• 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!

Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

TurtleDude said:
No you didn't and your argument is specious. If we use your claims-then comments on the internet are not protected from government retribution under the first, electrical torture is not contrary to the constitution and new religious faiths are not protected either. The purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee the right of self defense. That right includes useful tools
Click to expand...

Self Defense you say? Prove that.

Useful tools means AR15s right?
 
Barnacle said:
"... The dems are only whining because they can't rig all the gerrymandering in their favour."
Click to expand...

Ya'mean the way Republicans gerrymander in their favor??
 
prometeus said:
Bull crap. How did his other nominees pass?
Click to expand...

You must be joking. When Sotomeyor passed the senate it was 2009 & the Senate was 57 +2 Democrat to Rep 41
When Kagan passed the senate it was 2009 & the Senate was 51 +2 Democrat to Rep 47
With a majority in the senate Obama's SCOTUS nominees could easily pass.

In 2016 when he nominated Garland the Republicans were the majority in the Senate and Garland had no chance.
Blame Obama for not holding onto the senate, don't blame McConnell.

You should know something about this matter before posting
 
j-mac said:
Gheeze, reading your explanation of what you think this country represents, I can't for the life of me understand why so many want to come here, or why you would stay.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Answer is in my post. Started out with free land and/or shelter from religious persecution, (tho reports are the slaves didn’t want to come here in 1619.) Then maybe the attraction since has been all the good stuff liberals have done in the past 125 years to make this such a great place.
 
dixon01767 said:
No, it was the evidence that blacks in the south voted at a higher rate than blacks in the north.
Click to expand...

Even if i agreed with such a claim, that isnt a reason to gut the voting rights act that is in place to prevent states that historically and continue to disenfranchise minorities.
 
j-mac said:
No one here believes that we shouldn't help people when they're down. But help doesn't equate a lifetime of freebies, and it doesn't mean we just erase our borders either.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Who gets a lifetime of freebies? (Though my Social Security and Medicare will last all my life.) Who wants to erase our borders? True some poor people and some corporations abuse government benefits, but that’s why we have cops.

And I haven’t seen any legislation in Congress to open borders. But if you want to debate that issue, the US has demanded that borders be open to the movement of capital. (Or to frequent US invasion in this hemisphere.). Why not to labor’s movement?
 
Barnacle said:
Do you launch a protest when it works for you and your kind?
Click to expand...

You cant just expect people to cater to whataboutery if you dont answer the question they give first. This is basically a “NO U”
 
bomberfox said:
You cant just expect people to cater to whataboutery if you dont answer the question they give first. This is basically a “NO U”
Click to expand...


Giving a stupid question like you did deserves an generous dose of "whataboutery" ... :lol:
 
Barnacle said:
Yup; Chief Justice John Roberts changed the Obamacare wording from "penalty" to "tax" ...
Click to expand...

The word they used to describe something doesn't change what it is. The "penalty" was assessed on tax returns, enforced by IRS, and looked, walked and quacked like a tax.
 
apdst said:
Upholding The Constitution is the court's soul purpose. It doesn't exist to do as the majority wishes.
Click to expand...


You should have told Moscow Mitch that when he held up the vote. He can’t even preform his constitutional duties
 
Perotista said:
No. McConnell was wrong in not having a vote on Merrick Garland for a seat on the SCOTUS. No doubt about that. But one must remember at the time the Republicans held a 54-46 advantage in the senate. Garland nomination would have been defeated if McConnell had allowed the vote. Why McConnell didn't can only be speculated. He should have, he had more than enough votes to defeat Garland's nomination.
Click to expand...
Losing when playing by fair rules is a good loss and to be learned from. Screwing with the rules to ensure victory is evil, no matter who does it.

The only reason I can come up with was payback to Schumer and the Democrats who stated in 2007 that they wouldn't allow a vote on any of G.W. Bush's SCOTUS nominations in his last year in office, 2008.
Click to expand...
Just as bid a screw up as Reid's messing with the rules.

Political payback is always right around the corner.
Click to expand...
A sad truth, and while it can possibly tolerated in some rare instances it should not be part of SCOTUS

Just like then form Democratic Senate Majority Leader Reid's first use of the nuclear option for short term political gain. Now McConnell has enhanced and escalated it.
Click to expand...
When will it end?

The only way the court will become apolitical is when it will become impossible for politicians to manipulate it. It can be made so.
 
prometeus said:
No not at all. The confirmation vote were not along party line.

Why?
Click to expand...

