• 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!

Trumps attacks on the Judiciary – agree- disagree?

Trumps attacks on the Judiciary – agree- disagree

  • Total voters
    50
Van Basten said:
No, you made the claim and you have to prove it. That's how this works.

So, I'm waiting.

Educate me!
Click to expand...

Please, oh please, grow up... You are one of those kids that doesn't care about content, you just want to have the last word, right?

Okay, we will follow your rules.

You made the claim I lied, now prove it.
 
natsb said:
Please, oh please, grow up... You are one of those kids that doesn't care about content, you just want to have the last word, right?

Okay, we will follow your rules.

You made the claim I lied, now prove it.
Click to expand...

So, no proof then.

Got it.

And I'm the one who needs to grow up.
 
jamesrage said:
Did you leftist kept spewing but corporations aren't people(even though they are a group of people),somehow implying that those judges were idiots?
Click to expand...

No. Some of us are adult enough to not like the decision, but still respect the institution, the process and the people behind the decision.
 
Nilly said:
There is a difference between disagreeing with their decisions and attacking their intellect for it.
Click to expand...

Why are judges off limits in this regard? You have congressional members attacking Trump and each other all the time. You have the current and past Presidents attacking congressional members back. If Sen. Warren can call Sen. Sessions a racist then pretty much anything can fly at that point.

Calling people stupid is way below the bar that has been set for a while.
 
No one is above scrutiny.

This is just another move to manufacture dissent.
 
haymarket said:
And you provided this article and video. What I am not clear about is who exactly was the Bush nominee in July of 2007 that Schumer was talking about ? What appointment was being blocked at that time?
Click to expand...

It didn't matter who was Bush's choice:

Quote from Schumer:

On July 27, 2007, Schumer told his ACS audience:

How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
antiquity said:
It didn't matter who was Bush's choice:

Quote from Schumer:
Click to expand...

Who was the Busch nominee that Schumer supposedly making these remarks about in July of 2007?
 
haymarket said:
Who was the Busch nominee that Schumer supposedly making these remarks about in July of 2007?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter in context.... Why are you pecking the mouse turds out of the pepper?

How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? …
Click to expand...
 
antiquity said:
Doesn't matter in context.... Why are you pecking the mouse turds out of the pepper?
Click to expand...

I am trying to find out who exactly was the Bush nominee Schumer was suppose to be speaking about in July of 2007 so I can compare it with the Republican strategies emplowed against Obama nominating Garland in 2016.

here is what you said earlier

Quote Originally Posted by antiquity View Post
First off several democrats (Chuckie Schumer for one) tried to do the same thing to a Bush appointment so I shouldn't come as a major shock to democrats now.
Click to expand...

So who exactly was the Bush nominee Schumer was speaking about in July of 2007?
 
Sweden said:
Judges are but jumped-up lawyers and it is the clear duty of all good citizens to attack lawyers at every opportunity. I am sure we can all agree on this very uncontroversial point. Can't we?
Click to expand...

And politicians are but jumped up snake oil salesmen. What's your point?
 
Nilly said:
There is a difference between disagreeing with their decisions and attacking their intellect for it.
Click to expand...

They're idiots. :shrug:
 
antiquity said:
Doesn't really matter what decision this court hands down it will go to the US Supreme Court....The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has the highest overturned court decisions of all the circuit courts in the US.
Click to expand...

It's not going to the USSC any time soon. The SC usually doesn't hear cases of this nature - this was essentially a hearing about whether the stay that the district court imposed should be lifted or not. If the USSC hears it it'll be when the merits of the case are decided.
 
Fletch said:
And if you think judges DONT make decisions based upon partisan politics you are either being dishonest or are remarkably uninformed.
Click to expand...

Two of the four judges who rules against the administration here are Republican.
 
upsideguy said:
No. Some of us are adult enough to not like the decision, but still respect the institution, the process and the people behind the decision.
Click to expand...

I don't respect the institution for all the crap it has pulled over the course of the countries history. Way to much **** in there that is still standing and coming out of that place for me to respect it. They need serious checks put on them at this point really. If the courts want my respect then they can start doing their job and stop making up **** out of thin air. I don't respect bull****ters, but I damn well will condemn them for being bull****ters.
 
haymarket said:
I am trying to find out who exactly was the Bush nominee Schumer was suppose to be speaking about in July of 2007 so I can compare it with the Republican strategies emplowed against Obama nominating Garland in 2016.
Click to expand...

Eh....good luck with that! Neil Gorsuch passed the Senate confirmation vote unanimously with Schemer not raising a objection than so why now....so what's your point besides partisan politics and the party of 'no' hysterical rantings.
 
antiquity said:
Eh....good luck with that! Neil Gorsuch passed the Senate confirmation vote unanimously with Schemer not raising a objection than so why now....so what's your point besides partisan politics and the party of 'no' hysterical rantings.
Click to expand...

Why are you unable to answer the question? Who was the Supreme Court nominee in July of 2007 that Schumer was speaking about in the video?

here was your claim of fact

Quote Originally Posted by antiquity View Post
First off several democrats (Chuckie Schumer for one) tried to do the same thing to a Bush appointment so I shouldn't come as a major shock to democrats now.
Click to expand...

So who was the Bush nominee in July of 2007 who Schumer was speaking about?
 
Gaius46 said:
Two of the four judges who rules against the administration here are Republican.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? Just because they were appointed by a Republican President doesn't necessary make them a Republican.
 
haymarket said:
Why are you unable to answer the question? Who was the Supreme Court nominee in July of 2007 that Schumer was speaking about in the video?

here was your claim of fact

So who was the Bush nominee in July of 2007 who Schumer was speaking about?
Click to expand...

Jumping Christ.....you are one on the edge of not controlling your abilities to understand...read his comment closely. He flockin' said.. he would stay/delay any nominationif one should arise by Bush...you really can't be that dense....well obviously maybe you are.
 
antiquity said:
Jumping Christ.....you are one on the edge of not controlling your abilities to understand...read his comment closely. He flockin' said.. he would stay/delay any nominationif one should arise by Bush...you really can't be that dense....well obviously maybe you are.
Click to expand...

I read your comment where you accused Schumer of trying to block a Bush appointment ... so in July of 2007 who was the Bush appointment to the Supreme Court that Schumer was supposedly talking about?

Quote Originally Posted by antiquity View Post
First off several democrats (Chuckie Schumer for one) tried to do the same thing to a Bush appointment so I shouldn't come as a major shock to democrats now.
Click to expand...
 
antiquity said:
How do you know that? Just because they were appointed by a Republican President doesn't necessary make them a Republican.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Robart and Clifton were appointed by Republican Presidents and may not necessarily be Republican themselves. I would think the odds are good though that neither is - politically speaking - a flaming liberal. Not that that really matters in any case as there is no indication that the decisions were politically motivated.
 
Nilly said:
Which means less than nothing coming from you lol.

Less than nothing, in fact
Click to expand...

Have some point to spare, eh? You know, it's almost worth it at this point watching liberals like you attack me for no reason upstairs.
 
Henrin said:
I don't respect the institution for all the crap it has pulled over the course of the countries history. Way to much **** in there that is still standing and coming out of that place for me to respect it. They need serious checks put on them at this point really. If the courts want my respect then they can start doing their job and stop making up **** out of thin air. I don't respect bull****ters, but I damn well will condemn them for being bull****ters.
Click to expand...

Well, you should demand centrist judges....we spend to much time picking judges based on political proclivity and then we get outcomes that appear political. But, I suggest the problem begins at home: Stop picking presidents based on who they might appoint to the courts

If you don't respect the institution of the court system, then you have a big problem.

You might want to review your options.

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/best-countries-for-american-expats
 
upsideguy said:
No. Some of us are adult enough to not like the decision, but still respect the institution, the process and the people behind the decision.
Click to expand...
If that was the case then libs wouldn't fight tooth and nail to oppose the nomination of conservative justices and conservatives wouldn't fight tooth and nail to oppose the nomination of liberal justices.Its because Most people know that most of these appeals court and supreme court decisions are based on political ideology and not what the Constitution says.Its why most of these court decisions are split along ideological lines. If it were not the all the judges of different ideologies regardless of their views on the issues would all agree that such and such case is constitutional or would all agree that such and such case violates the constitution,there would be no dissenting opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom