Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

RBG dying in 2020 would be a disaster for the GOP. Last thing they need is the rallying of Democrat voters like what happened in 2016 when Scalia died. It also doesn't help that Kentucky Mitch said it's inappropriate to pick a SCOTUS judge in an election year.

 

It would motivate the GOP as much if not more.  They've proven to have two principles they don't ever stray from.

1. Paying as little in taxes as possible.

2. Packing the courts with conservative judges.

There is nothing else they value more.  If RBG died in 2020, a lot of people who don't like Trump and were thinking about voting against him would hold their nose and vote for him again because "Trump will only be around another 4 years, but that justice will shape the supreme court for a generation."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

RBG dying in 2020 would be a disaster for the GOP. Last thing they need is the rallying of Democrat voters like what happened in 2016 when Scalia died. It also doesn't help that Kentucky Mitch said it's inappropriate to pick a SCOTUS judge in an election year.

Couldn’t disagree more. 

Its been proven time and time again that Supreme Court openings motivate conservatives to vote more than any other thing. Democrats will be very motivated to vote no matter what because they hate trump. We need Ginsburg to at least make it to 2021 so that we have what I call a “fair chance” in the election. We need this election to be a referendum about trump and not anything else. 

The GOP has been very fortunate the last 2 cycles. In 2016, Scalia died and the assholes in the senate kept that seat open for an eternity. Conservatives flooded the polls as much as they could, trump got elected, they had full control of government, they got their justice, and they almost killed Obamacare.

In 2018, Dotard convinced Justice Kennedy to retire by promising that he would replace him with someone “good and conservative”. Republicans nominated Kavanaugh, democrats fought it and lost because repubs had all the cards. The Supreme Court openings and the kavanaugh hearings gave the republicans much higher turnout than expected. Granted we still kicked their ass overall, but they were still able to get rid of some red state Dems in the senate and win some big governor races. I don’t think they would’ve done nearly as well if Kennedy hadn’t retired and the kavanaugh hearings hadn’t pissed conservatives off all over the country.

Trump is a massive douchebag who is always looking for every competitive advantage he can because he knows he’s not popular and he needs to rig things into his favor to win. I wouldn’t put it past Trump to convince conservative Justice Clarence Thomas to retire during the 2020 election cycle if RBG doesn’t die by then, or if he’s re-elected, he could try to get Thomas to retire in 2022 to boost turnout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 10:00 AM, Voldemort86 said:

Trump is a massive douchebag who is always looking for every competitive advantage he can because he knows he’s not popular and he needs to rig things into his favor to win.

That's the GOP in general. Those losers know full well that they cannot win on their own merits so they reach for every single underhanded tactic that there is in order to come out ahead. It also doesn't help that the DNC is its own worst enemy, but that's kinda the point: all those factors in conjunction with each other permit the GOP to come out with the narrowest of majorities around half of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 11:24 AM, HRSchenker said:

RBG dying in 2020 would be a disaster for the GOP. Last thing they need is the rallying of Democrat voters like what happened in 2016 when Scalia died. It also doesn't help that Kentucky Mitch said it's inappropriate to pick a SCOTUS judge in an election year.

Mitch McConnel said he would fill the seat if it became open next year. He doesn't give a shit. Lindsey Graham said he wouldn't vote to fill it but I bet he would reverse course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Mitch McConnel said he would fill the seat if it became open next year. He doesn't give a shit. Lindsey Graham said he wouldn't vote to fill it but I bet he would reverse course. 

Lindsey would always vote to fill a vacant hole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Lindsey would always vote to fill a vacant hole. 

Especially his own. That guy is totally a bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

RBG looked and sounded fine in her first public appearance since undergoing radiation.  It was Monday at the University of Buffalo.  (knocks on wood)

 

Edited by Jive Turkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That poor woman will be kept alive even if she's dead.  While I prefer a conservative court, I want liberal justices like Mrs. Ginsberg on the Bench to balance out decisions, and debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

We don't need those pesky checks and balances anyway..  What good are they doing us right now? Let's blow it up and get this republic over with.

 

he'srightyouknow.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She only has to survive one more month. No new judges in an election year. right Mitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Trump a third so the centrists can no longer deny the need to pack the court.

That'll make 5 sitting SC justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was going to march on something, it would be against SCOTUS. I am absolutely naive, but the placing of justices to pack a court to gain political advantage is wrong in so many ways and yet so brazenly accepted by Americans as business as usual. It needs to stop. I want nine of the most revered respected impeccably referenced people not legal hacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The design of our Constitution is that a political official is the one who nominates justices and political bodies approve of those justices. How on earth has the SC ever been non-political? It has been a tool of politics from the beginning and it literally, by design of the US Constitution, cannot be anything else.

When Washington chose the first guys, did he make sure to balance Federalists and anti-Federalists? No, it was ALL strong federalists. That's the early 1790s.

The 11th amendment exists because the hyper-partisan SC's ruling in Chisolm vs. Georgia where the SC stripped states of sovereign immunity.

- There has never been a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court.
- The design of the U.S. Constitution makes a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court impossible.

This is a war. It's never going to stop being a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

The design of our Constitution is that a political official is the one who nominates justices and political bodies approve of those justices. How on earth has the SC ever been non-political? It has been a tool of politics from the beginning and it literally, by design of the US Constitution, cannot be anything else.

When Washington chose the first guys, did he make sure to balance Federalists and anti-Federalists? No, it was ALL strong federalists. That's the early 1790s.

The 11th amendment exists because the hyper-partisan SC's ruling in Chisolm vs. Georgia where the SC stripped states of sovereign immunity.

- There has never been a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court.
- The design of the U.S. Constitution makes a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court impossible.

This is a war. It's never going to stop being a war.

Why don't you treat it like a war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The design of our Constitution is that a political official is the one who nominates justices and political bodies approve of those justices. How on earth has the SC ever been non-political? It has been a tool of politics from the beginning and it literally, by design of the US Constitution, cannot be anything else.

When Washington chose the first guys, did he make sure to balance Federalists and anti-Federalists? No, it was ALL strong federalists. That's the early 1790s.

The 11th amendment exists because the hyper-partisan SC's ruling in Chisolm vs. Georgia where the SC stripped states of sovereign immunity.

- There has never been a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court.
- The design of the U.S. Constitution makes a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court impossible.

This is a war. It's never going to stop being a war.

Mayor Pete had something to say about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

If I was going to march on something, it would be against SCOTUS. I am absolutely naive, but the placing of justices to pack a court to gain political advantage is wrong in so many ways and yet so brazenly accepted by Americans as business as usual. It needs to stop. I want nine of the most revered respected impeccably referenced people not legal hacks.

You will get your chance to march sometime in 2021-2022. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The design of our Constitution is that a political official is the one who nominates justices and political bodies approve of those justices. How on earth has the SC ever been non-political? It has been a tool of politics from the beginning and it literally, by design of the US Constitution, cannot be anything else.

When Washington chose the first guys, did he make sure to balance Federalists and anti-Federalists? No, it was ALL strong federalists. That's the early 1790s.

The 11th amendment exists because the hyper-partisan SC's ruling in Chisolm vs. Georgia where the SC stripped states of sovereign immunity.

- There has never been a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court.
- The design of the U.S. Constitution makes a non-partisan, apolitical Supreme Court impossible.

This is a war. It's never going to stop being a war.

Thank you so much for reminding me that I never paid attention in History class. It's my own fault, had the football coach who put up the test questions in advance on transparencies complete with answers and so I pretty much dialed it in for four years. Have been paying for it ever since but at least I'm a little wiser now, if not smarter! Guess I'd better head to the library this weekend....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...