Sotomayor & Kagan had every democrat vote in the senate 100% of them. The Democrat votes alone put them on the court,
so because it didn't matter Republican senators like Graham voted for them. If the republicans held the senate majority at the time
they were nominated in would not have been bipartisan. Republicans at that time were powerless and as a good gesture
approved their nomination. SCOTUS voting has become so political i'm trying to make you are of that but it seems to require too
much heavy lifting on my part.
 
slick said:
Sotomayor & Kagan had every democrat vote in the senate 100% of them. The Democrat votes alone put them on the court,
so because it didn't matter Republican senators like Graham voted for them. If the republicans held the senate majority at the time
they were nominated in would not have been bipartisan. Republicans at that time were powerless and as a good gesture
approved their nomination. SCOTUS voting has become so political i'm trying to make you are of that but it seems to require too
much heavy lifting on my part.
Click to expand...
What you are saying is that unless the Presidency and Senate are held by the same party no Justice will ever be confirmed. If that is the case we are really ****ed.

As an aside, Kagan should have never been nominated, the same with Kavanaugh.
 
SheWolf said:
You should have told Moscow Mitch that when he held up the vote. He can’t even preform his constitutional duties
Click to expand...

He wasn't constitutionally bound to hold a vote for Marrick Garland. He did his job. He advised the president (Obama) that the Senate wasn't going to vote for his nominee.
 
prometeus said:
Losing when playing by fair rules is a good loss and to be learned from. Screwing with the rules to ensure victory is evil, no matter who does it.

Just as bid a screw up as Reid's messing with the rules.

A sad truth, and while it can possibly tolerated in some rare instances it should not be part of SCOTUS

When will it end?

The only way the court will become apolitical is when it will become impossible for politicians to manipulate it. It can be made so.
Click to expand...

Well said. Playing politics with the SCOTUS goes back to at least FDR with his attempted SCOTUS packing. If the SCOTUS went by what is written in black and white, most of it in plain English along with original intent, the SCOTUS wouldn't be a political football.
 
Nickyjo said:
Then maybe the attraction since has been all the good stuff liberals have done in the past 125 years to make this such a great place.
Click to expand...

With this kind of talent to make people laugh you might want to consider becoming a writer for The Onion.
 
dixon01767 said:
The only relevant broad consensus here would be the broad consensus of the states required to amend the constitution. The moment they start trying to determine what some broad consensus is on their own, they have strayed from their constitutionally defined role.
Click to expand...

That's fair but those states themselves must be reflecting the will of the people: legislatively many do not. Also I believe the constitution needs to be thought of as a living document, open to interpretation in the spirit if the times, in other words also reflecting changes in values and norms and therefore requiring some degree of consensus. The judiciary should reflect those developments rather than hold them back.
 
SheWolf said:
This is what happens when the court gets politicized. All of Trump supporters hoping for Ruth to die are more than guilty. If the Democrats can’t fight to change right wing politicization, which has only occurred because of gerrymandering, they shouldn’t be in office.
Click to expand...

All of the Trump supporters? You know all of the Trump supporters? I am a Trump supporter and don't want anyone to die. I do support term limits for SC Justices just like I do with Congress. Democrats fighting to change the system then believe the system is politically rigged against them rather than what it is supposed to be impartial Justices on the SC. Name for me issues that Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito supported that you disagreed with? Can you name a conservative issue that any of the liberals on the bench supported? Is that ok since they support your ideology? Kavanaugh, Roberts and Gorsuch have given support for liberal issues showing they are constitutional Justices and not judicial activists
 
JasperL said:
The word they used to describe something doesn't change what it is. The "penalty" was assessed on tax returns, enforced by IRS, and looked, walked and quacked like a tax.
Click to expand...


"... Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 says: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” This clause was put in to ensure that that most awesome federal power was lodged in the political body most sensitive to public opinion.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” John Marshall wrote in the foundational 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland, so the Framers wanted to ensure that any such destruction came from the people themselves. ..."

The Obamacare "Tax" That Chief Justice Roberts Invented Is Still Unconstitutional
 
Barnacle said:
"... Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 says: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” This clause was put in to ensure that that most awesome federal power was lodged in the political body most sensitive to public opinion.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” John Marshall wrote in the foundational 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland, so the Framers wanted to ensure that any such destruction came from the people themselves. ..."

The Obamacare "Tax" That Chief Justice Roberts Invented Is Still Unconstitutional
Click to expand...

OK, so you have moved the goal posts, and in doing it cited someone who claims without irony, apparently, that Obama appointing justices to open seats on the D.C. Circuit is to "pack" the courts. So he's a proud, dishonest right wing hack. Excellent!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom