Jump to content

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


webfact

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 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/

 

Is the current roster, with RBG's death, a balanced one? The article you linked makes the case it is not so. Further, it details a clear legal procedure in case of a tie. So still unclear as to why you assume a tie would be likely or that it presents a legal/procedural problem.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Any evidence that the person (who is yet to be even named) makes decisions based on religious convictions and not the constitution?

 

Or is this more hogwash from the sour grapes crew. 

When a candidate is routinely described as both anti-abortion and Catholic in the same sentence, it is reasonable to assume that person would make decisions regarding abortion based on religious convictions.  In fact, it's reasonable to assume that is what the anti-abortion crowd expects.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

The Constitution of the United States does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices, or give any time restrictions on filling a vacancy.  Filling a vacancy this close to a Presidential election is unprecedented, and obviously politicizes the process.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

When a candidate is routinely described as both anti-abortion and Catholic in the same sentence, it is reasonable to assume that person would make decisions regarding abortion based on religious convictions.  In fact, it's reasonable to assume that is what the anti-abortion crowd expects.

 

No, that is an assumption and it is not reasonable. Looking at a persons previous court rulings is how to tell what they are about. Assuming their position on a matter is unfair. 

 

The anti-abortion crowd is full of non religious people too, BTW

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

The White House and Senate have all the say in the timing, the constitution sets the general rules and requirements. 

 

Being annoyed about it is not a valid argument and isnt going to stop anything from happening. 

I’ve never expressed annoyance or an opinion that this should be ‘stopped’.

 

My expressed view is very clear, the Constitution allocates to the President the power to nominate appointees to the SCOTUS and the appointment with the consent of the Senate.

 

The timing is, as you point out also entirely at the discretion of the President and the Senate.

 

The appointment and timing are political matters and come with political consequences.

 

Trump’s decision to nominate now and the Senate’s ‘voiced’ backing to move forward are political decisions that are having the political consequence of energizing opposition to Trump and what the GOP has become.

 

That ‘energized opposition’ is, as we see in the news, drawing in former Republican voters.

 

Neither the President nor the Senate acts without political consideration and the attending political consequences.

 

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

  Be that as it may if personal convictions do enter in I would much prefer religious convictions over faulty liberal convictions.

Would that apply equally to all religious convictions? Like Islam's convitions of death to non-muslims, Christianity's death to adulterers and gays, Hinduism's .......(hopefully you get the drift by now) as opposed to the liberal convictions that that's wrong?

Here's a sincere suggestion; try to actually think before putting finger to keyboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Would that apply equally to all religious convictions? Like Islam's convitions of death to non-muslims, Christianity's death to adulterers and gays, Hinduism's .......(hopefully you get the drift by now) as opposed to the liberal convictions that that's wrong?

Here's a sincere suggestion; try to actually think before putting finger to keyboard.

I do not know of a single Christian religious sect that calls for a death penalty to be applied to adulterers or homosexuals. Please name one - just a single one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

I do not know of a single Christian religious sect that calls for a death penalty to be applied to adulterers or homosexuals. Please name one - just a single one.

My apologies, Judaism:

""If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

 

No, since we've covered your diversion maybe you can answer to question and the point it raises (if you indeed get it)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You dont know the meaning of precedent. It only needs to happen once, then it becomes the precedent.

 

thats also how courts work, a judge gives a ruling, once, that ruling is then the precedent for future rulings.

The word has other meanings:

 

Priority claimed or received because of greater importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, heybruce said:
2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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

 

2 hours 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.

Two contradictory posts in rapid order.  Impressive.

No contradiction.

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

50 minutes ago, heybruce said:
1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Beware of people claiming that precedence is to delay nomination and confirmation until after the election.

 

The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.

"The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election."  ????

 

Are you already pretending McConnell's antics in 2016 didn't happen?

 

Can you find an instance since 1900 of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed by the Senate less than six weeks before a Presidential election?  How about six months?  Nine months?

Which I corrected.

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I was reading from a Feb. 2016 article so you are correct.  Which means that it's happened only once and therefore confirms it is not the precedence.

As to your argument that Supreme Court vacancies should not be filled six weeks before an election there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.  If you wish to say it should be prohibited then that would be unconstitutional.  Are you arguing for the Constitution or against it?

  • Like 2
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...