OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[hindy111]

How can he get others? They have to die before a vacancy becomes available. Are the lizard people planning to knock a few off ?

I've been working with a guy who talks about reptilian,Mars,aliens all f**king day. It is very painful.
It made me wonder if HJ does this. This guy is a real loon.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I've been working with a guy who talks about reptilian,Mars,aliens all f**king day. It is very painful.
It made me wonder if HJ does this. This guy is a real loon.

I doubt he does. What's the thing about Mars?

 

[Noise]

I doubt he does. What's the thing about Mars?

If you eat one a day it helps you work, rest and play.

 

[hindy111]

I doubt he does. What's the thing about Mars?

Its hollow. And how long it will take to get us there.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Its hollow. And how long it will take to get us there.

Ah. And there are Martians inside?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I made no allegation, however you made an assumption

you see the difference ?

No I made an assessment. Do you see the difference?

 

[Bandwagon]

How the f**k can he stack the supreme court when there only 12 members and they are lifetime appointments ?

By appointing more members, the constitution doesn't set a limit on appointments, only upon the means by which they are appointed.

The only thing stopping it from happening now, is that the worm turns and eventually whomever does it legitimizes the other side doing the same when they have the opportunity, previously it was respect for convention

The question you should have asked @Poupou Escobar is how have the Democrats magically managed to normalise something they haven't ever had the balls to do?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

If the Democrats weren't such a bunch pussies, they'd let the GOP senate know in no uncertain terms that if they're going to weaponize there current position in the senate to push the appointment through, they can expect a stacked court should the election go their way.

How are they weaponising their position? It's what the Senate is elected to do...

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

How the f**k can he stack the supreme court when there only 12 members and they are lifetime appointments ?

There are only 9 positions but the Constitution doesn't put a limit on the SC. In theory, the Dems could expand it to 101.

 

[Twizzle]

No I made an assessment. Do you see the difference?

you cant make an assessment on my post as I didn't make an allegation, I asked a question and you presumed to know my opinion

do you see the difference ?

 

[Gronk]

There are only 9 positions but the Constitution doesn't put a limit on the SC. In theory, the Dems could expand it to 101.

You are right and I retract what I said to you and @Poupou Escobar about this. The Judiciary Act of 1869 sets the current numbers.

I found this online as an explanation of the state of play.


The President the people elected gets to nominate. Barack Obama was elected twice, overwhelmingly. His second term was for 4 years, not 3-1/2. In March, 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia. There were 8 months before the election, 10 months before the inauguration of the next President, plenty of time to conduct hearings.

Even before Obama’s announcement, however, Mitch McConnell advised him that the Republican majority would break with tradition and refuse to take any action on the President’s nomination. McConnell would later say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' " As justification, McConnell said, "Of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction.”

The election of our next President is already underway and millions of Americans have already voted. Republicans sense their defeat, not just in the White House but in the Senate. With control of the Presidency and both branches of Congress, the Democrats are positioned to add as many seats as they see fit.

Every action has a reaction - it’s a basic law of physics.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind finely.

What goes around comes around ..

 

[Bandwagon]

How are they weaponising their position? It's what the Senate is elected to do...

I think it's pretty obvious that in holding the senate they have taken two opposing positions in confirmation hearings leading into the presidential election. Sure they've offered offered up all manner of convoluted reasoning in an attempt to explain this away, but in the face of the arguments offered at either time, the juxtaposition is there plain as day.

They are using, and have used, their control of the senate to gain conservative control of the sc, in a manner that is clearly partisan. In reality, this is no different to, should the Dem's take control of both houses, stacking it with numbers.

Because both approaches ignore convention, and it is convention that has held sway over the excessive use of power, when you cast that aside, clearly there is something amiss there. I think people underestimate the value of convention, the unwritten rules are easily as important as the written ones, because they take into consideration that which is intended and or implied in the writing of the written rules

And that isn't what the senate is elected to do, that's a nonsense. The role of the senate is most certainly not to rubber stamp the whims of the administration, the very idea of separate houses administration is to divest power, not consolidate it.

It's worth considering that If you are to argue the senate is elected to act as a partisan house of approval, and that extends to these particular circumstances, then you also by the very same argument concede that should the Democrats gain control of the house, then stacking the court is what they are elected to do.

I hold the position that neither is the case, both scenarios are weaponizing control of the house, however I also hold that in doing so the GOP legitimizes, in fact demands that the Dem's do the same if the get the opportunity. I don't subscribe to "they go low, we go high" failed doctrine. I subscribe to the view that if your opponent wants to fight in the gutter, you better be prepared to get f**king dirty.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

you cant make an assessment on my post as I didn't make an allegation, I asked a question and you presumed to know my opinion

do you see the difference ?

I didn't make an assessment on your position, I made an assessment on the statement put out by the woke Notre Dame faculty members. Then you implied we can't judge people by their actions unless we know them personally, which was a stupid thing to say.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You are right and I retract what I said to you and @Poupou Escobar about this. The Judiciary Act of 1869 sets the current numbers.

I found this online as an explanation of the state of play.


The President the people elected gets to nominate. Barack Obama was elected twice, overwhelmingly. His second term was for 4 years, not 3-1/2. In March, 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia. There were 8 months before the election, 10 months before the inauguration of the next President, plenty of time to conduct hearings.

Even before Obama’s announcement, however, Mitch McConnell advised him that the Republican majority would break with tradition and refuse to take any action on the President’s nomination. McConnell would later say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' " As justification, McConnell said, "Of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction.”

The election of our next President is already underway and millions of Americans have already voted. Republicans sense their defeat, not just in the White House but in the Senate. With control of the Presidency and both branches of Congress, the Democrats are positioned to add as many seats as they see fit.

Every action has a reaction - it’s a basic law of physics.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind finely.

What goes around comes around ..

So when the Republicans win you think it would be acceptable for them to add more seats to the SCOTUS?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think it's pretty obvious that in holding the senate they have taken two opposing positions in confirmation hearings leading into the presidential election. Sure they've offered offered up all manner of convoluted reasoning in an attempt to explain this away, but in the face of the arguments offered at either time, the juxtaposition is there plain as day.

They are using, and have used, their control of the senate to gain conservative control of the sc, in a manner that is clearly partisan. In reality, this is no different to, should the Dem's take control of both houses, stacking it with numbers.

Because both approaches ignore convention, and it is convention that has held sway over the excessive use of power, when you cast that aside, clearly there is something amiss there. I think people underestimate the value of convention, the unwritten rules are easily as important as the written ones, because they take into consideration that which is intended and or implied in the writing of the written rules

And that isn't what the senate is elected to do, that's a nonsense. The role of the senate is most certainly not to rubber stamp the whims of the administration, the very idea of separate houses administration is to divest power, not consolidate it.

It's worth considering that If you are to argue the senate is elected to act as a partisan house of approval, and that extends to these particular circumstances, then you also by the very same argument concede that should the Democrats gain control of the house, then stacking the court is what they are elected to do.

I hold the position that neither is the case, both scenarios are weaponizing control of the house, however I also hold that in doing so the GOP legitimizes, in fact demands that the Dem's do the same if the get the opportunity. I don't subscribe to "they go low, we go high" failed doctrine. I subscribe to the view that if your opponent wants to fight in the gutter, you better be prepared to get f**king dirty.

It means that if your preferred party holds the senate and you're at high risk of dying, you should step down to allow a healthier replacement before your preferred party gets voted out of the senate. That's all it means.

Adding numbers to the SCOTUS is a genie that won't go back in the bottle. It is not proportional to using senate control to replace a dead candidate with the ideologue of your choice.

 

[Gronk]

So when the Republicans win you think it would be acceptable for them to add more seats to the SCOTUS?

Don’t the conservatives already have a majority?

 

[Bandwagon]

It means that if your preferred party holds the senate and you're at high risk of dying, you should step down to allow a healthier replacement before your preferred party gets voted out of the senate. That's all it means.

Yes Ginsburg should have stepped aside years ago, but otherwise what the f**k?

Adding numbers to the SCOTUS is a genie that won't go back in the bottle. It is not proportional to using senate control to replace a dead candidate with the ideologue of your choice.

Under the circumstances, It's proportionate, why isn't it? Why is one convention less or more sacred than the next?

I mean it's all very well to state your opinion as if it's fact, but until such time as you support your opinion with reason it's meaningless.

As for putting the genie back in the bottle, it's already out mate, the SCOTUS wasn't meant to be a partisan battleground, but here we are. I go back to my previous analogy, the fights already in the gutter, if you want to win you've gotta be prepared to get dirty.

 

[Bandwagon]

So when the Republicans win you think it would be acceptable for them to add more seats to the SCOTUS?

If they win, they can appoint whomever the f**k they like, but with a clear majority they aint about to stack shit.

Why would they, there's no advantage in it for them?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Don’t the conservatives already have a majority?

They could always have a bigger one.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes Ginsburg should have stepped aside years ago, but otherwise what the f**k?



Under the circumstances, It's proportionate, why isn't it? Why is one convention less or more sacred than the next?

I mean it's all very well to state your opinion as if it's fact, but until such time as you support your opinion with reason it's meaningless.

As for putting the genie back in the bottle, it's already out mate, the SCOTUS wasn't meant to be a partisan battleground, but here we are. I go back to my previous analogy, the fights already in the gutter, if you want to win you've gotta be prepared to get dirty.

Well who wins if each successive change of government just adds merkins to the Supreme Court? Progressives were unlucky with the timing of 'their' SCOTUS judges falling off the perch. Starting an irreversible process of expansion is just childish pissiness.