IfItDoesntMatchAnyMedia

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court Seat
#1
Greetings my Eastern Kentucky Brothers and Sisters,

With the election going on not the 40 plus like people have said (we are already voting). The GOP will fill the seat. The Dems will cry about it because of 2016. Ok we know all of that is going to happen. So lets move on to the next steps.

Dems will win House (already have wide margin and will continue) Dems will probably win senate. Dems will win President. 

Ok lets assume that happens, (if I could know the future, I would buy a lottery ticket and treat everyone of you to a beer).
 
The Dems then decide to pack the court up to 13 Supreme Court Judges. The GOP will cry. 

All the above is legal.

Ok now what... 

Here is what I think should happen to save the republic; 

We need as I can tell four amendments to the constitution; 1. Cap the Supreme Court, the reason for the packing can happen is because there is no limit. Also, this idea has been floated out but I am not sure about this idea but set a term limit of 18 years to the Supreme Court. Andrew Yang's idea. But might be worth discussing. 

Amendment 2: Set term limit for all of Congress. The details of this would need to be worked but basically limiting the federal government

Amendment 3: Set finance laws to get rid of all money in politics. This would be an end to PACs, Super Pacs, and the such. Right now because of a ruling in 2012 a corporation has rights as a citizen. Irony. But stay on topic. 

Amendment 4: Set the rules in more of a clear form to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Is one available to be picked in an election year etc. 
This really needs to stand alone for the first amendment. 

Thoughts?
#2
(09-20-2020, 11:09 PM)mr.fundamental Wrote: Greetings my Eastern Kentucky Brothers and Sisters,

With the election going on not the 40 plus like people have said (we are already voting). The GOP will fill the seat. The Dems will cry about it because of 2016. Ok we know all of that is going to happen. So lets move on to the next steps.

Dems will win House (already have wide margin and will continue) Dems will probably win senate. Dems will win President. 

Ok lets assume that happens, (if I could know the future, I would buy a lottery ticket and treat everyone of you to a beer).
 
The Dems then decide to pack the court up to 13 Supreme Court Judges. The GOP will cry. 

All the above is legal.

Ok now what... 

Here is what I think should happen to save the republic; 

We need as I can tell four amendments to the constitution; 1. Cap the Supreme Court, the reason for the packing can happen is because there is no limit. Also, this idea has been floated out but I am not sure about this idea but set a term limit of 18 years to the Supreme Court. Andrew Yang's idea. But might be worth discussing. 

Amendment 2: Set term limit for all of Congress. The details of this would need to be worked but basically limiting the federal government

Amendment 3: Set finance laws to get rid of all money in politics. This would be an end to PACs, Super Pacs, and the such. Right now because of a ruling in 2012 a corporation has rights as a citizen. Irony. But stay on topic. 

Amendment 4: Set the rules in more of a clear form to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Is one available to be picked in an election year etc. 
This really needs to stand alone for the first amendment. 

Thoughts?
You are once again attempting to waste a lot of our time. Your premises are very unlikely, so debating your hypothetical scenarios do not seem to be worth the effort.

I am not a conservative who believes that the polls were wildly wrong in the 2016 presidential election. Most results were within the margin of error and shifting a relatively small number of votes among the battleground states could have easily given Hillary the election.

However, I am extremely suspicious of the current polls. I see absolutely no enthusiasm for the Biden/Harris ticket. Joe Biden is suffering from dementia and will likely be humiliated if he participates in the upcoming debates. Democrats have been supporting both Black Lives Matter and Antifa for months as they have made many American cities unsafe for decent American citizens. Democrats are also attempting to set the stage for chaos and widespread ballot harvesting with their mass mailing of unsolicited ballots across the country.

You assumption that Joe Biden will win the presidential election is very premature, and that is being charitable. The man becomes confused when reading any number large enough to be delimited with one or two commas. His staff is handing out questions to the media and he is trying to answer them using a teleprompter. The only thing certain about this election is that Democrats intend to attempt to steal it. Voter fraud on a scale never before seen in this country would not be necessary if the Democrat Party had the confidence that you have in Biden's ability to win a fair election.

