Jump to content
chasfh

The 2020 Presidential Race

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Melody said:

I thought about the fact that it was Rosh Hashana when I heard yesterday via a text from one of my daughters.  But I didn't know that tradition relating to deaths.   Interesting.

My opinion on any appointment is the same as it was when the GOP blocked Garland's appointment:  The President is the President until Inauguration Day and barring some major constitutional defect his appointee should be confirmed.  It was crappy what they did to Garland.  I still believe this.  

I agree with this but the Republicans established a precedent in 2016. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FanDuel Michigan Sports Betting

FanDuel Michigan $100 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching shortly (November or December 2020). Pre-register at FanDuel Sportsbook and get $50 free sports bets + $50 free online casino bets with no deposit necessary. Claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan Now

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

I know I’m a little late on Collins, but I'm thinking her siding with McConnell to ram a justice through might be her only way to win.

that assumes there you can win a majority in Maine on the right side. Recent voting argues that much like the country that support caps somewhere around 40%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Turns out his reaction last night was probably not genuine

Honestly, even if it was fake, I'm still shocked. He has never even been able to fake empathy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

I agree with this but the Republicans established a precedent in 2016. 

Schumer should tell them that if they pass a nominee and then lose the Senate, the next Senate will have zero GOP committee assignments. They can all sit on their hands for the next 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Schumer should tell them that if they pass a nominee and then lose the Senate, the next Senate will have zero GOP committee assignments. They can all sit on their hands for the next 2 years.

They could add two more justices and appoint Obama and Hillary to the supreme court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Melody said:

My opinion on any appointment is the same as it was when the GOP blocked Garland's appointment:  The President is the President until Inauguration Day and barring some major constitutional defect his appointee should be confirmed.  It was crappy what they did to Garland.  I still believe this.  

At the end of the day, the only person whose opinion really matters on this is Mitch McConnell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

They could add two more justices and appoint Obama and Hillary to the supreme court. 

Neither of which have judicial experience.  Ditto Cruz.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. No more of this "this is different because [insert arbitrary and irrelevant justification here]".... just say it's about power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Melody said:

I thought about the fact that it was Rosh Hashana when I heard yesterday via a text from one of my daughters.  But I didn't know that tradition relating to deaths.   Interesting.

My opinion on any appointment is the same as it was when the GOP blocked Garland's appointment:  The President is the President until Inauguration Day and barring some major constitutional defect his appointee should be confirmed.  It was crappy what they did to Garland.  I still believe this.  

So I presume the only nominee you would support is Garland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

So I presume the only nominee you would support is Garland?

I support whomever the sitting President nominates, absent a constitutional bar.  I supported Garland at the time, and am on record doing so here and criticizing the Republicans.   But Obama is no longer the President.

It isn't agreeing with them, but about what is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

They could add two more justices and appoint Obama and Hillary to the supreme court. 

I heard this on CNN. Not the appointees you mentioned, just the fact they could appoint more justices. I'm no expert on the constitution and I need to ask, how many justices can we have? If it is legal to appoint 2 more, that would make me feel much better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Convenient

Convenient that I have applied the same standard to both parties in similar circumstances?  I call it principled.   Sick of the BS game playing and flexible rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Melody said:

Convenient that I have applied the same standard to both parties in similar circumstances?  I call it principled.   Sick of the BS game playing and flexible rules.

The fact that Garland was doomed to failure and whoever Trump nominates is likely to succeed is a pretty big dissimilarity in the situation.

I'm not going to whine and cry about it... Mitch is gonna do what Mitch is gonna do. But he clearly made a move that was precedent setting, only to conveniently turn around and throw it out the window when it was politically expedient.

I think you are perceptive enough to understand why people are frustrated by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The fact that Garland was doomed to failure and whoever Trump nominates is likely to succeed is a pretty big dissimilarity in the situation.

I'm not going to whine and cry about it... Mitch is gonna do what Mitch is gonna do. But he clearly made a move that was precedent setting, only to conveniently turn around and throw it out the window when it was politically expedient.

I think you are perceptive enough to understand why people are frustrated by that.

I get it.  But then, I also remember how much whining there was from the left over McConnell leaving Reid's rules in place when it no longer benefitted the Democrats.    Sick of the machinations from all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Melody said:

I get it.  But then, I also remember how much whining there was from the left over McConnell leaving Reid's rules in place when it no longer benefitted the Democrats.    

OK?

I'm not sure what this has to do with McConnell's obvious hypocrisy on the issue, nor the fact that jamming a nomination through right now is probably going to do more harm than good in terms of the legitimacy of the court.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I heard this on CNN. Not the appointees you mentioned, just the fact they could appoint more justices. I'm no expert on the constitution and I need to ask, how many justices can we have? If it is legal to appoint 2 more, that would make me feel much better. 

The constitution does not name a number of justices. It is left up to the legislature to decide. The last change was in 1869. FDR toyed with adding a couple but didn’t, it wasn’t popular with his party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Turns out his reaction last night was probably not genuine

I am shocked!

Never ever believe anything he says.  He is 100% BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought Trump's appeal was partly that he wasn't a politician...

But I digress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, CMRivdog said:

The constitution does not name a number of justices. It is left up to the legislature to decide. The last change was in 1869. FDR toyed with adding a couple but didn’t, it wasn’t popular with his party

So if Biden wins and the Democrats maintain the House and take the Senate, Biden could appoint 2 justices? The Republicans better be careful if so. Politics are so ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Melody said:

Convenient that I have applied the same standard to both parties in similar circumstances?  I call it principled.   Sick of the BS game playing and flexible rules.

Convenient that you think it principled that maintaining your standard now is more important than righting a wrong regarding the very same standard.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Melody said:

I get it.  But then, I also remember how much whining there was from the left over McConnell leaving Reid's rules in place when it no longer benefitted the Democrats.    Sick of the machinations from all of them.

Not exactly. McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court justices. Harry Reid's rules didn't apply to the Supreme Court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

FanDuel Sportsbook Michigan - Sports Betting is launching in Michigan shortly (November/December 2020). If you register before it launches you will recieve $50 dollars at their online sportsbook and online casino!

Click Here to claim the FanDuel Michigan for $50 at Online Sportsbook & Casino Pre-registration Bonus Now

Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...