- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
They'd only apply the letter of the law if it works for them. Otherwise, they'll change the law or try to redefine (or "re-imagine") what it means.
Upvote
0
Notre Dame Professors Urge Barrett to Call for a Halt to Hearings
- Thread starter Fantine
- Start date
They'd only apply the letter of the law if it works for them. Otherwise, they'll change the law or try to redefine (or "re-imagine") what it means.
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
It has nothing to do with "deserve", and everything to do with having the votes. Trump has them in the Senate. Obama did not.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
They have that option, just as the Supreme Court can decide not to hear a case if they don't see a need.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
The votes simply weren't there. Same thing could happen if a Republican president were in office and democrats were in the majority in the Senate. What's the use of having hearings if there was no way the votes were going to be there?
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 6,862
- 7,465
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Only in a world where people vote strictly on party lines. If he's not going to get the votes, fine. But let's still see the vote rather than have the majority leader declare it. That's not democracy. It's a dictatorship.
Based on the polls, Trump isn't going to have the votes to win the election. But we're still having one.
Donald Trump says that Biden has no chance of winning the election. But we're still having one.
Upvote
0
GreatLakes4Ever
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2019
- 3,443
- 4,876
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
That’s an outstanding reason for why the Democrats should expand the Supreme Court. If we only replace exiting members when the president and Senate are from the same party, it would behoove us to have several more members on the Supreme Court to ensure we don’t have the bench vanish. If Clinton has won in 2016 and the Senate didn’t change hands, we’d be down to 6 members right now.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
A dictatorship would be where the president unilaterally decides who to fill a SCOTUS seat with. Or simply increasing the number of SCOTUS seats when he has a majority in power to fill them until his party controls the court.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Then the number of seats in the SCOTUS would increase each time the presidency changed parties. It would turn the court into another legislative branch.
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 6,862
- 7,465
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
History says otherwise.
Justices nominated by Republican Presidents and confirmed by Democratic Senates:
John Marshall Harlan II (1955)
William J Brennan Jr (1957)
Charles Evans Whittaker (1957)
Potter Stewart (1959)
Warren E Burger (1969)
Harry Blackmun (1970)
Lewis F Powell Jr (1971
William Rehnquist (1971)
John Paul Stevens (1975)
Anthony Kennedy (1987)
David Souter (1990)
Clarence Thomas (1991)
List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 6,862
- 7,465
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
That would be a dictatorship too.
Regardless of what you call it though, forgoing a vote in favor of a single person's decision is undemocratic and against the principles of this country. Again, if the votes aren't there, then let them show it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
grasping the after wind
That's grasping after the wind
- Jan 18, 2010
- 19,458
- 6,354
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Trump and McConnel were the other foot. You did not seem to like it when the shoe was on that other foot.
Upvote
0
Kentonio
Well-Known Member
The other foot to what exactly? What did Obama and Reid actually do that needed this kind of response? Both Reid’s actions and Obama’s extensive use of executive orders were a response to the Republicans deciding that the will of the people didn’t matter. That they could shut down an entire presidency via obstruction.
People have the gall to attack Harry Reid for using the supposed ‘nuclear option’ in the senate, but you tell me what was he supposed to do exactly when despite having a Democratic President AND Democratic Senate, the Republicans thought it was just fine and dandy to abuse the filibuster to block everything they possibly could? How exactly is any elected government supposed to serve the people under those conditions?
So you know what? McConnell won. He got 4 years to fill all those hundreds of judicial positions he wouldn’t let the elected Democrats fill, and the SCOTUS seat and the rest of it. Well played Senator, I’m sure you’re feeling very smug about it all. And now when Trump loses and the Democrats regain the senate you can reap the whirlwind. I hope with every fiber of my being that they pay back in full every single one of those affronts to decency and democracy.
Upvote
0
Yep, might makes right. Do whatever one can get away with. Given the predictions for the upcoming election, make sure you're really prepared to commit to this approach.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Right. Voting is already underway means nothing.
It makes me think of a sports event like hockey or football. Imagine how laughable it'd be if a losing team appealed to the ref to disallow a goal the other team got merely because there was only 2 minutes left in the game! Think of in football how even with only 5 seconds left it can still mean everything if the one group is in a huddle for the last play. Sorry boys your touchdown won't count anyway after all don't you see some people have already left the stands and have gone home?
What's the saying? Let me put it politely. The game isn't over until the heavy set lady sings!
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
The idea that people are already voting explains why they were so adamant about allowing early voting, and making it earlier each time.
Upvote
0
Strathos
No one important
- Dec 11, 2012
- 12,663
- 6,531
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think if she wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade she should at least admit it.
Opinion: Amy Coney Barrett's alarming non-answers - CNN
Opinion: Amy Coney Barrett's alarming non-answers - CNN
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,737
- 12,120
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Why??? Did Ruth Bader Ginsberg admit to what she was eventually going to become--the most liberal member of the SCOTUS? Did she tell the Senate during her confirmation hearings that she thought the Constitution of South Africa was more preferable to her than the one she was to take an oath to uphold?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
