• 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!

Right leaning "mainstream" justice alternatives

lurchadams said:
Restoring balance to the SCOTUS was my justification for voting for HRC, over throwing my vote away on a 3rd party candidate (not that it would have mattered I live a blue state).

There is no right-leaning justice I would support. In my opinion, the Citizens United decision, basically allowing rich folks and corporations to purchase politicians, has turned our republic into a kleptocracy. We need more balance on the court to prevent similar, harmful decisions. Elections have consequences, however. The GOP won and have the right to appoint the justices they want.

The Dems should have nominated a better candidate. All the Dems political grand standing in the world is not going to correct the nomination of HRC.
Click to expand...

Citizens United was, and is, a big nothinburger. It certainly had nothing to do with the last election.
For every rich right winger there is a rich left winger.

Liberals don't like it for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual l law. It's that they assume it will all be rich right wingers who influence elections. But for every rich right winger there is a rich left winger trying to influence politics.
 
KLATTU said:
Citizens United was, and is, a big nothinburger. It certainly had nothing to do with the last election.
For every rich right winger there is a rich left winger.

Liberals don't like it for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual l law. It's that they assume it will all be rich right wingers who influence elections. But for every rich right winger there is a rich left winger trying to influence politics.
Click to expand...

Not true. We don't like it because it further skews our political system in favor of the wealthy. It's pay-to-play codified into law. Just because Soros and the Koch Brothers balance each other to some degree doesn't mean they all don't have undue influence over average Americans.
 
Harshaw said:
No, your point was "votes." The GOP wins lots and lots of elections, denoting a considerable amount of "popular support"; you appear to think that everything rides on the fictional Presidential "popular vote."




Didn't say it was a good idea. Just saying, the actual votes Republicans do get have placed them in a position unprecedented in the history of the country. But hey, if it's not the Presidential "popular vote," I guess it doesn't count for you. Meanwhile, the reality of actual votes is what it is.
Click to expand...

My point was that Democrats have just as much if not more popular support nationwide as Republicans. My point acknowledges that Republicans have won elections but demonstrates that while we have a Republican government, we do not have a Republican populace. GOP political power currently outstrips its popular support.
 
Zyphlin said:
I've seen some on the left defending the attempted filibuster of Gorsuch under the notion that he's "far right" and not "mainstream".

So here's my comment and question...

Regardless of your feelings regarding the Garland matter, the reality is that it happened. The other reality is that the Republicans control the Senate AND that Donald Trump won the White House. As such, I'm going to assume those responding are not so hopefully partisan that they can accept the basic premise that a Republican President who was just elected, and a Republican Senate that was just maintained, are not going to nominate/vote for anyone that does not at least LEAN in the direction of being a strict constitutionalist (for the purpose of this discussion, we'll short hand this as "right").

So, with that assumption....

Are there any democrats on this board that can present right leaning justices that they would've found reasonable and more "mainstream" to be nominated in place of Gorsuch, of which they would've supported? If so, please provide their names as I'd love to research them a bit. Clearly, there must be some out there, as it would be ridiculous to demand that the Republicans nominate something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

If Scalia had passed away January 21 2017 I personally see no reason that Gorsuch shouldn't be appointed to the SC court. But I also saw no reason that Garland shouldn't have been appointed back when the opening was made. So I don't blame one side for blocking the other side in retaliation. I would be against it if the Dem's filibustered a SC nominee (unless having serious non-partisan issues) otherwise. If everything were reversed I'd feel stupid telling republicans that they can't stop a democrats appointment simply because we stole the seat from them. It's the presidents job to appoint nominees and the senates job to give them a hearing. The senate shat the bed and therefor we have what we have now.
 
TurtleDude said:
I want justices that reign in the power of government

lefties want justices who think the constitution should be interpreted to allow more and more government control over individuals
Click to expand...

Pelosi said as much in her lecture ( I say 'lecture' because she really didn't ask any reasonable questions) to Gorsuch during his hearing.
 
roughdraft274 said:
If Scalia had passed away January 21 2017 I personally see no reason that Gorsuch shouldn't be appointed to the SC court. But I also saw no reason that Garland shouldn't have been appointed back when the opening was made. So I don't blame one side for blocking the other side in retaliation. I would be against it if the Dem's filibustered a SC nominee (unless having serious non-partisan issues) otherwise. If everything were reversed I'd feel stupid telling republicans that they can't stop a democrats appointment simply because we stole the seat from them. It's the presidents job to appoint nominees and the senates job to give them a hearing. The senate shat the bed and therefor we have what we have now.
Click to expand...

Say we get to 2019, and Trump(if he's president) gets to appoint another nominee(I hope to god not), do you really think republicans are going to follow their own rule? All the more pressing that sweeping 2018 senate is incredibly important.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
My point was that Democrats have just as much if not more popular support nationwide as Republicans. My point acknowledges that Republicans have won elections but demonstrates that while we have a Republican government, we do not have a Republican populace. GOP political power currently outstrips its popular support.
Click to expand...

And you're basing that entirely on the results of Presidential elections, which are contests between individual people more than they are between parties.

The broader base of election results torpedoes your overall premise considerably.
 
Harshaw said:
And you're basing that entirely on the results of Presidential elections, which are contests between individual people more than they are between parties.

The broader base of election results torpedoes your overall premise considerably.
Click to expand...

No they don't. Again, Dems received more votes for Senate. The GOP has 57% of House seats but got 52% of the votes.
 
KLATTU said:
Citizens United was, and is, a big nothinburger. It certainly had nothing to do with the last election.
For every rich right winger there is a rich left winger.

Liberals don't like it for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual l law. It's that they assume it will all be rich right wingers who influence elections. But for every rich right winger there is a rich left winger trying to influence politics.
Click to expand...

It's corporations that benefit from decreased regulations. For example, allowing coal mining operations to dump sewage into waterways. It's banks that benefit from deregulation such as the atrocities that resulted in the 2008 crash. Neither of those items benefit the common man. Banks and corporations will pay big money to polls who promise to deregulate. A conservative SCOTUS would rubber-stamp any such deregulation legislation.

I accept your apology.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
No they don't. Again, Dems received more votes for Senate. The GOP has 57% of House seats but got 52% of the votes.
Click to expand...

And I told you why the Senate vote was meaningless.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You mean you gave a BS excuse.
Click to expand...

It's not a BS excuse.

1) Only 1/3 of the Senate was up for election. This was not a nationwide contest, and you're talking about nationwide support.

2) 2016 was unusual in that the Republicans didn't run a candidate in two very large Democrat states -- California and New York. If they had, the vote totals would have been considerably different.

Thus, if you want to compare nationwide support of R vs. D, this wasn't a meaningful barometer. Ask yourself: why are you wanting to use 2016 and not 2014?
 
lurchadams said:
IIt's banks that benefit from deregulation such as the atrocities that resulted in the 2008 crash.y.
Click to expand...

It was deregulation. Paul Krugam even said so! LAFF
lurchadams said:
IIA conservative SCOTUS would rubber-stamp any such deregulation legislation.


.
Click to expand...

they would if it was constitutional. and that's all that should matter to a USSC justice. They shouldn't be 'regulating' from the bench like liberal justices.


*******MIC DROP**********
 
lurchadams said:
A conservative SCOTUS would rubber-stamp any such deregulation legislation.
Click to expand...

This statement indicates that you don't quite have a grasp on what the role of the courts is.

Why would any "deregulation legislation" even be reviewed by a court?
 
Harshaw said:
It's not a BS excuse.

1) Only 1/3 of the Senate was up for election. This was not a nationwide contest, and you're talking about nationwide support.

2) 2016 was unusual in that the Republicans didn't run a candidate in two very large Democrat states -- California and New York. If they had, the vote totals would have been considerably different.

Thus, if you want to compare nationwide support of R vs. D, this wasn't a meaningful barometer. Ask yourself: why are you wanting to use 2016 and not 2014?
Click to expand...

It is a BS excuse. The stats still illustrate my point despite your excuses. Oh, and last I checked, 2016 was the most recent election. Why not use 2008? Or 1900?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
It is a BS excuse. The stats still illustrate my point despite your excuses. Oh, and last I checked, 2016 was the most recent election. Why not use 2008? Or 1900?
Click to expand...

