Do we still need a SCOTUS?

[Billy_Kinetta]

Apparently, based on what pissed off conservative lawmakers in the Senate, we don't need a Supreme Court any longer. Many of them have vowed that ANY nominee by the soon to be president, Clinton, will NOT be entertained for confirmation.....keeping the present SCOTUS in a virtual 4 to 4 tie.

Of course, we all know that at least 2 liberal judges in the Court, are too old to serve many more years, and conservatives hope that the Court will boil down to a 4 to 2 right wing majority after these latter two Justices retire or die.

So, I ask, is this the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next that our Founders dreamed about and we have witnessed for over two centuries?

Nope, these are the checks and balances portion of our program.

Against a slow invasion of imported voters directed by a Marxist political party determined to bury the Constitution? I have no problem with the Senate sitting on its hands for as long as necessary.

The RED SCARE - how prosaic. As a hate and fear form of rhetoric, it fails the test of reality. Only biddable people believe Marxism is alive and prospering in our nation or in any parts of the developed world. It seems the crazy new right membership on this message board are easily lead, proved by the echo chamber who echo the same ignorance as B-K on a plethora of issues, and in particular his claim of Marxism in America.

Yes Virginia, Lincoln was spot on, some people can be fooled all of the time.

If you Progressives are not Marxist based, what are you? Be specific.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Apparently, based on what pissed off conservative lawmakers in the Senate, we don't need a Supreme Court any longer. Many of them have vowed that ANY nominee by the soon to be president, Clinton, will NOT be entertained for confirmation.....keeping the present SCOTUS in a virtual 4 to 4 tie.

Of course, we all know that at least 2 liberal judges in the Court, are too old to serve many more years, and conservatives hope that the Court will boil down to a 4 to 2 right wing majority after these latter two Justices retire or die.

So, I ask, is this the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next that our Founders dreamed about and we have witnessed for over two centuries?

Elections have consequences. Where did I hear that before.

There is nothing Democrats can do to force a vote on judges. Thank you founding fathers, much smarter than today's idiot left.

You should read the Constitution.

You might try it yourself.

 

[nat4900]

We still have 8 justices and protocols for the court to operate with 8 justices so no need to get your granny panties in a giant wad

Well, for smarter conservatives, the plan is to wait until Ginsburg and Souter to retire (or die off), and THEN you'd have a 4 to 2 conservative majority....

But, Thomas is completely lost without Scalia's lap to sit on...and he may wish to go into the sunset.

Bottom line......there ARE ways to bring back the deciding vote to a simple majority...and all that conservatives can hope for, is that more senate seats aren't lost to democrats.

 

[nat4900]

If you Progressives are not Marxist based, what are you? Be specific.

Who are we, you ask?.................The eternal enemies of morons.....

 

[Auld Phart]

If you Progressives are not Marxist based, what are you? Be specific.

Who are we, you ask?.................The eternal enemies of morons.....

 

[TooTall]

Apparently, based on what pissed off conservative lawmakers in the Senate, we don't need a Supreme Court any longer. Many of them have vowed that ANY nominee by the soon to be president, Clinton, will NOT be entertained for confirmation.....keeping the present SCOTUS in a virtual 4 to 4 tie.

Of course, we all know that at least 2 liberal judges in the Court, are too old to serve many more years, and conservatives hope that the Court will boil down to a 4 to 2 right wing majority after these latter two Justices retire or die.

So, I ask, is this the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next that our Founders dreamed about and we have witnessed for over two centuries?

There is no peace in The District, and the first shot of the war between the two dominant parties was fired by Newt Gingrich. Power tends to corrupt, and Gingrich was and remains both an enemy of the people and one of the most corrupt Pols in my lifetime (sorry Delay, you are as corrupt but were not the archetype Gingrich was).

He has infected a whole new generation of Republicans who seek power for themselves and the benefits it provides for them and those who provide them the resources to win elections. The people are to be used by them and their interests ignored (We've got ours, fuck the rest of you is what they believe, what they do).

McConnell is the personification of what is wrong with The District, he claims to be a conservative but is nothing more than an ideologue whose ideal form of government is a single party system, allowing for no debate and no dissent. "Country First"? Hell no, and he well understands some of the people all of the time are fools.

Ryan is no peacemaker, his ambition is similar to that of McConnell, but less forthright. He hides behind Christian ethics and the word of Jesus, but holds similar disdain for The People as does McConnell. I'd like to see Charlie Rose moderate a debate between Ryan and Pope Francis.

There will be no peaceful transition, Trump has made that clear. Win or lose Trump will a poor winner, or an evil loser.

I will bet that you consider Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi fantastic leaders. LMFAO

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Apparently, based on what pissed off conservative lawmakers in the Senate, we don't need a Supreme Court any longer. Many of them have vowed that ANY nominee by the soon to be president, Clinton, will NOT be entertained for confirmation.....keeping the present SCOTUS in a virtual 4 to 4 tie.

Of course, we all know that at least 2 liberal judges in the Court, are too old to serve many more years, and conservatives hope that the Court will boil down to a 4 to 2 right wing majority after these latter two Justices retire or die.

So, I ask, is this the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next that our Founders dreamed about and we have witnessed for over two centuries?

It's not violent, it's a political ploy. Therefore your premise that this is somehow a non-peaceful transition is wrong. I don't expect the GOP to hold up under the political pressure, and they may not even keep control of the senate after the election, so this all may be moot anyhow.

 

[nat4900]

It's not violent, it's a political ploy. Therefore your premise that this is somehow a non-peaceful transition is wrong. I don't expect the GOP to hold up under the political pressure, and they may not even keep control of the senate after the election, so this all may be moot anyhow.

The Senate, by next Tuesday, may well boil down to a 50-50 tie early next year......and that is why the VP vote is so darn important. With even a simple majority, rules can be changed on voting in Justices.
Plus, the GOP senate cannot afford to take any "time-off" for recesses.

 

[TooTall]

It's not violent, it's a political ploy. Therefore your premise that this is somehow a non-peaceful transition is wrong. I don't expect the GOP to hold up under the political pressure, and they may not even keep control of the senate after the election, so this all may be moot anyhow.

The Senate, by next Tuesday, may well boil down to a 50-50 tie early next year......and that is why the VP vote is so darn important. With even a simple majority, rules can be changed on voting in Justices.
Plus, the GOP senate cannot afford to take any "time-off" for recesses.

A filibuster will stop the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. It then takes 60 votes to break the filibuster.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

To hell with the court. They don't uphold the Constitution anymore.

You do? That is a laugh and a half.

I laugh whenever I see your partisan threads and thats every one of them.

 

[nat4900]

A filibuster will stop the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. It then takes 60 votes to break the filibuster.

Although the dreaded "nuclear option" currently exempts voting on SCOTUS nominees, a simple majority CAN include such voting.

Currently, the Senate breakdown is 54 Rs and 46 Ds (with the 2 independents voting with the Ds.)

WI, NV, PA and NH are very possible Dem. wins. and with the VP vote, you figure out what the results would be for a simple majority.

 

[TooTall]

A filibuster will stop the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. It then takes 60 votes to break the filibuster.

Although the dreaded "nuclear option" currently exempts voting on SCOTUS nominees, a simple majority CAN include such voting.

Currently, the Senate breakdown is 54 Rs and 46 Ds (with the 2 independents voting with the Ds.)

WI, NV, PA and NH are very possible Dem. wins. and with the VP vote, you figure out what the results would be for a simple majority.

A filibuster will stop the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. It then takes 60 votes to break the filibuster.

 

[nat4900]

A filibuster will stop the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. It then takes 60 votes to break the filibuster.

You must be a stutterer.....

A SIMPLE majority CAN override any filibuster; its called the :nuclear option"...Surely there's a grown up around to explain this to you.

 

[TooTall]

A filibuster will stop the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. It then takes 60 votes to break the filibuster.

You must be a stutterer.....

A SIMPLE majority CAN override any filibuster; its called the :nuclear option"...Surely there's a grown up around to explain this to you.

There might be a grownup that will remind you that the "nuclear option" does not apply to Supreme Court Justices. I don't believe a Democrat majority would change that if they should have one.

 

[nat4900]

There might be a grownup that will remind you that the "nuclear option" does not apply to Supreme Court Justices. I don't believe a Democrat majority would change that if they should have one.

I just explained it to you that a simple Dem majority COULD change the nuclear option to vote for justices.....I know you don;t like the possibility....but, I don't really care what you like.

 

[OKTexas]

Apparently, based on what pissed off conservative lawmakers in the Senate, we don't need a Supreme Court any longer. Many of them have vowed that ANY nominee by the soon to be president, Clinton, will NOT be entertained for confirmation.....keeping the present SCOTUS in a virtual 4 to 4 tie.

Of course, we all know that at least 2 liberal judges in the Court, are too old to serve many more years, and conservatives hope that the Court will boil down to a 4 to 2 right wing majority after these latter two Justices retire or die.

So, I ask, is this the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next that our Founders dreamed about and we have witnessed for over two centuries?

The court hasn't always had 9 justices, no reason they can't continue to function with less than 9.

 

[OKTexas]

There might be a grownup that will remind you that the "nuclear option" does not apply to Supreme Court Justices. I don't believe a Democrat majority would change that if they should have one.

I just explained it to you that a simple Dem majority COULD change the nuclear option to vote for justices.....I know you don;t like the possibility....but, I don't really care what you like.

Typical regressive attitude, can win within the rules so you cheat or try to change the rules, what pathetic miserable pieces of shit you must be.

 

[nat4900]

The court hasn't always had 9 justices, no reason they can't continue to function with less than 9.

true......but the number according to the founders was always an odd number.....Do you think that Thomas will quit?

 

[nat4900]

Typical regressive attitude, can win within the rules so you cheat or try to change the rules, what pathetic miserable pieces of shit you must be.

there was a "rule" that mandated that senators get off their asses and do their jobs.....What happened to that one?? Ask triple-chinned McConnell.....LOL

 

[TooTall]

There might be a grownup that will remind you that the "nuclear option" does not apply to Supreme Court Justices. I don't believe a Democrat majority would change that if they should have one.

I just explained it to you that a simple Dem majority COULD change the nuclear option to vote for justices.....I know you don;t like the possibility....but, I don't really care what you like.

Why didn't the Democrats include Supreme Court Justices when they changed the Senate rules the last time they had the majority?