RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Court packing, then. This is NOT just "filling a seat" when you consider the GOP's blatant disregard of the Constitution on an earlier occasion they had to "fill a seat".

How is the senate "blatantly" disregarding the Constitution?

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other ...

Do you think the authors of the Constitution meant "The President and Congress shall, sometime, at the time of their choice, or never within their term, as they see fit, appoint or reject (etc) Judges of the supreme Court" ...?

And don't resort to precedent. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I am going to post this post here and on the now related RBG thread later on today as we are allowed to do under NS rules.

President Trump is allowed under the US constitution the right to name and try to confirm any US Supreme Court Justice he nominates, before the elections, precedents or no precedents, he has the right, duty and obligation to do so under the US constitution. The US constitution has no precedents, of course as a Republican he is going to nominate a conservative Republican justice. Just like a Democrat President would nominate a Liberal Democrat justice. You as a Democrat or Democrat supporter support a liberal Justice, we Republicans and Republican supporters support a conservative justice.

[Lower Nubia]

“We”? You’d actually agree with it not being appointed until January?

Tars actually cares about the Republic-he’s not a raging partisan.

He said he may swing Republican if a Supreme Court Seat was up for grabs.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I am going to post this post here and on the now related RBG thread later on today as we are allowed to do under NS rules.

You really should not say that. Nothing any of us post is "allowed ... under NS rules" until it stands or is struck down by Moderators.

President Trump is allowed under the US constitution the right to name and try to confirm any US Supreme Court Justice he nominates, before the elections

But he can't after the elections?

, precedents or no precedents

... don't say that either.

, he has the right, duty and obligation to do so under the US constitution.

Only if the Republican Senate also had a "duty" to confirm in 2016

The US constitution has no precedents

It had plenty. The enforcement of the US constitution has more.

, of course as a Republican he is going to nominate a conservative Republican justice. Just like a Democrat President would nominate a Liberal Democrat justice.

Just as a Democrat President did. With plenty of time before the 2016 election. But McConnell said it wasn't enough time.

You as a Democrat or Democrat supporter support a liberal Justice, we Republicans and Republican supporters support a conservative justice.

You screwed us over in 2016. We will get you back.

[Kowani]

Tars actually cares about the Republic-he’s not a raging partisan.

He said he may swing Republican if a Supreme Court Seat was up for grabs.

Never mind that

[Picairn]

President Trump is allowed under the US constitution the right to name and try to confirm any US Supreme Court Justice he nominates, before the elections, precedents or no precedents, he has the right, duty and obligation to do so under the US constitution.

Merrick Garland called, he wants his seat back.

[Vistulange]

President Trump is allowed under the US constitution the right to name and try to confirm any US Supreme Court Justice he nominates, before the elections, precedents or no precedents, he has the right, duty and obligation to do so under the US constitution.

Merrick Garland called, he wants his seat back.

Rules for thee but not for me...

It's really difficult to say much else without falling afoul of the site rules, to be honest.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

President Trump is allowed under the US constitution the right to name and try to confirm any US Supreme Court Justice he nominates, before the elections, precedents or no precedents, he has the right, duty and obligation to do so under the US constitution.

Merrick Garland called, he wants his seat back.

The Constitution doesn't mention "right" nor "obligation" of government to do anything. It does mention government "shall" and I'm thinking that should have been tightened up. Government shall fuck or unfuck, whatever problem, within its term unless that term be within two weeks of expiry, failing which such government shall itself be fucked. And no government shall fuck about with shit until the new elected government be seated.

Fuck how I wish I was there. I would correct their mistakes. 2nd amendment, dumb idea, but I'd trade it away for more privacy rights.

[Vistulange]

Merrick Garland called, he wants his seat back.

The Constitution doesn't mention "right" nor "obligation" of government to do anything. It does mention government "shall" and I'm thinking that should have been tightened up. Government shall fuck or unfuck, whatever problem, within its term unless that term be within two weeks of expiry, failing which such government shall itself be fucked. And no government shall fuck about with shit until the new elected government be seated.

Fuck how I wish I was there. I would correct their mistakes. 2nd amendment, dumb idea, but I'd trade it away for more privacy rights.

You're unpatriotic, you see, and un-American for daring to think of not carrying guns around everywhere.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The Constitution doesn't mention "right" nor "obligation" of government to do anything. It does mention government "shall" and I'm thinking that should have been tightened up. Government shall fuck or unfuck, whatever problem, within its term unless that term be within two weeks of expiry, failing which such government shall itself be fucked. And no government shall fuck about with shit until the new elected government be seated.

Fuck how I wish I was there. I would correct their mistakes. 2nd amendment, dumb idea, but I'd trade it away for more privacy rights.

You're unpatriotic, you see, and un-American for daring to think of not carrying guns around everywhere.

No, I'd allow that. Much more closely defined right to own guns ("shall not be infringed" is lunatic stuff), but in exchange I would demand an explicit right to privacy.

"Government shall not search a citizen of themselves, nor of their belongings, without a public declaration of search. Nor question them except under oath of questioner and questioned, by due process. Freedom of conscience shall extend to the person, in their thoughts, words, and deeds."

I see bad shit happening in this Information Age, and if I could I would stop it way back when.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Merrick Garland called, he wants his seat back.

The Constitution doesn't mention "right" nor "obligation" of government to do anything. It does mention government "shall" and I'm thinking that should have been tightened up. Government shall fuck or unfuck, whatever problem, within its term unless that term be within two weeks of expiry, failing which such government shall itself be fucked. And no government shall fuck about with shit until the new elected government be seated.

Fuck how I wish I was there. I would correct their mistakes. 2nd amendment, dumb idea, but I'd trade it away for more privacy rights.

I did not say the US constitution mentions a right, duty and an obligation, I said under the US constitution President Trump has a right, duty and an obligation to try and confirm any US Supreme Court Justice nominee he wishes for the nation, precedents or no precedents. Please excuse my English, my English not very good, not very bad, but not very good either

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The Constitution doesn't mention "right" nor "obligation" of government to do anything. It does mention government "shall" and I'm thinking that should have been tightened up. Government shall fuck or unfuck, whatever problem, within its term unless that term be within two weeks of expiry, failing which such government shall itself be fucked. And no government shall fuck about with shit until the new elected government be seated.

Fuck how I wish I was there. I would correct their mistakes. 2nd amendment, dumb idea, but I'd trade it away for more privacy rights.

I did not say the US constitution mentions right or an obligation, I said under the US constitution President Trump has a right, duty and an obligation

But the same paragraph of the constitution doesn't put a duty or obligation on the US Senate?

Remember the pro tem Mitch McConnell explicitly refused to let the nomination into the Senate. He gave reasons.

to try and confirm any US Supreme Court Justice nominee he wishes for the nation, precedents or no precedents. Please excuse my English, my English not very good, not very bad, but not very good either

It's not the President, it's McConnell who is being blatantly hypocritical here. Either he's following the constitution NOW by being eager to get the nomination approved, because the constitution says Congress "shall". Or he was following the constitution in 2016 when he said he wouldn't. Whatever reason he gave (and it was a flimsy reason about precedent and members needing time to campaign) he alone chose to block the Senate doing what the Constitution said it "shall" do.

As an admirer of President Trump, you should be disturbed that McConnell announced before the President did. This good and virtuous man (as you see him) was led within a day, by an evil old swamp-turtle with no respect for the Constitution.

[Telconi]

I did not say the US constitution mentions right or an obligation, I said under the US constitution President Trump has a right, duty and an obligation

But the same paragraph of the constitution doesn't put a duty or obligation on the US Senate?

Remember the pro tem Mitch McConnell explicitly refused to let the nomination into the Senate. He gave reasons.

to try and confirm any US Supreme Court Justice nominee he wishes for the nation, precedents or no precedents. Please excuse my English, my English not very good, not very bad, but not very good either

It's not the President, it's McConnell who is being blatantly hypocritical here. Either he's following the constitution NOW by being eager to get the nomination approved, because the constitution says Congress "shall". Or he was following the constitution in 2016 when he said he wouldn't. Whatever reason he gave (and it was a flimsy reason about precedent and members needing time to campaign) he alone chose to block the Senate doing what the Constitution said it "shall" do.

As an admirer of President Trump, you should be disturbed that McConnell announced before the President did. This good and virtuous man (as you see him) was led within a day, by an evil old swamp-turtle with no respect for the Constitution.

Nonsense, they did exactly as the constitution required.

They advised Obama that Harland wasn't going to get their consent, and then proceeded on with business.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I did not say the US constitution mentions right or an obligation, I said under the US constitution President Trump has a right, duty and an obligation

But the same paragraph of the constitution doesn't put a duty or obligation on the US Senate?

Remember the pro tem Mitch McConnell explicitly refused to let the nomination into the Senate. He gave reasons.

to try and confirm any US Supreme Court Justice nominee he wishes for the nation, precedents or no precedents. Please excuse my English, my English not very good, not very bad, but not very good either

It's not the President, it's McConnell who is being blatantly hypocritical here. Either he's following the constitution NOW by being eager to get the nomination approved, because the constitution says Congress "shall". Or he was following the constitution in 2016 when he said he wouldn't. Whatever reason he gave (and it was a flimsy reason about precedent and members needing time to campaign) he alone chose to block the Senate doing what the Constitution said it "shall" do.

As an admirer of President Trump, you should be disturbed that McConnell announced before the President did. This good and virtuous man (as you see him) was led within a day, by an evil old swamp-turtle with no respect for the Constitution.

"But the same paragraph of the constitution doesn't put a duty or obligation on the US Senate?" I did not say that, I said the President has a right, a duty and an obligation to nominate, and try to confirm any US Supreme Court nominee he wishes for the nation, at any time, which he does.

Your comments on McConnell are your personal, political views and feelings you are entitled too.

If any one is being hypocritical and I said if, Democrats are hypocritical too.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

But the same paragraph of the constitution doesn't put a duty or obligation on the US Senate?

Remember the pro tem Mitch McConnell explicitly refused to let the nomination into the Senate. He gave reasons.



It's not the President, it's McConnell who is being blatantly hypocritical here. Either he's following the constitution NOW by being eager to get the nomination approved, because the constitution says Congress "shall". Or he was following the constitution in 2016 when he said he wouldn't. Whatever reason he gave (and it was a flimsy reason about precedent and members needing time to campaign) he alone chose to block the Senate doing what the Constitution said it "shall" do.

As an admirer of President Trump, you should be disturbed that McConnell announced before the President did. This good and virtuous man (as you see him) was led within a day, by an evil old swamp-turtle with no respect for the Constitution.

Nonsense, they did exactly as the constitution required.

They advised Obama that Harland wasn't going to get their consent, and then proceeded on with business.

If the Democrats expand and pack the Court (which is also constitutional), will you be keeping your tune here?

[Telconi]

Nonsense, they did exactly as the constitution required.

They advised Obama that Harland wasn't going to get their consent, and then proceeded on with business.

If the Democrats expand and pack the Court (which is also constitutional), will you be keeping your tune here?

The legality of an action is not subject to "my tune".

[Eukaryotic Cells]

If the Democrats expand and pack the Court (which is also constitutional), will you be keeping your tune here?

The legality of an action is not subject to "my tune".

I'm going to take that as a yes.

[Greater Miami Shores]

The legality of an action is not subject to "my tune".

I'm going to take that as a yes.

You may take it as a yes, but I think he means it as a no.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

But the same paragraph of the constitution doesn't put a duty or obligation on the US Senate?

Remember the pro tem Mitch McConnell explicitly refused to let the nomination into the Senate. He gave reasons.



It's not the President, it's McConnell who is being blatantly hypocritical here. Either he's following the constitution NOW by being eager to get the nomination approved, because the constitution says Congress "shall". Or he was following the constitution in 2016 when he said he wouldn't. Whatever reason he gave (and it was a flimsy reason about precedent and members needing time to campaign) he alone chose to block the Senate doing what the Constitution said it "shall" do.

As an admirer of President Trump, you should be disturbed that McConnell announced before the President did. This good and virtuous man (as you see him) was led within a day, by an evil old swamp-turtle with no respect for the Constitution.

Nonsense, they did exactly as the constitution required.

"They".

The Senate.

The Senate only "does" anything by majority, by 3/5, or by 2/3 vote.

It wasn't the Senate. It was some creepy turtle exercising the will of 50% + 1 of the Senate.

They advised Obama that Harland wasn't going to get their consent, and then proceeded on with business.

No. One person, representing the Senate, did that.

Not what it says in the constitution, my friend.

[Picairn]

For the record, McConnell completely twisted Biden's words out of context. I really wanna swear here but I don't want to get slapped.

See for yourself: https://www.politifact.com/article/2016 ... minations/

Considering Biden's actual words, he opposed SC nominations (or holding hearings if the President decides to nominate one) until after the election.

McConnell simply told Obama to f*** off with Merrick Garland, and held no hearings at all even after election. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick ... %20earlier.

Yep.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm going to take that as a yes.

You may take it as a yes, but I think he means it as a no.

You should stop doing that. You should start thinking about issues, because Identity Politics will make you stupid.

"I am a Republican, therefore when a Democrats says Yes, I say No" ... is identity politics.


If Trump loses, I'm here for you man. You're a good fellow stuck on a bad side.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I'm going to take that as a yes.

You may take it as a yes, but I think he means it as a no.

My point is that I get the feeling that his position is motivated more by partisan urges than it is by a scholarly/unbiased view of what's legal and what's illegal.

For the record, I agree with Telconi's view on the legality of McConnell's actions. I think it was a horrible abuse of power that did a lot of harm to inter-party relations and national cohesion, but it was legal.

If the Democrats pack the court, I'm going to maintain the same position. A horrible abuse of power that harms the country, but legal.

[Greater Miami Shores]

You may take it as a yes, but I think he means it as a no.

You should stop doing that. You should start thinking about issues, because Identity Politics will make you stupid.

"I am a Republican, therefore when a Democrats says Yes, I say No" ... is identity politics.


If Trump loses, I'm here for you man. You're a good fellow stuck on a bad side.

I don't even know what the heck you are talking about. My point is we Republicans and Democrats think differently on most issues, you guys think like Democrats and Democrat supporters, we Republicans and Republican supporters think like Republicans not Democrats.

I have been forced to repeat myself again , like the broken record I am, because the response fits the post.

[The Upper Danube]

Goodbye Judge Bader Ginsberg, you'll be missed. I'm dreading to see who Trump picks to replace her.

the last two turned out not so bad so stop fretting.

Mhm. Honestly, Republican judges make the Supreme Court more dynamic, because they are more literal to the constitution and tend to flip more, whereas the democrats generally vote the same way.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Goodbye Judge Bader Ginsberg, you'll be missed. I'm dreading to see who Trump picks to replace her.

I respect your rights to your views and feelings and your rights to post them to us and anyone, but we Republicans will support and welcome a conservative US Supreme Court Justice nominee without any fears.

I have been very respectful to RBG and I condemned certain of my fellow right wingers for being very disrespectful to RBG, who is now with God the Lord, according to my religious beliefs.