Oh, so your response is "nuh-UHH!!!" Got it. :roll:

Well, you're going to cling to whatever you need to, I guess.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually he's left leaning and a gun banner. So either your definition of right leaning is a joke or you are so far left that you see Garland as a right winger
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go with the latter. ;)
 
Harshaw said:
No, they're not. They're just contrary to what you want to believe.

I've done this comparison numerous times. Here's one such example:



Here's another, comparing violent crime rates:



And this:



Is just dumb.
Click to expand...



If you ever get beyond school yard barbs, let me know. You Saying anything it a waste of time. One, you're an american and based on presidential choices that means honesty is not a valued trait.

If all you're going to do is play "yes it is: and "not it's not" go find a sand box I'm not interested
 
Fearandloathing said:
If you ever get beyond school yard barbs, let me know. You Saying anything it a waste of time. One, you're an american and based on presidential choices that means honesty is not a valued trait.

If all you're going to do is play "yes it is: and "not it's not" go find a sand box I'm not interested
Click to expand...

See? This is what you do.

I give you factual refutations of the things you say, and you completely ignore them, pretending I "never" do any such thing. But I do, every single time. You just refuse to acknowledge it, like you did here. I gave you the crime numbers you wanted. And you're pretending that "all" I did was "play yes it its and no it's not," apparently because you just don't want it to be true.

The problem here is yours, friend.
 
Zyphlin said:
I've seen some on the left defending the attempted filibuster of Gorsuch under the notion that he's "far right" and not "mainstream".

So here's my comment and question...

Regardless of your feelings regarding the Garland matter, the reality is that it happened. The other reality is that the Republicans control the Senate AND that Donald Trump won the White House. As such, I'm going to assume those responding are not so hopefully partisan that they can accept the basic premise that a Republican President who was just elected, and a Republican Senate that was just maintained, are not going to nominate/vote for anyone that does not at least LEAN in the direction of being a strict constitutionalist (for the purpose of this discussion, we'll short hand this as "right").

So, with that assumption....

Are there any democrats on this board that can present right leaning justices that they would've found reasonable and more "mainstream" to be nominated in place of Gorsuch, of which they would've supported? If so, please provide their names as I'd love to research them a bit. Clearly, there must be some out there, as it would be ridiculous to demand that the Republicans nominate something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Gorsuch is not fit to be a supreme court Justice.

He ruled (as descending opinion and only one) that a man should freeze to death rather than risk losing company property. This case alone shows he has no sense of humanity or morality for that matter. His argument went against every other judge ruling, during to course of that case, and it was based on very narrow of definition of ONE dictionary... the word was to "Operate". He only chose that one dictionary because it fit his argument.

he is one of most unqualified Nominees to every be presented for the supreme Court Seat. Period.

Diving Mullah
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Sure: Merrick Garland. No one is legit until Garland gets a hearing.
Click to expand...
You don't think that would have been a charade with Republicans controlling the Senate 54-46.
I understand that Republicans are more sensible on these things than Dems but unlikely that 5 would have supported Garland. Elections have consequences, as Obama liked to say.
 
Diving Mullah said:
Gorsuch is not fit to be a supreme court Justice.

He ruled (as descending opinion and only one) that a man should freeze to death rather than risk losing company property. This case alone shows he has no sense of humanity or morality for that matter. His argument went against every other judge ruling, during to course of that case, and it was based on very narrow of definition of ONE dictionary... the word was to "Operate". He only chose that one dictionary because it fit his argument.

he is one of most unqualified Nominees to every be presented for the supreme Court Seat. Period.

Diving Mullah
Click to expand...

what a stupid argument. in fact this might be the most stupid argument against Gorsuch I have yet to see. It was a dissent btw. and it followed the law. Sorry, I understand the left wing often doesn't like that.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Garland is a right-leaning corporatist. And Republicans are the ones playing games with the Supreme Court. The legitimacy of our high court is in jeopardy, and the right bears much of the blame. Nuclear option is the just the latest whack at the underpinnings of our judicial branch.

Until Obama's legitimate choice gets at least a hearing and a vote, no right-leaning justice is acceptable.
Click to expand...

Garland will never serve on the SCOTUS. So, you have openly invalidated yourself as having any rationale say on this matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom