Trump rejoices as Senate panel approves Barrett while Democrats boycott

[ThailandRyan]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please. The president had plenty of executive powers to greatly mitigate the effects of the pandemic. He could have invoked the Defense Act to compell companies to manufacture all the PPE equipment which was in such short supply. He could have supported the scientists instead of politicizing and opposing the measures needed to subdue the pandemic. There are lots of issues in which a President's power is very limited. This isn't one of them.

Could have, should have, and would have, all great and speculative terms.  No one has the power to create certain legislation that would be opposed and held up, which no matter who it was in office the other side would have done there best to shut it down and then complain it was not done properly.  Just like Mom's punishment not equaling dad's and Grandma and Grandpa having a fight over who was right and who was wrong.  No win situation.

Edited October 24, 2020 by ThailandRyan

[pomchop]

So if Dems win WH and senate they can do several things 

 

1.  Make Puerto Rico the 51st state.....get two more dem senators

2.  Make Washington DC 52 state....get two more dem senators

3.  Increase Supreme court from 9 to 11 and appoint two dem choices.

 

See how that works?

[ThailandRyan]

4 minutes ago, pomchop said:

So if Dems win WH and senate they can do several things 

 

1.  Make Puerto Rico the 51st state.....get two more dem senators

2.  Make Washington DC 52 state....get two more dem senators

3.  Increase Supreme court from 9 to 11 and appoint two dem choices.

 

See how that works?

As long as they can obtain the votes they can try and do anything they want during their 4 year term in the Senate.  Just like a President who has 4 years in office, he or she is not a lame duck during the year running up to the election.  Foolish for people to believe that is truly the case.  4 years is 4 years.  Just like having a contract as a CEO.  Until your last day there your still the CEO and can do what is needed in your view for the good of the country, I mean company.

Edited October 24, 2020 by ThailandRyan

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

It is pretty much a forgone conclusion that she will be voted into the position she was nominated and passed through committee for.  She is qualified in every aspect.  She may not be what some want, but can she do the job as a conservative Judge following in the footsteps of her mentor, the answer is yes she can.  The Dems do not like this and they are already making preconceived guesses about how she will vote on certain hearings schedule before SCOTUS.  That my friend is call prejudice and is a true statement.

Because she has absolutely no record as a judge? Because she didn't acknowledge Antonin Scalia as a mentor? Because it hasn't been the case in the past  that even though Supreme Court nominees refuse to commit themselves on the issues, their past has always been highly predictive of how they will vote?

[ThailandRyan]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because she has absolutely no record as a judge?

Think you need to do some research.  She has authored many decisions, and has a fine record for a judge, even as a 7th circuit court judge.  Her rulings may not be likeable, but rulings and writs are what they are.

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Think you need to do some research.  She has authored many decisions, and has a fine record for a judge, even as a 7th circuit court judge.  Her rulings may not be likeable, but rulings and writs are what they are.

Thanks for not getting the point. You're the one who claimed that predicting how Barrett will vote is proof of prejudice.

 

58 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Could have, should have, and would have, all great and speculative terms.  No one has the power to create certain legislation that would be opposed and held up, which no matter who it was in office the other side would have done there best to shut it down and then complain it was not done properly.  Just like Mom's punishment not equaling dad's and Grandma and Grandpa having a fight over who was right and who was wrong.  No win situation.

The Congress had already passed a law in past sessions that gave the President the authority to invoke the Defense Authorization Act to compel businesses to manufacture PPE equipment. He didn't need any further legislation.

 

And your claim that whatever the President proposed would be opposed by the other side has only one very tiny almost negligible problem: it's a thing called reality. The Democrats voted overwhelmingly to support the original emergency Covid bill. In fact they voted more heavily in favor than did the Republicans. Mitch McConnell has already made it clear that he won't support another bill as big as one that Trump backs. Is Mitch McConnell part of the "other side"?

 

And no legislation would be needed for the President to support the scientific consensus instead of undermining it at every turn. By politicizing issues and making partisan such practices as mask wearing and  widespread testing of the Federal level, and holding indoor rallies, he did huge damage to the fight against the spread of the disease.  And he's still doing it.

[ThailandRyan]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for not getting the point. You're the one who claimed that predicting how Barrett will vote is proof of prejudice.

 

The Congress had already passed a law in past sessions that gave the President the authority to invoke the Defense Authorization Act to compel businesses to manufacture PPE equipment. He didn't need any further legislation.

 

And your claim that whatever the President proposed would be opposed by the other side has only one very tiny almost negligible problem: it's a thing called reality. The Democrats voted overwhelmingly to support the original emergency Covid bill. In fact they voted more heavily in favor than did the Republicans. Mitch McConnell has already made it clear that he won't support another bill as big as one that Trump backs. Is Mitch McConnell part of the "other side"?

 

And no legislation would be needed for the President to support the scientific consensus instead of undermining it at every turn. By politicizing issues and making partisan such practices as mask wearing and  widespread testing of the Federal level, and holding indoor rallies, he did huge damage to the fight against the spread of the disease.  And he's still doing it.

Your opinion is not mine and not how I view the establishment called a disenfranchised and non cohesive government.  It does not matter republican or Democrat, there are to many personality clashes and no one is doing what's best for the citizens. It is why I dislike politics.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Your opinion is not mine and not how I view the establishment called a disenfranchised and non cohesive government.  It does not matter republican or Democrat, there are to many personality clashes and no one is doing what's best for the citizens. It is why I dislike politics.

You just previously claimed that if one side proposes something the other side will oppose it. Now you're claiming that it's all about personality clashes, not a binary situation at all.. You should definitely stick to those tired generalizations about nobody is doing what's best for citizens. They may not be provable, but they're not disprovable either.So general as to be diagnostically useless. Reality is not your friend.

Edited October 24, 2020 by placeholder

[impulse]

On 10/23/2020 at 5:00 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

On 10/23/2020 at 3:39 AM, Baerboxer said:

Meanwhile, Presidents Putin and Xi must be laughing themselves sick.

Not exactly. There are obvious reasons Xi wants Biden to win. Putin also seems eager for Biden to win, not surprising to me seeing as Russian friends already told me how tough Trump has been on Russia(for which I was mocked and ridiculed here for). Well here is confirmation, nice to see Putin stating the obvious about how far left the American left has become too.

 

"Putin Says He Wants to Work With Biden, Claims 'Shared Values' Between Democrats and Communism"

https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-says-wants-work-joe-biden-claims-shared-values-between-democrats-communism-1537501

 

Yeah, 'cause pointing out shared values between the Dems and Communists is sure to send the voters flocking over to the Biden side.

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by impulse

[Nout]

1 hour ago, tilaceer said:

It not the current system which obviously does not work fine.
 

Currently the President nominates to suit his political agenda and the appointment is for life.
How in any context is that similar to a system where the Justices are randomly selected from a pool of appellate judges by an independent panel for a fixed term where, upon expiry of that term, they return to the appellate ????????

Same system for both parties. The elected leader appoints from what basically a pool of talent. If this were a democratic leader you would not be complaining. Look at the poor old British.  A non elected HOL,in there for life via patronage, no expertise required and no attendance mandatory! The progressive extremists rejected the democratic process from.day one! 4 MORE YEAR AS Potus and 40 more years to eradicate PC, ID politics and anti white racism.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies reported and removed.

[tilaceer]

6 hours ago, Nout said:

Same system for both parties. The elected leader appoints from what basically a pool of talent. If this were a democratic leader you would not be complaining. Look at the poor old British.  A non elected HOL,in there for life via patronage, no expertise required and no attendance mandatory! The progressive extremists rejected the democratic process from.day one! 4 MORE YEAR AS Potus and 40 more years to eradicate PC, ID politics and anti white racism.

Sigh.
First you make a stupid assumption that I am a democrat. I am talking about the system from a bipartisan standpoint.
Why are you referencing the British Upper House..we are talking about SCOTUS. ?  There is no comparison. We are talking about the highest legal court in America. Stay on track.
In terms of expertise requirements, Barrett certainly isn't qualified.
As for your last statement, do you really think that these delusional, foundationless chest beatings have any impact on anyone except acolytes who are struggling to accept there is a possibility that Trump will lose ?
Due to the ridiculous biased badly designed Electoral College, no one can predict with any great certainty the outcome, but that is a different topic

[tilaceer]

8 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

It is pretty much a forgone conclusion that she will be voted into the position she was nominated and passed through committee for.  She is qualified in every aspect.  She may not be what some want, but can she do the job as a conservative Judge following in the footsteps of her mentor, the answer is yes she can.  The Dems do not like this and they are already making preconceived guesses about how she will vote on certain hearings schedule before SCOTUS.  That my friend is call prejudice and is a true statement.

I was actually referencing the statement that Trump is a slam dunk to win, which no one can predict with such certainty.

In terms of Barrett, this was a prejudicial appointment that McConnell has been using to stack the courts in their favour for years. If Barrett is such a staunch Catholic, then I do not see how she can rule impartially on issues such as abortion.
I believe her to be more extreme right wing than Scalia and given her strict views on various topics, coupled with her actual lack of court time, I do not find her particularly qualified.
This of course could backfire on Trump, if she maintains rule of law when making judgements, as been evidenced already by  the other lackey appointment Kavanaugh voting against Trump on several occasions,
Still, should the Dems win on Nov 3rd, they do have options to try and keep SCOTUS fair and unbiased.

[simple1]

9 hours ago, rabas said:

 

The difference between the 51% who said yes she should confirmed and the 28% who said no is 21%. The rest had no opinion. Your 1% avoids the the story.

 

Your fact check.  I provided a link to the same https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn.  To clear confusion, let me show the full paragraph from where you cherry picked the black part. Emphasis mine.

 

"Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts.  However, news reporting on the *website* tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks."

 

Re: religion. Evangelical refers christians, sometimes meaning not catholic. Anyway, I doubt the media mentioned that when Ami is confirmed, the SC will have six (6) catholic judges and a 7th who was raised catholic and is now Episcopalian. The rest are Jewish. [ref] So take heart, there is only one evangelical, the Episcopalian.

 

 

The cult Barrett belongs, Poeople of Praise, is self described as  'evangelical Catholic'; details provided by 'Placeholder' .

 

No cherry picking concerning CNN on my part, all you've done is confirm opinion is left leaning, which, as I said, opinion commentary by it's nature is not neutral. The point I raised is CNN news reporting is confirmed, with a few exceptions, as non partisan.

 

Yes, I didn't look at the detail. However, don't know how you ended up with your calculation. From the poll for the period 30/09  to 15/10 as in the link I provided stated:

 

Vote in favour; 51%,

Not in favour: 46%

No opinion 3%

[xylophone]

13 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Can you see how ludicrous your view truly is.  One man or woman can not right the ill's of the country no matter who they may be

You don't seem to have grasped the main points of my posts, however no problem as these things do happen.

 

In any case the post by @placeholder (a few posts after mine) supports my viewpoint well, and I never suggested in any way, shape or form that "one man or woman could right the ills of the country no matter who they are".

 

What I was suggesting with regards to Covid was that this idiot president had the opportunity to take decisive action in January when the virus first entered the US via China and Europe (no use banning direct flights from China when hundreds of thousands of people were flooding in from Europe). 

 

Instead the self-taught "doctor" in chief said that he had closed it down and anyway it would go away soon.

 

The other aspects of my post were spot on, so whilst you may think that my view was ludicrous, facts show otherwise.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/24/2020 at 8:08 PM, rabas said:

 

Depends on when!

 

My poll is much newer from after the confirmation hearings, and from center-left Politico.

 

Your old Oct 1 poll is from hard left CNN, rated two levels below Politico in factual reporting.

 

So, America wants Ami. What a cutie pie.

 

Will Biden pack the courts against a strong American will?

 

Biden would need a senate majority, as the president doesn't, to my knowledge, say how many judges are on SCOTUS.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/24/2020 at 9:42 PM, Kelsall said:

Barrett's confirmation and Trump's reelection are now slam dunks.  I'm not sure who will be the next liberal SCOTUS judge to vacate his/her seat, but 82 yo Breyer and Sotomayer would be candidates IMO.

It'll be great, IMO, if Trump gets to nominate 2 more justices.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/25/2020 at 2:07 AM, Jingthing said:

Yes Barrett will be confirmed but it doesn't follow 45 will win. He possibly may but the odds are against him.

Win or lose, when Barrett has been confirmed, Trump will have done his job.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It'll be great, IMO, if Trump gets to nominate 2 more justices.

It will be absolutely brilliant for corporations. Not so much for workers.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/25/2020 at 2:59 AM, tilaceer said:

It not the current system which obviously does not work fine.
 

Currently the President nominates to suit his political agenda and the appointment is for life.
How in any context is that similar to a system where the Justices are randomly selected from a pool of appellate judges by an independent panel for a fixed term where, upon expiry of that term, they return to the appellate ????????

That would depend on how the "independent" panel is chosen. If they were not really independent the same situation would occur, except less people than the senate would be choosing.

[rabas]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

It will be absolutely brilliant for corporations. Not so much for workers.

Last I checked both must follow the constitution. Ami Barrett just enforces that.

 

What's good for corps and bad for people is the politicians. Go take a look at the rising curve of wealth disparity, which started its upward march in Bill Clinton's time and never stopped.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Last I checked both must follow the constitution. Ami Barrett just enforces that.

 

What's good for corps and bad for people is the politicians. Go take a look at the rising curve of wealth disparity, which started its upward march in Bill Clinton's time and never stopped.

Virtually all the business cases taken up by the Supreme Court have nothing to do with Constitutional interpretation.

[ThailandRyan]

Final confirmation hearing Scheduled for Monday night in the US.  She will be a sitting justice of the SCOTUS by Tuesday morning, and in time to hear more of the voting ballot issues that have been pushed up to them.