New laws to govern elections would be a waste of time. Democrats in elected office do not follow existing laws now and there is no reason to believe that they would follow new ones. The Republican Party is not squeaky clean but it has never threatened violence and attempted to use intimidation to win national elections. Democrats have a long history of such tactics going back to their creation of the KKK. The color of the masks have changed but the tactics are eerily similar.
#3
(09-21-2020, 01:31 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: You are once again attempting to waste a lot of our time. Your premises are very unlikely, so debating your hypothetical scenarios do not seem to be worth the effort.

I am not a conservative who believes that the polls were wildly wrong in the 2016 presidential election. Most results were within the margin of error and shifting a relatively small number of votes among the battleground states could have easily given Hillary the election.

However, I am extremely suspicious of the current polls. I see absolutely no enthusiasm for the Biden/Harris ticket. Joe Biden is suffering from dementia and will likely be humiliated if he participates in the upcoming debates. Democrats have been supporting both Black Lives Matter and Antifa for months as they have made many American cities unsafe for decent American citizens. Democrats are also attempting to set the stage for chaos and widespread ballot harvesting with their mass mailing of unsolicited ballots across the country.

You assumption that Joe Biden will win the presidential election is very premature, and that is being charitable. The man becomes confused when reading any number large enough to be delimited with one or two commas. His staff is handing out questions to the media and he is trying to answer them using a teleprompter. The only thing certain about this election is that Democrats intend to attempt to steal it. Voter fraud on a scale never before seen in this country would not be necessary if the Democrat Party had the confidence that you have in Biden's ability to win a fair election.

New laws to govern elections would be a waste of time. Democrats in elected office do not follow existing laws now and there is no reason to believe that they would follow new ones. The Republican Party is not squeaky clean but it has never threatened violence and attempted to use intimidation to win national elections. Democrats have a long history of such tactics going back to their creation of the KKK. The color of the masks have changed but the tactics are eerily similar.

I love it when someone belittles another's post, declares it a waste of time -- and then proves that they read it, cared enough to respond with several hundred words and 5 paragraphs, spent considerable time formulating their opinion and typing it out in a nice format. haha. Good stuff.

Reminds me of Trump when he says, "I don't know who (Fill in the blank with a harsh critic) even is..." And then spends the next 15 minutes explaining to us exactly who the person is.

In regards to the OP, here are my thoughts:

Explain to me what term limits would accomplish in SCOTUS and in Congress? I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but I find them laughable at best -- if you are suggesting that it will change anything.

Take Congress for instance... whats the first thing that happens, day 1 when a new congressman is sworn in? They immediately get their kneepads out and "get to work". Notice, this doesn't happen after they've been in office for 20 years. No, it happens day 1, hour 1, second 1. So your proposal for congressional term limits will accomplish what? What issue will limiting the House and Senate to 12 years actually fix?

Every 2 years, the american people get to decide if they support term limits or not. They can say they support them until their tongues break off from over use -- but when they ACTUALLY have a chance to put their money where their mouth is, they vote against it, and vote for the same person AGAIN. AND AGAIN. AND THEN AGAIN.

And SCOTUS, once more, what will an 18 year term accomplish? The facts show that the median term length for SCOTUS has been about 12 years over the last 2+ centuries. What on earth would a rotating selection of SCOTUS judges do that the current format wouldn't do? Other than cause violent swings in philosophy and overturning of precedent on a frequent basis?

Say what you will, but I'm an institutionalist and originalist. The founders were not fools. And further more, those selected to SCOTUS are literally the brightest and best minds in the legal world. Regardless of their political philosophies, no one can say with a straight face that these people aren't of impeccable character, brilliant jurists, and generally just the best of the best at what they do. So how would a rotating SCOTUS makeup change things?

And as far as "rules" go for selecting SCOTUS -- we already have them. And they've worked for 240 years now: The Constitution.

There's been 28 different "last year nominations" since the nation was founded. 10 were confirmed. The rest were either withdrawn, or no action was taken. The rules are simple:

1)A vacancy occurs.
2)The president selects a nominee.
3)The Senate can choose to hold hearings, or not.
4)The Senate has 3 possible options: a)confirm, b)deny, c)take no further action.
5)If confirmed, they take their seat. If denied, the president chooses another candidate. No action? Then the voters will determine if they supported that decision or not in the next election.

