(11-11-2020, 10:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I have to admit if Trump were just given a second term (which would probably turn into a third term because if we are circumnavigating democracy for Trump what makes anyone think he's going to leave office alive?) I'd probably have a bitter laugh at people who told me that voting for a third party candidate was a waste of a vote because they "can't win."

I mean sure, you can vote for someone other than Trump but it's just a wasted vote. 




There are enough Trumps to keep this country under rule until I'm a blissful corpse.  I will say it's funny Jared Kushner doesn't get a turn to be king, though.

(11-11-2020, 10:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If that happens, we can listen to Trump

(11-12-2020, 09:19 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: I voted for Trump in 2016.  I am very sorry.  The man is a loose cannon.

(11-12-2020, 10:20 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'll admit when Trump beat Clinton I was ok with it because at least something interesting might happen.  Looking back I realize that wasn't a wise desire on my part.  America is like a teen girl from the suburbs who wanted to spice up her life by dating a drug dealer and now we can't shake him. 

(11-12-2020, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't vote for him but I had similar thoughts.  Then I think about what would have happened if Hillary had filled 3 SCOTUS seats and I still think it was worth the Trump presidency.  Time will tell if that changes.

(11-12-2020, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't vote for him but I had similar thoughts.  Then I think about what would have happened if Hillary had filled 3 SCOTUS seats and I still think it was worth the Trump presidency.  Time will tell if that changes.

(11-12-2020, 01:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I guess we'll have to see what a 6-3 conservative leading SC does before we declare it to be preferable to what I feel may be an unlikely belief that Clinton would have made the thing ultra-liberal had she had the chance.

If they don't overturn Roe vs Wade shouldn't Trump lovers revolt?

(11-12-2020, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Respectfully this is a bad take. For one, the Trump administration has been an unmitigated disaster on our political institutions.

But just on the issue of the Supreme Court, what kind of justices do you think Clinton could get McConnell to actually allow a vote on? You would have had 3 moderates replacing a very conservative, a moderate, and a very liberal judge. That's a 3-3-3 split. 

(11-12-2020, 01:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, the reason why there were so many judicial vacancies for Trump to fill with unqualified appointees was because McConnell held up Obama nominees across the board. Hell, I don't even know if he'd allow Merrick Garland if Hillary nominated him. 

(11-12-2020, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Respectfully this is a bad take. For one, the Trump administration has been an unmitigated disaster on our political institutions.

But just on the issue of the Supreme Court, what kind of justices do you think Clinton could get McConnell to actually allow a vote on? You would have had 3 moderates replacing a very conservative, a moderate, and a very liberal judge. That's a 3-3-3 split. 

(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA.

(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had no doubt you wouldn't be in agreement with me.  Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA.  I suppose the Dems created a monster like me by targeting law abiding citizens with their illogical bullshit laws while simultaneously treating actual criminals with kid gloves.

(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had no doubt you wouldn't be in agreement with me.  Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA.  I suppose the Dems created a monster like me by targeting law abiding citizens with their illogical bullshit laws while simultaneously treating actual criminals with kid gloves.

(11-12-2020, 01:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's why, IMHO, so many (non) Trump supporters are so dead set against "court packing"...it's all they got from him.  If they supported, either outright or by just not condemning, all the awful things he did and then they STILL don't have a conservative court for the rest of their lives then they did it all for nothing.  

(11-12-2020, 01:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, a little odd to deny a president who is riding out his second elected term a SC nomination while giving one to a soon to be lame duck one term who is about to get voted out and who has already appointed two already.

Oh well.

(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had no doubt you wouldn't be in agreement with me.  Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA.  I suppose the Dems created a monster like me by targeting law abiding citizens with their illogical bullshit laws while simultaneously treating actual criminals with kid gloves.

(11-12-2020, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's really no such precedent to show a Liberal judge is capable of being moderate.

Anybody feel free to name me the Liberal that has been considered a swing vote in SCOTUS

(11-12-2020, 01:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A law isn't unconstitutional until it is determined to be so by the courts. If it is unconstitutional, then a moderate, which is more of a swing vote, would side with a majority saying it was such.

(11-12-2020, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The liberal position is just more often the correct position.

Conservatives are the ones who have to sometimes admit that their position is wrong.

(11-12-2020, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are finally admitting they would have to be right wing extremists in order to agree with your opinion?

(11-12-2020, 01:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I trust a balanced court that is the result of bipartisan agreements more than I trust a 6-3 partisan court that is filled with ideologues hand selected by interest groups. 

(11-12-2020, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We've yet to see how ACB will rule from the SCOTUS bench. But we do know that Gorsuch is quickly becoming the new swing vote and Kavs is ruling a lot more moderately  then many would have allowed you to believe.

There's really no such precedent to show a Liberal judge is capable of being moderate.

Quote:Anybody feel free to name me the Liberal that has been considered a swing vote in SCOTUS