• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

Should Supreme Court appt.hearings be delayed?

Harshaw said:
Yeah.

Any credibility to this went out the window as soon as more than 55% of Democratic Party primary voters voted to nominate for President someone who was under criminal investigation at the time.

This is transparent and sad.
Click to expand...

So the 'base' decided to elect the real thing, rather than a mere imposter.
 
Harshaw said:
If you vote to nominate someone for President, then you're voting for that person to have all the powers of the President.

If you vote to nominate that person while under he/she is under criminal investigation, then you're indicating, conclusively, that you don't mind that person having all the powers of the President while they're under criminal investigation.

Though I will conceded to a caveat -- such a voter may also be stupid. But if the voter isn't stupid, then it's conclusive.
Click to expand...

Aren't you a lawyer? You should know the difference between facts and assertions, and all you're doing is arguing a specific POV makes more sense than another. You're not stating facts.
 
late said:
Dems are clustered around where Ike was on the political spectrum.

Since 1980, and the rise of the propaganda machines, the country has been dragged to the extreme Right. The suicidal nutter fringe...
Click to expand...

Nah. The Dems are going full "social democrat" now. That wasn't Ike.
 
MovingPictures said:
Again, that seemed to work just fine for you guys.

You guys will end up regretting all the precedents you're setting - give it time.
Click to expand...

That you consider wanting strong borders, a strong military and a strong economy to be fringe positions shows how far the Trump syndrome has gone. Anybody other than Trump with his same record would never be considered on the fringe. It's Trump and his style that liberals hate more than what he actually does, the wailing over the border separations notwithstanding. They simply hate the man. That is why they are incapable of defeating him.
 
SheWolf said:
Aren't you a lawyer? You should know the difference between facts and assertions, and all you're doing is arguing a specific POV makes more sense than another. You're not stating facts.
Click to expand...

I tried. Have a good evening.
 
late said:
Dems are clustered around where Ike was on the political spectrum.

Since 1980, and the rise of the propaganda machines, the country has been dragged to the extreme Right. The suicidal nutter fringe...
Click to expand...

Yes, notice how we've taken over the media, the universities and Hollywood? I mean liberals hardly have a voice anymore.:lol:
 
late said:
You are prob right, but at the moment I am more interested in legal side of it. Assuming you get cooperation from a few senators like Snow, is it a good idea? Is it legally kosher?
Click to expand...

legally? why wouldn't it be? would liberals cry and moan, call us hypocrites and every name in the book? of course. is it worth it? yes.


in fact, i waver on the idea of waiting after midterms. Sure, republicans may lose the house, but are likely to gain senate seats, making it possible to not have to rely on Collins and Snow, and could therefore confirm an even more conservative justice after elections.
 
veritas1 said:
Yes, notice how we've taken over the media, the universities and Hollywood? I mean liberals hardly have a voice anymore.:lol:
Click to expand...
Yeah, you guys only have Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Brietbart, Jones, Carlson, FOX & Douches, The Daily Caller, the Blaze, WSJ, and you have all of those activist churches.

God, its like living in the USSR for you guys.:lamo
 
veritas1 said:
That you consider wanting strong borders, a strong military and a strong economy to be fringe positions shows how far the Trump syndrome has gone. Anybody other than Trump with his same record would never be considered on the fringe. It's Trump and his style that liberals hate more than what he actually does, the wailing over the border separations notwithstanding. They simply hate the man. That is why they are incapable of defeating him.
Click to expand...
Abortion rights, civil liberties, the separation of church and state, and preserving social safety nets are not "fringe" positions either, so you can stop pretending you're populists anytime now.
 
veritas1 said:
Yes, notice how we've taken over the media, the universities and Hollywood? I mean liberals hardly have a voice anymore.:lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah why are you guys so powerless there? Lol
 
late said:
Sen. Corey Booker is pushing to get the hearings pushed back until after the election.

"I think it is questionable that we should be considering a nominee from a president who has a history of demanding these loyalty tests and we could be responsible for participating in something that could undermine that investigation.

I do not believe that this committee should or can in good conscience consider a nominee put forward by this president until that investigation is concluded. Not only do I believe that we should abide by the rule set by [Majority Leader] McConnell, but I think we should look at the larger moment that we're in American history and that conflict of interest that is clearly present in this president."

If you run across a law prof discussing this, I'd like to see it.

Currently the second video: Dems push to stall SCOTUS confirmation

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc ? Latest News & Video
Click to expand...

They should definitely be pushed back. The single most important thing Democrats need to focus on is obstructing anything and everything Trump does. If Trump personally cures cancer they need to hit him on not curing HIV because he hates gays. If he gets peace with Israel and the Palestinians they need to hammer him on why he ignored the need to gain peace between cats and dogs. If the economy grows they need to nail him on gentrification. The Democrats MUST find the negative in every positive situation and totally destroy the idea that Trump succeeded.
 
Lutherf said:
They should definitely be pushed back. The single most important thing Democrats need to focus on is obstructing anything and everything Trump does. If Trump personally cures cancer they need to hit him on not curing HIV because he hates gays. If he gets peace with Israel and the Palestinians they need to hammer him on why he ignored the need to gain peace between cats and dogs. If the economy grows they need to nail him on gentrification. The Democrats MUST find the negative in every positive situation and totally destroy the idea that Trump succeeded.
Click to expand...

This post is a great joke because you people literally said this about Obama.
 
Cardinal said:
All lifetime appointments should be delayed until after the investigation on the basis that there are so many unanswered questions about his behavior and his relations to a hostile foreign government. Finally, they should be delayed until we have a clear understanding of how his businesses are profiting as a result of his position. That would include a full audit of his businesses as well as the full release of his tax returns.

I will go so far as to say that this should be applied retroactively. In other words, all past appointments should be put on permanent suspension until all of the above issues have been resolved.
Click to expand...
Mueller needs to release his report before the fall then.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
All lifetime appointments should be delayed until after the investigation on the basis that there are so many unanswered questions about his behavior and his relations to a hostile foreign government. Finally, they should be delayed until we have a clear understanding of how his businesses are profiting as a result of his position. That would include a full audit of his businesses as well as the full release of his tax returns.

I will go so far as to say that this should be applied retroactively. In other words, all past appointments should be put on permanent suspension until all of the above issues have been resolved.
Click to expand...

The business of the country should not come to a stop just because the anti Trumpsters have set up a years long fishing expedition and failing to catch a citation bass are still hoping for a minnow.
 
jimbo said:
The business of the country should not come to a stop just because the anti Trumpsters have set up a years long fishing expedition and failing to catch a citation bass are still hoping for a minnow.
Click to expand...

Yes it should
 
I have no problem with Trump exercising his constitutional duty to name a new nominee. I do think that whoever that is should promise and subsequently honor their promise to recuse themselves from any case that eventually gets to the Court regarding the possible crimes Trump may be accused of since they owe their very existence not he Court largely to Trump. I would clearly see that as a huge possible conflict of interest which compromises them.

Otherwise it allows Trump to hand pick the juror who may decide his fate and that puts him above the law.
 
haymarket said:
I have no problem with Trump exercising his constitutional duty to name a new nominee. I do think that whoever that is should promise and subsequently honor their promise to recuse themselves from any case that eventually gets to the Court regarding the possible crimes Trump may be accused of since they owe their very existence not he Court largely to Trump. I would clearly see that as a huge possible conflict of interest which compromises them.

Otherwise it allows Trump to hand pick the juror who may decide his fate and that puts him above the law.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the reason, the President gets to hand pick the successor to a retiring judge.

No proposed candidate ever be required to promise to rule on a possible future case. Especially since there is no reason to believe that case will ever come before his court.
 
jimbo said:
The business of the country should not come to a stop just because the anti Trumpsters have set up a years long fishing expedition and failing to catch a citation bass are still hoping for a minnow.
Click to expand...

I like that!

The left is in total meltdown mode. Totally unhinged.
 
late said:
Sen. Corey Booker is pushing to get the hearings pushed back until after the election.

"I think it is questionable that we should be considering a nominee from a president who has a history of demanding these loyalty tests and we could be responsible for participating in something that could undermine that investigation.

I do not believe that this committee should or can in good conscience consider a nominee put forward by this president until that investigation is concluded. Not only do I believe that we should abide by the rule set by [Majority Leader] McConnell, but I think we should look at the larger moment that we're in American history and that conflict of interest that is clearly present in this president."

If you run across a law prof discussing this, I'd like to see it.

Currently the second video: Dems push to stall SCOTUS confirmation

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc ? Latest News & Video
Click to expand...
The GOP played its hand masterfully on this. Unprecedented GOP obstruction of Obama cabinet nominees led Dems in 2013 to abolish the filibuster for such nominees. The GOP then took the unprecedented position in 2016 that no vote on a SCOTUS judge should occur in a presidential election year. The GOP then took the further unprecedented step of abolishing the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees with Gorsuch. And now they craft a distinction between presidential and congressional elections to half-heartedly justify voting on this vacancy.

It's sad and disheartening that this is what politics has come to. Hopefully a few of the GOP Senators will put the interests of the country first and reject a nominee that is extreme. Hopefully Trump will nominate a real moderate. But elections do have consequences, and the voters should have known this was a possibility. Although their reason for delaying last time to "let the people decide" was not honest, they had every right as the majority to not vote on Garland for whatever reasons they chose. And the people did ultimately decide.

Now we will have to make another decision in 2018. Hopefully we make the right one. And hopefully next time Dems are in power they will restore the filibuster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom