+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: A SCOTUS Opening (/Thread-A-SCOTUS-Opening)
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Dill - 09-28-2020
(09-28-2020, 05:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Are people not allowed to change their minds or opinions on specific topics? So you're fine if I bring up old Joe Biden quotes and point out his segregationist past?
Biden was a segregationist?
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-28-2020
(09-28-2020, 07:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So more guns, forced child bearing and births, less health care, and more corporate power.
What else am I missing?
Yes, you forgot mandatory Bible camp, a return to segregation and the complete subjugation of women.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Dill - 09-28-2020
(09-28-2020, 06:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 2 things:
1) anyone that claimed nominating a supreme court justice in an election year is wrong in 2016 but arguing it is okay now is a hypocrite. Likewise, anyone that claimed that it was okay in 2016 but not in 2020 is also a hypocrite.
So you are saying there is no difference in the two situations?
Misusing the nomination process to create an imbalance on the courts doesn't change the situation?
If I were McConnell I might agree with you. Past is past. My opponents should not be hypocrites now, just because I was/am.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 09-28-2020
(09-28-2020, 07:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So more guns, forced child bearing and births, less health care, and more corporate power.
What else am I missing?
She's Catholic oh and don't forget her ties to the Handmaid's Tale cult.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - GMDino - 09-29-2020
(09-28-2020, 06:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 2 things:
1) anyone that claimed nominating a supreme court justice in an election year is wrong in 2016 but arguing it is okay now is a hypocrite. Likewise, anyone that claimed that it was okay in 2016 but not in 2020 is also a hypocrite.
2) Calling people things like "nonsupporterdefendersvotersdefenderssupporters" is, in my non-moderator opinion, a violation of the CoC because it's a personal attack, name calling, and calling people liars. I'm not a moderator and I'm not going to report you for something that may only be just my opinion, but I'd suggest not doing it.
All I'll disagree with here is, to me, the hypocrisy is worse for the people in charge. If the Democrats had control of the Senate now and were saying they wouldn't fill the seat after demanding it be filled in 2016 I'd agree 100% that that is hypocrisy. But McConnell made the rule in 2016 and then broke it himself in 2020. The Democrats are asking him to be consistent even though they wanted something different in 2016. That's why I blame him and the GOP ("Use my words against me") more than the Democrats.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - PhilHos - 09-29-2020
(09-28-2020, 10:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Biden was a segregationist?
Hell if I know. I meant more his seeming opposition to integration. Regardless, are people allowed to change their minds?
(09-29-2020, 10:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: All I'll disagree with here is, to me, the hypocrisy is worse for the people in charge. If the Democrats had control of the Senate now and were saying they wouldn't fill the seat after demanding it be filled in 2016 I'd agree 100% that that is hypocrisy. But McConnell made the rule in 2016 and then broke it himself in 2020. The Democrats are asking him to be consistent even though they wanted something different in 2016. That's why I blame him and the GOP ("Use my words against me") more than the Democrats.
Can't really argue with this.
At least, not right now. But give me time. I'm sure I can think of something.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - NATI BENGALS - 09-29-2020
(09-28-2020, 10:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, you forgot mandatory Bible camp, a return to segregation and the complete subjugation of women.
Oh that’s right. “Religious freedom.”
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - GMDino - 10-12-2020
To the GOP it is LITERALLY life or death to make sure they ram this through.
Ted Cruz is appearing remotely - he went into self-quarantine after coming into contact with Mike Lee. Lee, on the other hand, is at the hearing in person.
— Grace Segers (@Grace_Segers) October 12, 2020
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - GMDino - 10-12-2020
Trump the gang that couldn't lie straight is so bad and everything....
NEW: We asked the White House yesterday about an anti-abortion ad Amy Barrett signed in 2013.
— andrew kaczynski? (@KFILE) October 10, 2020
The WH told us they were looking into it but instead of getting us a comment, Barrett disclosed it to the Senate making it appear they did on their own.https://t.co/RNKufVc6Q8 pic.twitter.com/2YIwuXEDTZ
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - masonbengals fan - 10-12-2020
Biden won't give an honest answer on Supreme Court packing because "the American people don't deserve to know", yet here are the dems demanding that future justice Amy Coney Barrett tell them how she will rule on cases before she has even heard the arguments.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Belsnickel - 10-12-2020
(10-12-2020, 12:54 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Biden won't give an honest answer on Supreme Court packing because "the American people don't deserve to know", yet here are the dems demanding that future justice Amy Coney Barrett tell them how she will rule on cases before she has even heard the arguments.
It's funny you think she doesn't already know how she'll rule.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 10-12-2020
(10-12-2020, 12:54 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Biden won't give an honest answer on Supreme Court packing because "the American people don't deserve to know", yet here are the dems demanding that future justice Amy Coney Barrett tell them how she will rule on cases before she has even heard the arguments.
Because he is in a no win if he does. I believe he will pack if the following happens:
Coney gets a seat
He wins
Dems take the Senate
If any of those 3 do not happen then he can't/won't.
Another issue the Dems have is the oldest sitting justice is Breyer at 82. He's 10 years older than the next oldest.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 10-12-2020
(10-12-2020, 02:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's funny you think she doesn't already know how she'll rule.
Not so funny. How much experience does she have sitting on the Supreme Court listening to various opposing views by other legal minds? Seems unfair to her to say "we know how she'll rule".
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Belsnickel - 10-12-2020
(10-12-2020, 02:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not so funny. How much experience does she have sitting on the Supreme Court listening to various opposing views by other legal minds? Seems unfair to her to say "we know how she'll rule".
She doesn't have much experience as a jurist at all. However, we know her biases with regards to the question of abortion and while we all like to pretend that justices and judges are above those things, it's a naive position to take.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - masonbengals fan - 10-12-2020
People stereotyped Roberts the same way. Honestly, I had never heard of her before this whole thing got started.
My post was directed more towards Biden's position than anything.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 10-13-2020
Apparently Finestien thinks a nominee should give his/her opinnion on every upcoming case without fully reviewing the merits
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - GMDino - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 11:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Apparently Finestien thinks a nominee should give his/her opinnion on every upcoming case without fully reviewing the merits
I mean she already has given her opinion. Republicans just don't care because they share her opinion and then pretend those opinions won't matter.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 10-13-2020
(10-12-2020, 02:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's funny you think she doesn't already know how she'll rule.
I believe Ginsberg herself stated that it was wholly inappropriate for a nominee to entertain those types of hypothetical "how would you rule" answers. I also think your supposition, while not entirely untrue, ignores the extreme differences in potential cases that may come before SCOTUS that deal with the same core issue.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - fredtoast - 10-13-2020
The Dems know they can't stop her appointment. This is all for political show so that all Republicans can be blamed for the repeal of the ACA.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - GMDino - 10-13-2020
Luckily L Graham found away to "just ask" about his opponent during the hearing?
Sen. Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham uses his time to talk about his own race through a Citizens United question: "I can tell you there is a lot of money being raised in this campaign. I'd like to know where the hell some of it's coming from. BUT, that's not your problem." pic.twitter.com/gvQUveEo5L
— The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2020