Its silly to suggest that we need more clarity than that.

With that said, I read an interesting article recently and I can't find it anywhere as I write this. It was from a bipartisan report from a thinktank about ways to change SCOTUS. One of the suggestions was that 5 new seats be added to SCOTUS. The traditional 9 would be selected as they are currently. The other 6 would be selected by SCOTUS itself and require unanimous votes for the new members, The rationale was that SCOTUS is overworked as it is. They have limited slots to hear cases. Many people don't realize that each member of SCOTUS is assigned to a specific appeals court and is actually the de facto chief justice of that court as well.

The way it would work would be similar to an appeals court today. 3-5 justices would be assigned at random to hear/try a case. Their decision would be binding as if all 9 of todays justices were involved. If the decision is unfavorable, a petitioner could ask for an "en banc" hearing of all 15 judges. To overturn the decision, it would require a super majority of justices agreeing, say -- 9 or 10 of the 15, for instance.

The idea is pretty interesting to me. I'm not sure its interesting enough to get my support. But its the first "new idea" in decades that I believe is worthy of our study.

Last point, before I wrap this up... money in politics.

I'm assuming that the 2012 case you cited is actually the 2010 case called Citizens United v Fec? right?

1st off, CU absolutely did NOT give corporations the 'same rights as humans'. Thats 100% false. I would bet my entire life that you didn't read Citizens United. You could also be talking about ATM vs Bullock out Montana in 2012. But that case offered no opinion, held no arguments, or issued any dissents. So CU is the likely culprit here.

Facts matter buddy. And the fact is, CU did not extend the same rights as humans have to corporations. In fact, it UPHELD THE BAN on donations to political parties and campaigns. Simply put: Amazon can NOT give Joe Biden a single penny for his campaign. Not before 2010, not during 2010, and not after 2010.

What CU said was that it would be a violation of the 1st, 9th, and 14th amendments rights to not allow a business to publicly state who they would prefer as president. Why would anyone be against allowing a group of men and women who own a business, from publicly stating as much and being able to try to convince you of the same?

It is my opinion that CU didn't go far enough. I believe that constitutionally speaking, corporations should be able to fund campaigns directly. But CU upheld that ban on contributions. All that it actually did was allow them to run ads, and make statements as long as they were 100% independent of the campaign.

Its inaccurate information like that, that makes other people continue to spread outright lies. Just stop.

Which leads to the final questions (in addition to the several above):

What would removing ALL money from politics accomplish? If the average man or woman can't use THEIR money the way that THEY see best fit.. whats the result of that? How will Campaigns fund themselves? You'd rather see the federal government give them the money to run ads with? haha. So.. basically, we should remove the people from campaigns, and replace it with the federal government? Because thats less corporate? Gimme a break.



Anyways.. you have some questions to answer.

1)What will SCOTUS term limits accomplish and how? What would be different with a judge on the bench for 10 years, compared to one with 20 years?
2)What would congressional term limits accomplish? How would a congressman with 8 years, be different from one with 18 years?
3)Without money for campaigns, after you removed "All money from politics"... who would fund them? Why do you not want ME to be able to spend MY money how ME AND MY FAMILY best see fit, supporting the candidate of MY choosing?

go.
#4
(09-22-2020, 08:19 AM)ronald reagan Wrote:
(09-21-2020, 01:31 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: You are once again attempting to waste a lot of our time. Your premises are very unlikely, so debating your hypothetical scenarios do not seem to be worth the effort.

I am not a conservative who believes that the polls were wildly wrong in the 2016 presidential election. Most results were within the margin of error and shifting a relatively small number of votes among the battleground states could have easily given Hillary the election.

However, I am extremely suspicious of the current polls. I see absolutely no enthusiasm for the Biden/Harris ticket. Joe Biden is suffering from dementia and will likely be humiliated if he participates in the upcoming debates. Democrats have been supporting both Black Lives Matter and Antifa for months as they have made many American cities unsafe for decent American citizens. Democrats are also attempting to set the stage for chaos and widespread ballot harvesting with their mass mailing of unsolicited ballots across the country.

You assumption that Joe Biden will win the presidential election is very premature, and that is being charitable. The man becomes confused when reading any number large enough to be delimited with one or two commas. His staff is handing out questions to the media and he is trying to answer them using a teleprompter. The only thing certain about this election is that Democrats intend to attempt to steal it. Voter fraud on a scale never before seen in this country would not be necessary if the Democrat Party had the confidence that you have in Biden's ability to win a fair election.

New laws to govern elections would be a waste of time. Democrats in elected office do not follow existing laws now and there is no reason to believe that they would follow new ones. The Republican Party is not squeaky clean but it has never threatened violence and attempted to use intimidation to win national elections. Democrats have a long history of such tactics going back to their creation of the KKK. The color of the masks have changed but the tactics are eerily similar.

I love it when someone belittles another's post, declares it a waste of time -- and then proves that they read it, cared enough to respond with several hundred words and 5 paragraphs, spent considerable time formulating their opinion and typing it out in a nice format. haha. Good stuff.

Reminds me of Trump when he says, "I don't know who (Fill in the blank with a harsh critic) even is..." And then spends the next 15 minutes explaining to us exactly who the person is.

In regards to the OP, here are my thoughts:

Explain to me what term limits would accomplish in SCOTUS and in Congress? I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but I find them laughable at best -- if you are suggesting that it will change anything.

Take Congress for instance... whats the first thing that happens, day 1 when a new congressman is sworn in? They immediately get their kneepads out and "get to work". Notice, this doesn't happen after they've been in office for 20 years. No, it happens day 1, hour 1, second 1. So your proposal for congressional term limits will accomplish what? What issue will limiting the House and Senate to 12 years actually fix?

Every 2 years, the american people get to decide if they support term limits or not. They can say they support them until their tongues break off from over use -- but when they ACTUALLY have a chance to put their money where their mouth is, they vote against it, and vote for the same person AGAIN. AND AGAIN. AND THEN AGAIN.

And SCOTUS, once more, what will an 18 year term accomplish? The facts show that the median term length for SCOTUS has been about 12 years over the last 2+ centuries.  What on earth would a rotating selection of SCOTUS judges do that the current format wouldn't do? Other than cause violent swings in philosophy and overturning of precedent on a frequent basis?

Say what you will, but I'm an institutionalist and originalist. The founders were not fools. And further more, those selected to SCOTUS are literally the brightest and best minds in the legal world. Regardless of their political philosophies, no one can say with a straight face that these people aren't of impeccable character, brilliant jurists, and generally just the best of the best at what they do. So how would a rotating SCOTUS makeup change things?

And as far as "rules" go for selecting SCOTUS -- we already have them. And they've worked for 240 years now: The Constitution.

There's been 28 different "last year nominations" since the nation was founded. 10 were confirmed. The rest were either withdrawn, or no action was taken. The rules are simple:

1)A vacancy occurs.
2)The president selects a nominee.
3)The Senate can choose to hold hearings, or not.
4)The Senate has 3 possible options: a)confirm, b)deny, c)take no further action.
5)If confirmed, they take their seat. If denied, the president chooses another candidate. No action? Then the voters will determine if they supported that decision or not in the next election.

Its silly to suggest that we need more clarity than that.

With that said, I read an interesting article recently and I can't find it anywhere as I write this. It was from a bipartisan report from a thinktank about ways to change SCOTUS. One of the suggestions was that 5 new seats be added to SCOTUS. The traditional 9 would be selected as they are currently. The other 6 would be selected by SCOTUS itself and require unanimous votes for the new members, The rationale was that SCOTUS is overworked as it is. They have limited slots to hear cases. Many people don't realize that each member of SCOTUS is assigned to a specific appeals court and is actually the de facto chief justice of that court as well.

The way it would work would be similar to an appeals court today. 3-5 justices would be assigned at random to hear/try a case. Their decision would be binding as if all 9 of todays justices were involved. If the decision is unfavorable, a petitioner could ask for an "en banc" hearing of all 15 judges. To overturn the decision, it would require a super majority of justices agreeing, say -- 9 or 10 of the 15, for instance.

The idea is pretty interesting to me. I'm not sure its interesting enough to get my support. But its the first "new idea" in decades that I believe is worthy of our study.

Last point, before I wrap this up... money in politics.

I'm assuming that the 2012 case you cited is actually the 2010 case called Citizens United v Fec? right?

1st off, CU absolutely did NOT give corporations the 'same rights as humans'. Thats 100% false. I would bet my entire life that you didn't read Citizens United. You could also be talking about ATM vs Bullock out Montana in 2012. But that case offered no opinion, held no arguments, or issued any dissents. So CU is the likely culprit here.

Facts matter buddy. And the fact is, CU did not extend the same rights as humans have to corporations. In fact, it UPHELD THE BAN on donations to political parties and campaigns. Simply put: Amazon can NOT give Joe Biden a single penny for his campaign. Not before 2010, not during 2010, and not after 2010.

What CU said was that it would be a violation of the 1st, 9th, and 14th amendments rights to not allow a business to publicly state who they would prefer as president. Why would anyone be against allowing a group of men and women who own a business, from publicly stating as much and being able to try to convince you of the same?

It is my opinion that CU didn't go far enough. I believe that constitutionally speaking, corporations should be able to fund campaigns directly. But CU upheld that ban on contributions. All that it actually did was allow them to run ads, and make statements as long as they were 100% independent of the campaign.

Its inaccurate information like that, that makes other people continue to spread outright lies. Just stop.

Which leads to the final questions (in addition to the several above):

What would removing ALL money from politics accomplish? If the average man or woman can't use THEIR money the way that THEY see best fit.. whats the result of that? How will Campaigns fund themselves? You'd rather see the federal government give them the money to run ads with? haha. So.. basically, we should remove the people from campaigns, and replace it with the federal government? Because thats less corporate? Gimme a break.



Anyways.. you have some questions to answer.

1)What will SCOTUS term limits accomplish and how? What would be different with a judge on the bench for 10 years, compared to one with 20 years?
2)What would congressional term limits accomplish? How would a congressman with 8 years, be different from one with 18 years?
3)Without money for campaigns, after you removed "All money from politics"... who would fund them? Why do you not want ME to be able to spend MY money how ME AND MY FAMILY best see fit, supporting the candidate of MY choosing?

go.
You're wrong. The first paragraph  or two was enough time spent. Mr. Fundamental quickly showed that his was not an honest effort at debate. I will leave it to those who obviously have more time to catch and fry the red herrings that he tossed out one by one.
#5
(09-22-2020, 08:38 AM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: You're wrong. The first paragraph  or two was enough time spent. Mr. Fundamental quickly showed that his was not an honest effort at debate. I will leave it to those who obviously have more time to catch and fry the red herrings that he tossed out one by one.

I'm literally dying over here right now. 

Facts: 

-Says its a waste of time. 

Then, takes the time to:

-Writes 2312 characters.
-401 words.
-6 paragraphs.
-2 posts. 

--------------------------
The best part? The response declaring his post a colossal waste of time was actually 50% longer than the OP's post! HAHAH! Can't make this stuff up. 

1600 characters.

Waste of time huh? Sure got you riled up there Hootie.
#6
(09-22-2020, 09:18 AM)ronald reagan Wrote:
(09-22-2020, 08:38 AM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: You're wrong. The first paragraph  or two was enough time spent. Mr. Fundamental quickly showed that his was not an honest effort at debate. I will leave it to those who obviously have more time to catch and fry the red herrings that he tossed out one by one.

I'm literally dying over here right now. 

Facts: 

-Says its a waste of time. 

Then, takes the time to:

-Writes 2312 characters.
-401 words.
-6 paragraphs.
-2 posts. 

--------------------------
The best part? The response declaring his post a colossal waste of time was actually 50% longer than the OP's post! HAHAH! Can't make this stuff up. 

1600 characters.

Waste of time huh? Sure got you riled up there Hootie.
The time I spend was posting my own opinion, not responding to Mr. Fundamental's long list of hypothetical scenarios that are premised on what he sees as the forgone conclusion of a Biden election victory. You are the one who seems to be riled up this morning. Your agitated state is causing issues with your reading comprehension.
#7
(09-22-2020, 09:18 AM)ronald reagan Wrote:
(09-22-2020, 08:38 AM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: You're wrong. The first paragraph  or two was enough time spent. Mr. Fundamental quickly showed that his was not an honest effort at debate. I will leave it to those who obviously have more time to catch and fry the red herrings that he tossed out one by one.

I'm literally dying over here right now. 

Facts: 

-Says its a waste of time. 

Then, takes the time to:

-Writes 2312 characters.
-401 words.
-6 paragraphs.
-2 posts. 

--------------------------
The best part? The response declaring his post a colossal waste of time was actually 50% longer than the OP's post! HAHAH! Can't make this stuff up. 

1600 characters.

Waste of time huh? Sure got you riled up there Hootie.
Oh, and I doubt that you are literally dying wherever you are. I believe that your arrogance has led you to figuratively feel like you are dying from a misplaced sense of superiority. If that is not the case, then I suggest that you call an ambulance for yourself.

(Maybe you should spend some time fact checking yourself and less time parsing my words.)
#8
An interesting tidbit of information out there... did you know that since 1969 Democrats have picked 4 Supreme Court Justices and Republicans have picked 15! Thought that was interesting.
#9
(10-16-2020, 08:39 PM)mr.fundamental Wrote: An interesting tidbit of information out there... did you know that since 1969 Democrats have picked 4 Supreme Court Justices and Republicans have picked 15! Thought that was interesting.
Both parties have appointed Supreme Court justices every time that a vacancy became available.

Had Ruth Bader Ginsburg resigned after she contracted one of the most deadly forms of cancer in 2009, then Democrats could have picked a fifth justice and Trump would have made one fewer selection. She died in office from pancreatic cancer after denying Obama an opportunity to replace her with another pro-abortion justice. I am glad that RBG selfishly clung to her office to allow Trump to replace her successor but if I were a liberal Democrat I would have been more than a little angry at her selfishness.
#10
I thought we should leave it up to the voters Hoot...

I still can not believe that the 5 to 4 majority is not good enough. They are going to have a short lived 6 to 3, and then boom 9 to 6 or 7 to 6. It will be interesting. I am glad we are keeping this thread alive! So far, so good on the old prediction board!
#11
(10-23-2020, 10:27 PM)mr.fundamental Wrote: I thought we should leave it up to the voters Hoot...

I still can not believe that the 5 to 4 majority is not good enough. They are going to have a short lived 6 to 3, and then boom 9 to 6 or 7 to 6. It will be interesting. I am glad we are keeping this thread alive! So far, so good on the old prediction board!
It was left up to the voters. Donald Trump was elected to a four-year term as our president in 2016. The Constitution requires him to appoint justices to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The Senate has provided Trump with its advice and will soon confirm his latest nominee to the Supreme Court. Is that so difficult to understand?

This nation is doomed once a party starts packing the Supreme Court with political hacks to give the party permanent majorities on the Court. You must be a total idiot to support packing the Court.

This is why our public schools are so universally not trusted to provide a proper education to our children. Willful ignorance and a willingness to indoctrinate children with a socialist philosophy that has failed and spread misery everywhere it has been imposed.
#12
(10-23-2020, 10:27 PM)mr.fundamental Wrote: I thought we should leave it up to the voters Hoot...

I still can not believe that the 5 to 4 majority is not good enough. They are going to have a short lived 6 to 3, and then boom 9 to 6 or 7 to 6. It will be interesting. I am glad we are keeping this thread alive! So far, so good on the old prediction board!


Interesting huh? You have a gift for naïveté.

I can think of a similarly 'interesting' historical event as described in Genesis chapter 19. God had sent two Angels to forcefully cause Lot to vacate the cities, (Sodom and Gomorrah) before He destroyed them for their grievous sins. The town's folk were so evil and lawless that when they heard about the arrival of two 'men' to see Lot, they descended on his house and called into him announcing their intentions to sexually accost his guests. Gen 19:5 - "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

God had to strike all those men blind to keep them from accomplishing their evil intent. And as the Angels escorted Lot and his family out of the cities,  Sodom and Gomorrah were reduced to ashes by the hand of God Himself.

You may think that in watching a similar level of lawlessness in real time go down in our day, which is btw in the very throes of effecting the civil destruction of our once great nation, to be interesting. I think it is tragic as it is apocalyptic.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
#13
Lol, so what when Obama was President no, when Trump is president it is a go for constitution. So TRT glad we are throwing some scripture around, what do you think of President Trump using a fetus for a cure?

Back to the topic at hand... so court packing, 100 federal judges did not get appointed while OBAMA was in office, a Supreme Court pick as well. So who is packing the courts?

I agree an idiot would be for that... well wait... that was the GOP!!!

Disagree with me all you want but the above three lines are correct. How does that make you feel? Court packing is for idiots and yet the GOP has done this. So by your logic, idiots.

Talk all you want boys, but disprove the above. Your own words, historic statements. My only question is will it be 7 to 6 or 9 to 6.

Also, since there was not a quorum to bring out of judiciary committee? Would this lead to the grounds of impeachment for the Supreme Court Judge?

I have no clue on that idea.

TRT this one is for you...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-BB1adYpJ

See I love watching my children grow up and I look forward to seeing my grandchildren, so by this alone. I should not vote for Trump!
#14
(10-24-2020, 08:29 PM)mr.fundamental Wrote: Lol, so what when Obama was President no, when Trump is president it is a go for constitution. So TRT glad we are throwing some scripture around, what do you think of President Trump using a fetus for a cure?

Back to the topic at hand... so court packing, 100 federal judges did not get appointed while OBAMA was in office, a Supreme Court pick as well. So who is packing the courts?

I agree an idiot would be for that... well wait... that was the GOP!!!

Disagree with me all you want but the above three lines are correct. How does that make you feel? Court packing is for idiots and yet the GOP has done this. So by your logic, idiots.

Talk all you want boys, but disprove the above. Your own words, historic statements. My only question is will it be 7 to 6 or 9 to 6.

Also, since there was not a quorum to bring out of judiciary committee? Would this lead to the grounds of impeachment for the Supreme Court Judge?

I have no clue on that idea.

TRT this one is for you...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-BB1adYpJ

See I love watching my children grow up and I look forward to seeing my grandchildren, so by this alone. I should not vote for Trump!
I get it. You are proud not to be patriotic and to oppose the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a Judiciary Committee. The majority of Senators have the constitutional right to skip committee hearings and bring matters to the floor of the Senate for a vote. You are right in one regard. You have no clue.
#15
(10-24-2020, 08:29 PM)mr.fundamental Wrote: Lol, so what when Obama was President no, when Trump is president it is a go for constitution. So TRT glad we are throwing some scripture around, what do you think of President Trump using a fetus for a cure?

Back to the topic at hand... so court packing, 100 federal judges did not get appointed while OBAMA was in office, a Supreme Court pick as well. So who is packing the courts?

I agree an idiot would be for that... well wait... that was the GOP!!!

Disagree with me all you want but the above three lines are correct. How does that make you feel? Court packing is for idiots and yet the GOP has done this. So by your logic, idiots.

Talk all you want boys, but disprove the above. Your own words, historic statements. My only question is will it be 7 to 6 or 9 to 6.

Also, since there was not a quorum to bring out of judiciary committee? Would this lead to the grounds of impeachment for the Supreme Court Judge?

I have no clue on that idea.

TRT this one is for you...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-BB1adYpJ

See I love watching my children grow up and I look forward to seeing my grandchildren, so by this alone. I should not vote for Trump!


WTF are you even talking about!

It's Fetal Cells, not a Fetus.  It's a live human being, and still is!
There were 105 Federal job openings under the Obama years.  Guess how many were unfilled in January 2016 = 105!

You truly have no clue what you are even talking about
#16
Yes Fetal Cells from an aborted fetus, TRT will argue that was a human being. As we both agree the point of conception is the point at which life begins.

105 court fillings, I believe you meant to say. They were unfilled. I am glad you and I agree on that. As you pointed out. You proved my point.

I am disappointed in your language choice.

Oh Hoot,

I am disappointed in you as you have said that I do not believe in the constitution or am unpatriotic. Question, was the GOP unpatriotic and did not believe in the constitution when Obama selected Garland to be on the Supreme Court seat?

You can not side step this question. I know you would like to, it is inconvenient. I get it.

When Biden wins the Pres, the Senate, and controls the house. The Supreme Court seats will go up to at least 13.

See GOP could have had 5 to 4 like they have had in the past 30 years but no. There is nothing unconstitutional about adding seats, yet.

So my friend, just because you say I am unpatriotic does not mean so. I say you are unpatriotic, that does not mean so either. You know better. Stardust not sure about and TRT I am hoping he is finishing up my third chapter in my biography.
#17
(10-25-2020, 11:45 PM)mr.fundamental Wrote: Yes Fetal Cells from an aborted fetus, TRT will argue that was a human being. As we both agree the point of conception is the point at which life begins.

105 court fillings, I believe you meant to say. They were unfilled. I am glad you and I agree on that. As you pointed out. You proved my point.

I am disappointed in your language choice.

Oh Hoot,

I am disappointed in you as you have said that I do not believe in the constitution or am unpatriotic. Question, was the GOP unpatriotic and did not believe in the constitution when Obama selected Garland to be on the Supreme Court seat?

You can not side step this question. I know you would like to, it is inconvenient. I get it.

When Biden wins the Pres, the Senate, and controls the house. The Supreme Court seats will go up to at least 13.

See GOP could have had 5 to 4 like they have had in the past 30 years but no. There is nothing unconstitutional about adding seats, yet.



So my friend, just because you say I am unpatriotic does not mean so. I say you are unpatriotic, that does not mean so either. You know better. Stardust not sure about and TRT I am hoping he is finishing up my third chapter in my biography.
 

I thought Stardust made himself clear enough. People who live in a fantasy world need a shrink, not a biographer. And abortion is infanticide, the murder of the innocents. But as usual you use ridiculous anti-logical talking points generated by godless heathen in an attempt to justify something as hellish as the slaughter of defenseless babies still in their mother's womb.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
#18
(10-25-2020, 11:45 PM)mr.fundamental Wrote: Yes Fetal Cells from an aborted fetus, TRT will argue that was a human being. As we both agree the point of conception is the point at which life begins.

105 court fillings, I believe you meant to say. They were unfilled. I am glad you and I agree on that. As you pointed out. You proved my point.

I am disappointed in your language choice.

Oh Hoot,

I am disappointed in you as you have said that I do not believe in the constitution or am unpatriotic. Question, was the GOP unpatriotic and did not believe in the constitution when Obama selected Garland to be on the Supreme Court seat?

You can not side step this question. I know you would like to, it is inconvenient. I get it.

When Biden wins the Pres, the Senate, and controls the house. The Supreme Court seats will go up to at least 13.

See GOP could have had 5 to 4 like they have had in the past 30 years but no. There is nothing unconstitutional about adding seats, yet.

So my friend, just because you say I am unpatriotic does not mean so. I say you are unpatriotic, that does not mean so either. You know better. Stardust not sure about and TRT I am hoping he is finishing up my third chapter in my biography.
The Republicans were under no obligation to hold hearings for Garland. As Obama once said, elections have consequences.

I have no doubt that you would support Democrats' plan to turn this country into a banana republic - or worse. Adding seats because the party controlling Congress desires to control the Judicial branch of government may be unconstitutional because such an action would be the end of our system of three equal branches of government and it would diminish the power of the Executive branch.

Your lack of patriotism and hatred for this country is self evident, whether I say so or not.
#19
^^ The way I look at all this--- Democrats never accepted the results of the last election. In their anguish, they have investigated and made brazen false charges, even going as low as fomenting civil unrest in order to visit a like amount of grief on Trump supporting citizens to teach them a lesson.

The obvious contempt Dems have for conservatives can no longer be glossed over as just being a figment of Republican imaginations. Further with this idea of court packing; the people's will is no longer a factor in Dem's deliberations or actions on Capital Hill. They celebrated with the death of Antonin Scalia and they howl like werewolves over the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. No rational thinking person can truly say they believe the US is still a nation of those who are self governed. From here on out it's a nuclear food fight. But we'll see in 7 days.

And let's be clear, we can thank Harry Reid for shipwrecking the Congress. He sat on legislation and stonewalled after Dems lost the majority in the House, gridlocking government for 6 years. It's been get even time for San Fran Nan & company ever since.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[-] The following 1 user Likes TheRealThing's post:
  • Hoot Gibson

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)