Jump to content

Romney, Senate Republicans pave way for vote on Trump Supreme Court pick


webfact

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Can you give an example of liberal justices deviating from the Constitution?

 

Quote

DISSENT #1: Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

The Stevens dissent rests on four main points of disagreement:

  1. that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended
  2. that the "militia" preamble demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only
  3. that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis
  4. and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional.

 

https://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_Gun_Control.htm

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Thailand said:
49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

And impartiallity be damned!

The only partiality should be to adhere to the Constitution.  That would be true impartiality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

This is now 2 threads now where you've put forward outlandish claims and when called on it, demand people wait for some future event like you're a psychic. 

Posting across threads is not permitted, so let’s keep it simple.

 

Please provide evidence, using my own words in a direct quotation, of where I have made an ‘outlandish claim’, in this thread.

 

1. Quotation

2. Explain how my quoted words are a ‘claim’ to anything, ‘outlandish’ or otherwise.

 

Over to you.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:
52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

So, appointing a person who makes decisions based on their religious convictions wouldn’t be problematic to the idea of ‘adhering faithfully to the Constitution’?

I'm not in favour of inserting religious convictions into Supreme Court decisions.  But since all Justices are human then it would be unreasonable and irrational to think that personal beliefs never enter into any given Justice's decisions.  Be that as it may if personal convictions do enter in I would much prefer religious convictions over faulty liberal convictions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The only partiality should be to adhere to the Constitution.  That would be true impartiality.

Apart from the fact the SCOTUS passes rulings based upon an interpretation of the Constitution.

 

For example:

 

The Constitution does not state that corporate donations to political campaigns are permitted/disallowed, nor does it state First Amendment rights apply to Corporations.

 

The SCOTUS has ruled Corporations have the right to make political donations and that this right is held under Corporation’s First Amendment rights.

 

There are many other such ‘interpretations’.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice to see Mitt come through and support President Trump (and the Constitution) for a change.

What he said does not support the president.

he intends to follow the constitution and precedent.

constitution is the president puts up a nominee.

precedent is that the senate does not appoint the nominee at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm not in favour of inserting religious convictions into Supreme Court decisions.  But since all Justices are human then it would be unreasonable and irrational to think that personal beliefs never enter into any given Justice's decisions.  Be that as it may if personal convictions do enter in I would much prefer religious convictions over faulty liberal convictions.

So long as it’s the right religion, eh?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What he said does not support the president.

he intends to follow the constitution and precedent.

constitution is the president puts up a nominee.

precedent is that the senate does not appoint the nominee at this time.

 

Thats.... Not what Mitt Romney is saying. Look at the precedent hes invoking. 

 

EihhxjYXcAEzGra?format=png&name=medium

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, new2here said:

i have voted republican in the past; but in the past few electoral cycles i’ve found it harder to consistently do so... but that said.. my thought is a bad “past practice” was apparently set by the earlier handling of Garland... i do get or understand the logic as to not doing an appointment close to an election... but for me at least, i tend to see it a bit more simplistically.. i don’t support purposefully delaying, nor expediting an appointment... they happen when they happen and who ever is in control of the senate at that time gets to handle it.. that’s just how the ball bounces..  

 

i also don’t support ideas like trying to expand/dilute the court by adding  additional justices- as that to me just opens the door to the “other side” just trying to circumvent what the side who has/had the power, to do... i tend not to want to “tinker” too much with how the court operates and its overall structure.

Back in 2016 Mitch McConnell was quoted as saying:  "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."

 

The entire rationale behind the idea of delaying to "allow the people to choose" is flawed by the mere fact that the people are being allowed regardless of a delay or not.  Whether it's the peoples' voice which elected the current Congress and Administration or the peoples' voice which will elect the next government it's still the peoples' voice in either case.  Again, a completely illogical argument used for the sole purpose of achieving partisan motivations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

The Constitution of the United States requires the seat be filled, and should their be numerous cases that arise from the general election it will be important to have a full court. I do not like you casting shame upon the American people by the way. Look no further then your own if you wish to throw stones.

 

But no such issues with filling the seat back in 2016.

How is a full SC roster essential? Elections or not elections? As I understand it there's a legal procedure in place dealing with cases of a tie. Moreover, there is no reason to assume there will be a such a standoff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Partisan motivations. Priceless 

The constitution of the United States is quite clear on the matter. There is no ambiguity. The President selects and the senate consents via a vote. If there are not enough votes there are not enough votes and that is the end of the nominee. The Senate can likewise decide as, McConnell previously decided, not to hold a vote in a lame duck session knowing that their will not be enough votes to confirm and therefore not go through the dog and pony show.  It has most always worked this way, and always will.

 

A Justice has passed away, the President's party is in power in the Senate, the seat will be filled, the Constitution requires it to be so.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:
1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

I must confess that, from my cursory reading of the United States Constitution (many years ago) I did not realise that it stipulated wether liberal or conservative idealogies should be adhered to!

 

On a lighter note, your suggestion that any of Mr Trump's actions are moulding anything to adhere faithfully to the Constitution is really very funny indeed!

Congratulations as you were able to ascertain the correct conclusion from your cursory reading of the Constitution.  And my reply to you is unambiguous in my sentiment that only Constitutional principles should be adhered to and not any particular ideology.

 

And on a lighter note, too, your suggestion that President Trump does not adhere faithfully to the Constitution is, unfortunately and in my opinion, misplaced.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

But no such issues with filling the seat back in 2016.

 

How is a full SC roster essential? Elections or not elections? As I understand it there's a legal procedure in place dealing with cases of a tie. Moreover, there is no reason to assume there will be a such a standoff.

Because, it is not the time for a tie is it? There is reason to assume that a stand-off could develop. Not assuming that a standoff would develop - only that it could. That is reason enough.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justices-function-after-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

The constitution of the United States is quite clear on the matter. There is no ambiguity. The President selects and the senate consents via a vote. If there are not enough votes there are not enough votes and that is the end of the nominee. The Senate can likewise decide as, McConnell previously decided, not to hold a vote in a lame duck session knowing that their will not be enough votes to confirm and therefore not go through the dog and pony show.  It has most always worked this way, and always will.

 

A Justice has passed away, the President's party is in power in the Senate, the seat will be filled, the Constitution requires it to be so.

So by your own interpretation the senate acted against the constitution in 2016.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Damual Travesty said:

Because, it is not the time for a tie is it? There is reason to assume that a stand-off could develop. Not assuming that a standoff would develop - only that it could. That is reason enough.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justices-function-after-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death/

Why would you assume what a court may decide on something that may not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...