Now that Kavanaugh's confirmed...

mark46 · Oct 7, 2018

Thank you so much. ROFL!

OK, so let the Democrats campaign on removing the nuclear option on SCOTUS judges, perhaps all judges. In 2021, if Trump is defeated, the Democrats would just change the rules again. You don't really believe that Democrats want the next Democratic president to need 60 votes for approval of judges, especially SCOTUS judges. The Republicans kept a seat vacant for almost a year when 50 votes were needed. There will be lots of vacant seats if the requirement goes back to 60.

The Democrats implemented the nuclear option. Now, we will all have to live with it indefinitely.

TLK Valentine said:
To insure that, the Senate needs to undo its nuclear option and remove the simple majority for SCOTUS nominees... I sincerely hop that if the Senate flips next month, the new leadership will consider doing that, rather than look to exploit the power that the other side grabbed for itself.

TLK Valentine · Oct 7, 2018

mark46 said:
Thank you so much. ROFL!

OK, so let the Democrats campaign on removing the nuclear option on SCOTUS judges, perhaps all judges. In 2021, if Trump is defeated, the Democrats would just change the rules again.

More than likely -- memories are short, and power is intoxicating.

You don't really believe that Democrats want the next Democratic president to need 60 votes for approval of judges, especially SCOTUS judges.

Nope, that's why I said it's what they need to do, not what they will do.

I have momentary spasms of idealism... not naivety.

The Republicans kept a seat vacant for almost a year when 50 votes were needed. There will be lots of vacant seats if the requirement goes back to 60.

Unless the Republicans and Democrats do what they're supposed to do in these sort of situations -- sit down and talk.

They never will, of course -- but it is what they're supposed to do.

The Democrats implemented the nuclear option. Now, we will all have to live with it indefinitely.

They never implemented it for SCOTUS -- in all fairness, they never should have implemented it at all...

mark46 · Oct 7, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Oh you can forget about states rights. It will be about voting down party lines from here out.

???
States' rights?
You mean like the power of a state to determine the definition of marriage? or what health care options its citizens should have? or what school options their children should have? or whether businesses and schools should give special rights to minorities as required by affirmative action decisions? or whether a voter should be required to have identification?

Why do we believe that there is an inherent right for the Supreme Court to decide cases as we Democrats want it to? The Court has made interventionist decisions, and decisions that have largely been applauded by liberals since 1954.

Sure, we should complain. We should complain that the voters didn't elect enough liberal senators.

The BOTTOM LINE is that liberals lost the most important election in 100 years and the Supreme Court has been changed for decades to come. Many, many conservative justices will have been approved before there is a Democratic Senate, perhaps even another SCOTUS judge or two.

mark46 · Oct 7, 2018

I agree with all your comments. That being said, a minority of Republicans in the Senate held Obama and the courts hostage. They had exactly zero interest in negotiating with regard to any justices, or anything else for that matter.

TLK Valentine said:
More than likely -- memories are short, and power is intoxicating.

Nope, that's why I said it's what they need to do, not what they will do.

I have momentary spasms of idealism... not naivety.

Unless the Republicans and Democrats do what they're supposed to do in these sort of situations -- sit down and talk.

They never will, of course -- but it is what they're supposed to do.

They never implemented it for SCOTUS -- in all fairness, they never should have implemented it at all...

super animator · Oct 7, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
...pay attention to his upcoming vote in Gamble v. United States, which the President could then use to pardon his cronies... even the ones facing trial in state courts -- which so far, has been out or the President's reach.

To wit: Gamble v. United States questions the "separate sovereignty" exception to double jeopardy -- that a man can be tried for the same crime twice, on the state and the federal level.

Gamble v. United States - Wikipedia

Think about it: If Gamble is decided favorably to Donald, he could, in theory, have his DoJ exert federal jurisdiction over a concurrent state crime, issue a quick pardon to the offender on the federal crime, which would render them immune to prosecution on the state level. They get off scot-free.

Keeping in mind that some of Donald's cronies are currently awaiting trial in state courts, all he'd need is a swing vote on SCOTUS to interfere with state legal processes to get his people off... and you just gave him that swing vote.

Remember when conservatives were all about States' rights?

I do not believe that he will be a deciding factor.

LivingWordUnity · Oct 7, 2018

I think Dem leaders burned their bridge to Kavanaugh with that vicious smear campaign against him.

If he was planning to compromise for them before he's probably a lot less likely to do so now.

mark46 · Oct 7, 2018

LivingWordUnity said:
I think Dem leaders burned their bridge to Kavanaugh with that vicious smear campaign against him.

If he was planning to compromise for them before he's probably a lot less likely to do so now.

This is an interesting view of the Supreme Court.

You are correct. Kavanaugh will NOT be compromising for current Democratic leaders. They are truly irrelevant. Kavanaugh is on the Court. He needs to consider no one's views but his own, and those of the rest of Court.

mark46 · Oct 7, 2018

super animator said:
I do not believe that he will be a deciding factor.

I agree. This is most unlikely to be a 5-4 decision.

TLK Valentine · Oct 7, 2018

super animator said:
I do not believe that he will be a deciding factor.

Possibly not -- but he is insurance.

TLK Valentine · Oct 7, 2018

LivingWordUnity said:
I think Dem leaders burned their bridge to Kavanaugh with that vicious smear campaign against him.

If he was planning to compromise for them before he's probably a lot less likely to do so now.

Are you suggesting that Kavanaugh is going to be biased against the left in his decisions due to retaliation?

LivingWordUnity · Oct 7, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
Are you suggesting that Kavanaugh is going to be biased against the left in his decisions due to retaliation?

I didn't say that. I'm just saying he's a lot less likely to do Dems any favors by compromising for them.

Dem leaders are the ones who burned the bridge.

Aldebaran · Oct 7, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
The exception is there for a reason -- The Fifth Amendment states that "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

The key word there is offence, not action. If your action breaks the laws of two sovereign governments, you've committed two offenses... how do they determine who prosecutes you? Flip a coin?

I found this interesting: http://www.icje.org/articles/DoubleJeopardy.pdf

Would this apply to mere accusation of a crime even when no real evidence is presented against the accused, or does the accused person still maintain innocence unless/until proven guilty?

mark46 · Oct 7, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
Are you suggesting that Kavanaugh is going to be biased against the left in his decisions due to retaliation?

What goes around comes around.
At least that's what Kavanaugh said.

TLK Valentine · Oct 7, 2018

Aldebaran said:
Would this apply to mere accusation of a crime even when no real evidence is presented against the accused, or does the accused person still maintain innocence unless/until proven guilty?

Irrelevant to what you quoted. We're talking about separate sovereignty and double jeopardy, not the presumption of innocence.

Start a thread on that topic and it will be relevant.

TLK Valentine · Oct 7, 2018

LivingWordUnity said:
I didn't say that.

I know you didn't say it -- I'm asking if you suggested it.

I'm just saying he's a lot less likely to do Dems any favors by compromising for them.

Does that make him more likely to do the GOP favors by compromising for them?

Dem leaders are the ones who burned the bridge.

How big a bridge should there be between the legislature and the judiciary? Should they be doing favors for one another?

Aldebaran · Oct 7, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
Irrelevant to what you quoted. We're talking about separate sovereignty and double jeopardy, not the presumption of innocence.

Start a thread on that topic and it will be relevant.

Yes sir!
As for double jeopardy, being tried the way you're talking about for state crimes and then federal crimes is no different than how OJ Simpson was tried again after being found not guilty.

LivingWordUnity · Oct 7, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
I know you didn't say it -- I'm asking if you suggested it.

Does that make him more likely to do the GOP favors by compromising for them?

How big a bridge should there be between the legislature and the judiciary? Should they be doing favors for one another?

I didn't suggest it either. I'm just saying I think it's a lot less likely he will do Dems any favors. Why would he compromise for them when Dem leaders did everything in their power to destroy him and his family name because they wanted to block him from being on the Supreme Court?

LivingWordUnity · Oct 7, 2018

Republicans never launched a search and destroy smear campaign against Bader, Sotomayor, or Kagan who never compromise for conservatives on court decisions. So Kavanaugh will be more justified in not compromising for the other side since he was the target of a vicious smear.

TLK Valentine · Oct 7, 2018

Aldebaran said:
Yes sir!
As for double jeopardy, being tried the way you're talking about for state crimes and then federal crimes is no different than how OJ Simpson was tried again after being found not guilty.

No, actually he was sued in civil court by his victim's parents after being found not guilty in criminal court... bit of a difference, there.

TLK Valentine · Oct 7, 2018

LivingWordUnity said:
I didn't suggest it either. I'm just saying I think it's a lot less likely he will do Dems any favors.

How likely was he before?

Why would he compromise for them when Dem leaders did everything in their power to destroy him and his family name because they wanted to block him from being on the Supreme Court?

And why wouldn't he compromise for the GOP by doing them some favors after they did everything to protect him?

Quid pro quo...

Now that Kavanaugh's confirmed...

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dreamer

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

NCC-1701-A

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency