• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jeff Sessions kicks off whirlwind week of Cabinet hearings

Praxas said:
Really, so Obama's SCOTUS picked got through? Wow that's news to me. Care to try again?
Click to expand...

Are you joking, one lame duck pick? McConnell was thinking of his own reelection on that one, because he would have faced a firestorm against him if he gave Obama that pick.
 
Anthony60 said:
The Democrats used the "Nuclear Option", as they called it, to get his judges through without obstruction.
Click to expand...

Yes, that happens when the filibuster is abused like that.
 
Anthony60 said:
Are you joking, one lame duck pick? McConnell was thinking of his own reelection on that one, because he would have faced a firestorm against him if he gave Obama that pick.
Click to expand...

There was no reason to obstruct except for partisan BS. Well get used to it so when the Republicans get stuck with the same **** you won't complain right?
 
azgreg said:
Exact number I couldn't tell you but there are numerous articles covering his anti LGBT agenda.

Pick Any LGBTQ Rights Issue. Jeff Sessions Has Voted Against It. | The Huffington Post
https://www.aclu.org/report/report-confirmation-sessions
LGBT Immigration Congressional Scorecard
Jeff Sessions on the Issues
New HRC Report Details Jeff Sessions’ Extensive Anti-LGBTQ Record | Human Rights Campaign
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/01/10/troubling-voting-rights-record-jeff-sessions/
Click to expand...

Am I the only one here that would have voted against some of that stuff?

I'm opposed to dumb laws like the violence against women act.
I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws.
I'm opposed to hate crime laws
 
danarhea said:
Yes, that happens when the filibuster is abused like that.
Click to expand...

As the Democrats did before that, when they came up with the name "Nuclear Option", to try and make it sound like the most abusive thing that the Republicans could do. Which the Democrats did instead.
 
apdst said:
"Go after", how? What does that even mean?

You know there's no way that ANY congress critter is going to legalize marijuana, right? Certainly not any Democrat.
Click to expand...

They really should legalize pot on the federal level and Trump really should work to try to see that happen. If republicans can get ahead of the game on that issue they would take a good amount of the winds out of the democrats sails.
 
Praxas said:
There was no reason to obstruct except for partisan BS. Well get used to it so when the Republicans get stuck with the same **** you won't complain right?
Click to expand...

No, there was great reason. He already made two horrible picks, which they let breeze through. They couldn't let more damage come to the SC.

We'll have to wait until the beginning of Trump's eight year in office before we have a similar circumstance, and I will understand what and why they are doing it.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, there was great reason. He already made two horrible picks, which they let breeze through. They couldn't let more damage come to the SC.

We'll have to wait until the beginning of Trump's eight year in office before we have a similar circumstance, and I will understand what and why they are doing it.
Click to expand...

You know a pick is bad when the justice asks during a case "But couldn't they just decide to take the penalty". You know, couldn't they just decide to break the law. /facepalm
 
Henrin said:
So you believe in the government deciding what laws they will enforce?
Click to expand...

I believe in the People deciding so for anything in which the rights of others are not infringed upon. There are States that legalized it because the People there wanted it so.

And the government does, on some level, get to "decide" what laws are enforced because legislature and executive powers are separated out. Not an executive that is avoiding the enforcement of law can be taken to the courts and can be made to enforce if that is how it is discovered. But there will be a phase lag.
 
danarhea said:
I am listening to the Sessions confirmation hearings as I post this.

Based on what I have heard so far, I am OK with Sessions being Attorney General for the following reasons:

1) Yes, Sessions does have a racist past, but that was 40 years ago. But people change. My brothers and I were raised racists, but today I live in a black neighborhood, and one of my brothers is married to a black woman. Once more, people change. Sessions has prosecuted the KKK, and done other things to show me that he is not the same man he was 40 years ago. I am willing to give him a chance.

2) Sessions is a far right wing Conservative, but Trump was elected, and a president's appointments serve at his pleasure.

While I am strongly against Tillerson, for reasons given in another thread that I started, I don't see why Sessions shouldn't be confirmed. IMHO, he is capable, and his party did win the election, which means that Trump has the right to nominate the people he wants, and they should be confirmed by the Senate, barring any real legal or ethical issues. He may be against Roe v. Wade, and other laws of the land, but he said today that his job is not to make the law, but to enforce existing law, and that is what he would do. I will take his word on that. Until he commits an action which speaks otherwise, I am OK with his selection.

Jeff Sessions kicks off whirlwind week of Cabinet hearings | Boston Herald
Click to expand...

He's got a long and crappy history of his work in AL, and it's not very likely he's changed any racist views, based on his denial of black judges for no rational reason.

The terrible things Jeff Sessions did as attorney general of Alabama.
Jeff Sessions Has a History of Blocking Black Judges | Mother Jones
 
danarhea said:
Yes, that happens when the filibuster is abused like that.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't happen when filibusters are abused. The Senate had never used it until 2013 when Harry Reid invoked it.

Now the Dems will reap what they have sowed.
 
Ikari said:
I believe in the People deciding so for anything in which the rights of others are not infringed upon. There are States that legalized it because the People there wanted it so.

And the government does, on some level, get to "decide" what laws are enforced because legislature and executive powers are separated out. Not an executive that is avoiding the enforcement of law can be taken to the courts and can be made to enforce if that is how it is discovered. But there will be a phase lag.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt bad laws, but it is duty of the state to enforce all laws on the books for what they are. All too often government ignores laws they don't like or changes laws to be more like they please them to be without going through proper channels to reach those ends.

I don't much care for Abraham Lincoln, but he was right when said the following:

"When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws.… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed." - Abraham Lincoln
 
NonoBadDog said:
Sessions was instrumental in the swift execution of a Klansman in Alabama.

In Alabama, Jeff Sessions Desegregated Schools and Got the Death Penalty for KKK Murderer (Updated) | The Weekly Standard

He also helped get a 7 million dollar fine against the KKK. I think his opponents are blowing thigns out of proportion but it won't matter. They don't have the votes to stop it.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if Sesssions is a closet racist or not, but the Weekly Standard article overstates his role in those prosecutions. The article has been updated to point out those guys were prosecuted in state court, and at least the vast majority of the work Sessions' office did was by a black assistant US Attorney, Thomas Figures, whose brother was a lawyer and civil rights activist - he's the one who restarted the case and ran with it. Here's the wiki article on it. After apparently discouraging, but not kiling, the new investigations Sessions ultimately got on board when his assistant and others broke the case. I'm not sure what role if any he had in the civil trial. Figures is also one of the people who testified against Sessions in the judge hearings, and was the person making several of the racism allegations against Sessions. Bottom line is the KKK criminal and civil trials don't really do much to help, or really hurt, Sessions as far as the racism allegations go.

On the broader issue, I guess my feeling is Sessions could be somewhat racist, but there isn't any recent evidence that he is and decades old issues aren't enough to keep him out of the job. Booker and others have a problem because they don't think he'll enforce the Voting Rights Act like Obama's DoJ has done, but I can't see ANY republican nominee doing so. It's one of those consequences of losing elections.
 
danarhea said:
I am listening to the Sessions confirmation hearings as I post this.

Based on what I have heard so far, I am OK with Sessions being Attorney General for the following reasons:

1) Yes, Sessions does have a racist past, but that was 40 years ago. But people change. My brothers and I were raised racists, but today I live in a black neighborhood, and one of my brothers is married to a black woman. Once more, people change. Sessions has prosecuted the KKK, and done other things to show me that he is not the same man he was 40 years ago. I am willing to give him a chance.

2) Sessions is a far right wing Conservative, but Trump was elected, and a president's appointments serve at his pleasure.

While I am strongly against Tillerson, for reasons given in another thread that I started, I don't see why Sessions shouldn't be confirmed. IMHO, he is capable, and his party did win the election, which means that Trump has the right to nominate the people he wants, and they should be confirmed by the Senate, barring any real legal or ethical issues. He may be against Roe v. Wade, and other laws of the land, but he said today that his job is not to make the law, but to enforce existing law, and that is what he would do. I will take his word on that. Until he commits an action which speaks otherwise, I am OK with his selection.

Jeff Sessions kicks off whirlwind week of Cabinet hearings | Boston Herald
Click to expand...

Would you reconsider that support if Sessions decides to enforce federal drug laws in states like Colorado?
 
Henrin said:
There is no doubt bad laws, but it is duty of the state to enforce all laws on the books for what they are. All too often government ignores laws they don't like or changes laws to be more like they please them to be without going through proper channels to reach those ends.

I don't much care for Abraham Lincoln, but he was right when said the following:

"When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws.… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed." - Abraham Lincoln
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. And if the executive doesn't enforce laws, there are ways to force it. For instance, Obama wasn't coming down on States for legalizing marijuana. He didn't push for federal legalization (leaving it to the States), but certainly we didn't see raids of dispensaries. I suppose he could have been forced to do so if Congress really wanted to push it as well. Medical marijuana was been around for some time. Oregon decriminalized in the 70's, medical started in the 90's so we also have Clinton and Bush who didn't pursue too much the punishment of dispensaries or the State's desire to set the regulations/laws themselves.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, that happens when the filibuster is abused like that.
Click to expand...

Republican Majority Leader Frist was the first to attempt to use the Nuclear Option in 2005 but was stopped by the 'gang of 14'.

GOPoliticians are quick to forget how they filibustered Clinton's judicial appointments from 1995-2001 .
 
Henrin said:
Should the federal government enforce its own laws? Yes or no? Many liberals like yourself like to use selective reasoning here where you pick and choose which laws the government should enforce, but the fact is you can't be a nation of laws when you selectively decide what laws will be enforced.
Click to expand...

An anarcho-capitalist advocating for federal enforcement of unconstitutional and oppressive laws? Hell has officially frozen over.
 
apdst said:
Then it looks like the state legalizations are constitutionally illegal and are classic cases of pooch-porking.

Ya see, we have a system for a reason. When you get your way, by circumventing that system, you have to prepare yourself for the day when the laws that were skirted are enforced. Don't like the law? Change it in accordance with The Constitution.
Click to expand...

Our federal drug laws have nothing to do with the Constitution.
 
Gill said:
No, it doesn't happen when filibusters are abused. The Senate had never used it until 2013 when Harry Reid invoked it.

Now the Dems will reap what they have sowed.
Click to expand...

The Senate democrats are dancing what could fondly be referred to as "The Last Waltz of the Vanquished." They remind me of a Busby Berkeley movie. Old, outdated, irrelevant, and covered with feathers. The have no value in today's world.
 
Quazimodo said:
The Senate democrats are dancing what could fondly be referred to as "The Last Waltz of the Vanquished." They remind me of a Busby Berkeley movie. Old, outdated, irrelevant, and covered with feathers. The have no value in today's world.
Click to expand...

i would not sell the democrats short, they do have a way of returning because of republican failures
 
danarhea said:
He was 40 years ago, but since then has prosecuted the Klan. I will take him at his word that he is a changed man..... Well, make that his word plus his actions since that time. What I won't do is take up a pitch fork and join a witch hunt.
Click to expand...

Did the right wing ever forgive Senator Byrd for his past? He's been dead for years and they still use him to beat the left over the head with.

I don't believe for one second that Sessions has changed his tune on civil rights as evidenced by his immediate endorsement and support of a racist.
 
Quazimodo said:
The Senate democrats are dancing what could fondly be referred to as "The Last Waltz of the Vanquished." They remind me of a Busby Berkeley movie. Old, outdated, irrelevant, and covered with feathers. The have no value in today's world.
Click to expand...

LOL! Remember Karl Rove's "Permanent Republican majority"?

How that work out for him, sport?
 
apdst said:
"Go after", how? What does that even mean?

You know there's no way that ANY congress critter is going to legalize marijuana, right? Certainly not any Democrat.
Click to expand...

Did you mean "republican"? If not, that's delusional. And plenty of non-crazy republicans favor legalizing pot or steps in that direction.

For example, the vast majority of Democrats voted for the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment that effectively stopped enforcement of medical pot laws. About 50 republicans voted for that as well. If the pot laws change, you can bet they'll have a large majority of democrats in favor.
 
JasperL said:
Did you mean "republican"? If not, that's delusional. And plenty of non-crazy republicans favor legalizing pot or steps in that direction.

For example, the vast majority of Democrats voted for the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment that effectively stopped enforcement of medical pot laws. About 50 republicans voted for that as well. If the pot laws change, you can bet they'll have a large majority of democrats in favor.
Click to expand...

No, I meant Democrat. There's no way that Democrats will pass a bill legalizing marijuana across the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom