User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » SCOTUS Credibility Watch Page 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10], Prev  
Cherokee
All American
6681 Posts
user info
edit post

^https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Quote :
"In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court"


Both parties use it. Fuck them both.

4/6/2017 1:27:50 PM

Exiled
Eyes up here ^^
5283 Posts
user info
edit post

Seriously. Biggest mistake in American Politics was adhering so strictly to the two party mindset.

4/6/2017 1:31:05 PM

dtownral
All American
20336 Posts
user info
edit post

a constitutional convention is our only hope, and there is no hope of that happening

4/6/2017 1:39:12 PM

Shrike
All American
9106 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^Except the Democrats used it after literally years of appointments sitting unfilled and agency functions being ground to a halt due to GOP obstructionism. Republicans did it the first chance they got for purely political reasons. In any case, all this means is the SCOTUS filibuster never really existed in practical terms, just a theoretical construct waiting for a moment like this to be disposed of.

4/6/2017 2:55:49 PM

Cherokee
All American
6681 Posts
user info
edit post

^I take your point into consideration but I think back to the fact that the Constitution wasn't written to force people to make decisions. In other words, people stonewalling or holding back on allowing nominations to go through is absolutely stupid but if the founders (I'm presuming here, forgive my ignorance) thought it was a bad thing, I feel like they would have put a mechanism in place.

All that I know indicates that they intended for government to only move forward when most people were united and to ground to a complete halt when there was tremendous division. Let the people deal with it and if the division gets nothing done and pisses enough voters off, new people will be voted in who can theoretically work together.

One caveat though - I don't think they realized what the party in power during a census would do for congressional redistricting. I can't believe they didn't assign that task to the judicial branch.

[Edited on April 6, 2017 at 5:53 PM. Reason : a]

4/6/2017 5:52:50 PM

kdogg(c)
All American
3443 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Seriously. Biggest mistake in American Politics was adhering so strictly to the two party mindset."


I Second that..

4/6/2017 7:31:23 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33899 Posts
user info
edit post

Gorsuch confirmed

4/7/2017 1:16:59 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
47462 Posts
user info
edit post

Officially sworn in.

GOP knows how to play dirty, be complete assholes and win. Dems don't.

4/10/2017 11:18:46 AM

synapse
play so hard
53391 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"GOP knows how to play dirty, be complete assholes and win. Dems don't."


Yup. GOP is way better at politics right now.

4/10/2017 11:22:53 AM

JCE2011
Suspended
5608 Posts
user info
edit post

Suck it leftists. No more judicial activism for you.

Quote :
"Court of Appeals is where policy is made - Sonia Sotomayor"


4/10/2017 12:49:19 PM

Exiled
Eyes up here ^^
5283 Posts
user info
edit post

When exactly was that a thing that leftists had? The court leanings are pretty much back where they were when Scalia was alive.

Seriously, the scraps you need to cling to while you watch your party lead themselves down the shitter amuses me to no end.

4/10/2017 12:53:03 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
47462 Posts
user info
edit post

Imagine thinking that Scalia's ideological contortions were not a form of activism.

4/10/2017 1:35:28 PM

JCE2011
Suspended
5608 Posts
user info
edit post

Lmao at you hacks calling Scalia an activist. It isn't activism when you are trying to prevent change...

Quote :
"Biggest mistake in American Politics was adhering so strictly to the two party mindset"


It's inevitable so long as there is a perpetual individual/capitalist vs collectivist/socialist battle going on in our country. It's a slow inevitable decline from capitalist prosperity into socialist hell, but thankfully our founding fathers put rules in place to slow down you people.

Quote :
"Well, it turns out our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. - Obama"

Quote :
"The constitution is an imperfect document - Obama"

4/10/2017 1:56:41 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5239 Posts
user info
edit post

Just imagine if Senate Republicans followed an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution and were forced to give "advice and consent" on Merrick Garland, instead of never meeting with him and never giving him a hearing or vote.

#convenientconservatives

4/10/2017 2:55:54 PM

JCE2011
Suspended
5608 Posts
user info
edit post

What a surprise! Another leftist hack that can't comprehend how the constitution works.

The senate isn't "forced" to do anything. The POTUS "shall" nominate... the Senate provides advice and consent. Meaning if America votes republican, you leftist don't get to put another activist judge in place to turn our country into a socialist hell hole.

4/10/2017 3:50:56 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5239 Posts
user info
edit post

so refusing to meet with Garland or even hold a hearing meets the requirement of "providing advice and consent?"

4/10/2017 4:00:39 PM

Exiled
Eyes up here ^^
5283 Posts
user info
edit post

So, in '18 if there's a Democratic majority elected they've got your blessing to just sit on Trump's potential nominations until his term is up?

[Edited on April 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2017 4:00:40 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
47462 Posts
user info
edit post

Gonna lol when the Orange guy loses the house and the Senate for the GOP and then the next Dem president (obviously in 2020) appoints the most progressive judges possible.

In a perfect world it would lead to a Mexican immigrant knocking up JCEs teenage daughter.

[Edited on April 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM. Reason : Also, he doesn't understand socialism]

4/10/2017 4:04:38 PM

JCE2011
Suspended
5608 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"So, in '18 if there's a Democratic majority "


The way democrats participate in midterms? lmao yea right.

The same low-information, dependent, "victim" bases democrats pander to also tend to be too lazy and uninterested to vote in something that the media doesn't hype up to them.

I mean you had every news outlet brainwashing the masses that Trump is Hitler, and you still couldn't motivate enough "victims" to vote. I guess they are victimized by their own laziness.

4/11/2017 10:43:24 AM

Exiled
Eyes up here ^^
5283 Posts
user info
edit post

Sweet deflection, bro.

4/11/2017 10:51:17 AM

eyewall41
All American
2026 Posts
user info
edit post

The court has lost credibility so long as Gorsuch is a justice. The rightful nominee was Merrick Garland. It is a stolen seat. I know the "Biden Rule" is cited as justification but that is complete bullshit. It was a statement and not part of official procedure or an actual rule. Even if it was, the campaign didn't really start until the nominees of each party were selected some 6 months after Garland being nominated. Obama had almost a year left in his term and had every right to have his choice voted on. McConnell can go fuck himself and it is clear that if Trump has to fill a vacancy with the same time frame left in his term, there will be no delay until after the election (if the GOP still has the majority).

4/11/2017 11:07:20 AM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
47462 Posts
user info
edit post

Or Democrats can start to learn how to fucking win for once instead of trying to please everyone.

4/11/2017 11:09:41 AM

Cherokee
All American
6681 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^^valid point

4/11/2017 1:29:46 PM

JCE2011
Suspended
5608 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The court has lost credibility so long as Gorsuch is a justice. after Obamacare passed"


fixed

4/11/2017 3:10:02 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
47462 Posts
user info
edit post

SCOTUS passes laws now? Cool.

Maybe we can just get rid of the awful House then.

4/11/2017 3:26:46 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5239 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-preview-just-playground-dispute/

Oh boy, a "religious freedom" case. Surely even Gorsuch can get this one right.

[Edited on April 19, 2017 at 6:40 AM. Reason : I'm not even sure why the court accepted to hear this case, our system is so fucked]

4/19/2017 6:40:07 AM

beatsunc
All American
9029 Posts
user info
edit post

^
Quote :
" the church can still worship or run its daycare as it sees fit – the state just isn’t going to pay to resurface the playground"


yet churches dont have to pay income taxes like almost everyone else somehow. not that i support income taxes of course, just sayin

4/19/2017 7:27:10 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
5239 Posts
user info
edit post

Yea, this one is clear to me. The state has a blanket ban on funding religious institutions. That has been ruled constitutional before, and I happen to think it's a pretty solid policy actually.

The church claims that prohibition on funding is somehow against their 1st amendment rights to practice religion or perhaps that its discriminating against them based on their religion.

Seems like a big stretch, but the fact that SCOTUS even decided to hear this case after lower courts ruled against the church multiple times suggests atleast a few of the justices think the Church's claims have merit. It'll be an interesting one to see where Gorsuch falls.

4/19/2017 7:53:41 AM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » SCOTUS Credibility Watch Page 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.