualified .
Anita Hill was a liar . I don't care if Kavanaugh's accusers still hold their position. I'm sure if Trump nominated another male there would be a conga line of accusers also .
The specific thing I challenged was the charge that "As the right does to a centrist or left-leaning nominee." after I said the left smears Republican nominees to the court . It had nothing to do with the politics of a Presidential election . I'm more than willing to concede that smears and innuendo has been a part of the Presidential selection process since the election of 1800 . What is new is the smears against SCOTUS nominees . That did not happen until Bork and the Dems have made it more personal every Repub selection since . Let's not pretend that the left fears a big majority originalist court because they have used the courts as a pseudo-extension of the legislative branch for years .
So what? Name calling is a grand tradition carried to great heights by this dufus to include everybody he deems fit. Get over it! Doesn't matter who started it, or why since obviously it's here.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:22 AM. |