Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Justice Kennedy Retiring
#61
Meh.

In the 1980's, Reagan had three SCOTUS appointees: Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia. Liberals at the time were certain they would overturn Roe v. Wade. It didn't happen.

You never know how things will turn out until they happen.

I think anyone Trump nominates should be considered, but also heavily scrutinized by the Senate. McConnell's defense of "We only postpone during election years" bothers me less than his statement that they would try to "rush through" any appointee. That should be a real concern for everyone, regardless of political ideology.
[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]
#62
..

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]

Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations

-Frank Booth 1/9/23
#63
(06-27-2018, 05:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: The accepted a POTUS with no military or political experience....

After he had locked down the nomination and they had no control over it. This is quite different. 

It'll be some Bush appointee. 
[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#64
(06-29-2018, 11:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: After he had locked down the nomination and they had no control over it. This is quite different. 

It'll be some Bush appointee. 

To get that far the republican voters accepted him.  Voters mean more to elected officials than ethics.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#65
(06-29-2018, 11:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: To get that far the republican voters accepted him.  Voters mean more to elected officials than ethics.

You're stretched thin on this one, man. They're not going to confirm a grossly unqualified nominee to a lifelong position that is arguably the most powerful position in our government because of a fraction of their base. 
[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#66
(06-29-2018, 11:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're stretched thin on this one, man. They're not going to confirm a grossly unqualified nominee to a lifelong position that is arguably the most powerful position in our government because of a fraction of their base. 

Right now Trump is garnering some extremely high support from Republican voters. We need to stop pretending his supporters are only a fraction of their base, because that fraction is like 4/5.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
#67
(06-29-2018, 11:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're stretched thin on this one, man. They're not going to confirm a grossly unqualified nominee to a lifelong position that is arguably the most powerful position in our government because of a fraction of their base. 

(06-29-2018, 11:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right now Trump is garnering some extremely high support from Republican voters. We need to stop pretending his supporters are only a fraction of their base, because that fraction is like 4/5.

I don't know the numbers.  I just know that the current crop of elected GOP haven't challenged Trump on virtually anything....unless they were not running for office again.

That means something.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#68
(06-29-2018, 11:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right now Trump is garnering some extremely high support from Republican voters. We need to stop pretending his supporters are only a fraction of their base, because that fraction is like 4/5.

I'm saying the kind of people who think she should be on the Supreme Court are a fraction. I'm not suggesting they're the majority of his support. I think they're a fraction of the coalition of conservatives who support him. 
[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#69
(06-29-2018, 11:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know the numbers.  I just know that the current crop of elected GOP haven't challenged Trump on virtually anything....unless they were not running for office again.

That means something.

He also hasn't nominated any tv stars to the Supreme Court or the Cabinet. 
[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#70
(06-29-2018, 11:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm saying the kind of people who think she should be on the Supreme Court are a fraction. I'm not suggesting they're the majority of his support. I think they're a fraction of the coalition of conservatives who support him. 

(06-29-2018, 11:19 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He also hasn't nominated any tv stars to the Supreme Court or the Cabinet. 

Ah!  I didn't realize you were talking about versus him picking some extremist judge.

No, that was facetious on my part...and probably serious on Don Fredo's part.   Smirk

I can't seem them approving someone like a FOX News personality.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#71
(06-29-2018, 11:19 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He also hasn't nominated any tv stars to the Supreme Court or the Cabinet. 

He might as well. He's got no shortage of unqualified appointments, and I don't see the GOP challenging much. They want to stay in office and, right now, the only way to maintain their majority is to continue the appearance that they're not in the majority. Besides, they'll want someone pro-business, Trump will want someone pro-business. They won't have much to argue about, which means they can focus on the minority party trying to block the appointment.

Honestly, I look for them to throw up someone marginally unqualified first as a way to say 'look, the liberals are ruining America again!'
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#72
Well he’s already nominated one that was qualified.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)