|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Two words for you. Merrick Garland. TWO more words for you: Mitch McConnell. Shortly before the 2016 election when it still looked like Clinton would win, he promised publically that if she won then for her entire term he guaranteed that none of her Supreme Court appointees would ever be confirmed, but rather the Republican Senate would block each and every one of them. Now that, plus what they did to Merrick Garland, is obstruction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: Would you favor your Democratic party making a list of new government mandates to combat global warming, (you know, the disaster we'll all face if the globe warms 1 degree over the next 10 years), and then putting that to a Democratic vote? I'm not sure what your point is with this question, but political parties shouldn't be in the business of proposing national Propositions to be voted on during general elections. Are you talking about a system like we have here in California? Just to let you know, generally I am not a fan of our ability to vote on anything that gets enough signatures to be put on our ballot. I usually vote 'no' on all of them. My point is that it would be "democratic" to take 'issue' votes a lot more than we do. The U.S. is a democratic republic, not a strict democracy, so we allow elected leaders to make many political decisions for us. It's supposed to be the best of both worlds - the people decide, without a tyranny of the majority. I personally don't think we get enough issues votes, considering what the 10th amendment says.
Also, I don't believe your excuse for the use of 'Democrat Party', unless you've lived in a cave since Limbaugh went on the air. But if you promise to use the correct term going forward, then I'll chalk it up to 'lesson learned'. From your link above;
quote: I just can't understand this sensitivity to such minor term usage. One term is an adjective, and the other is a noun. If the noun is getting more and more distanced from the adjective, it only makes sense to use them each where they best belong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
You need to watch it again. Trump made some outrageous claim, like "Our administration has done more than any previous administration" and the foreign leaders immediately started laughing. Trump wasn't clowning around, he was being serious. They laughed at him. After they laughed at him he then said "That's not the response I was expecting". Watch it. You might be right, but it's debatable. Some people do laugh at something, when they're nervous about it, or uninformed about it. If foreign leaders are only getting their information from our mainstream media, they're largely uninformed of course. Unemployment is at an all time low, GDP is at an all time high, etc. but it's all seldom reported. Every time a president has been elected in my lifetime, members and supporters of the opposite party have been angry about it, but after the first year or two, they tend to accept it and the anger does subside somewhat. Not with Trump, as angry as they were when he was elected, the anger has increased. The reason is obvious, the good economy, and other things he campaigned on that he is actually doing.
marc9000 writes: Now, a few weeks later, we have a 53 year old dignified, well qualified man nominated for a very high position, that, with only a few exceptions, has in the past gone through an orderly, respected process to be confirmed to that position. But this time, the opposing political party dug up 36 year old dirt, unproven allegations, from when he was a school child, and this actually saw the light of day, including weeks of wasted time and money, from the U.S., a major player in world affairs, a country over $20 trillion in debt. with troops stationed around the world. And sets everything aside to squabble like school children over the actions of school children. To repeat what you said; Two words for you. Merrick Garland. It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing. Garland's views were very different from those of Scalia. As examples, Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan replaced Justices Souter and Stevens, who had similar judicial philosophies. The vote for Sotomayor was 68 - 31, so several Republicans voted for her. The vote for Kagan was 63 - 37, same thing. So many Republican senators actually respect how the process works, they know that judicial picks are the job of the president, they're only job is to make sure they're qualified. Obama was in the last year of his second term. If McConnell had the ability to stall the vote to keep the Court from becoming one of a "personal opinion" majority instead of a " constitutional" majority, then it was good that he did it. Ginsberg is 85, Breyer is 80. Suppose one of them dies in the spring of 2024. What chance do you think Trump would have in the last year of his second term getting a conservative judge to replace them, if he doesn't have a Senate majority in 2024? Chances are, one or both of them will die before then. It will be interesting to see if Trump nominates someone somewhat more moderate than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, or if he goes for another Constitutionalist. Won't matter to Democrat senators, they'll waste as much of the nations time and money to block it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
TWO more words for you: Mitch McConnell. Shortly before the 2016 election when it still looked like Clinton would win, he promised publically that if she won then for her entire term he guaranteed that none of her Supreme Court appointees would ever be confirmed, but rather the Republican Senate would block each and every one of them. Now that, plus what they did to Merrick Garland, is obstruction. Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Unsurprisingly Trump praises a loser white supremacist who came in second.
Trump: 'Robert E. Lee was a great general' - CNN Video
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 242 Joined:
|
Frank Luntz, from 17 years ago? Yeah, I take his advice to the Democratic Party as just partisan polling.
And of course members of the party are offended, that's my point! They do it on purpose, all the conservative pundits, to 'own the libs'. That's a badge of honor for them. The emphasis on 'rat', just like Jeanine Pirro's slur 'demonrat', is meant to insult, not engage. So why pretend you want some dialogue about an issue with us, while insulting us at the same time? That was my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
marc9000 writes: It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing. That's complete BS. This has never, ever been a tradition. The tradition is that the President appoints judges that have similar views to the President. Do you really think Trump would appoint a liberal if RBG retires? Do you think a Republican Senate would turn down a conservative to replace RBG? Seriously? It's is hypocrisy in the extreme to chide Democrats because they asked for an investigation when Republicans refused to let Obama appoint Merrick Garland for absolutely no valid reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
marc9000 writes: Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.) Care to give an example?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
From The Nation:
White Men Have Good Reason to Be Scared Hell hath no fury like a white man scorned. If you take nothing else from the Senate’s confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, take that much. Kai Wright, a regular columnist at The Nation has an opinion piece that puts the fight over Kavanaugh's confirmation in the context of white men's fears of losing their privileges.
We’ve told ourselves that our most bitter conflict is conservative versus liberal, free enterprise versus big government. Maybe now we are finally ready to be honest about the real point of contention: We are, as we have always been, a nation divided on the topic of white-male power. Warning: this essay is polemics. If that's not your cup of tea, then you're allowed to give it a miss.We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. -- John McCain |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing. Seriously? marc9000 says this on a thread discussing Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy?We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. -- John McCain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
That's complete BS. This has never, ever been a tradition. The tradition is that the President appoints judges that have similar views to the President. Never, ever? How about the 'lineage' (for lack of a better term) leading up to today's Steven Breyer? Breyer replaced Harry Blackmun;
quote: Blackmun replaced Abe Fortas, (nominated by Johnson), who replaced Arthur Goldberg (nominated by John F. Kennedy) A list of 4 left leaning judges. Nixon was being co-operative, I'm sure it's happened many other times in the country's history. Of course, there are always exceptions. By Democrats of course. Clinton nominated Ruth Ginsburg, who replaced Byron White. He was nominated by John F. Kennedy, but was much more conservative than Ginsburg.
quote: So hopefully, today's Republicans won't try to be co-operative like Nixon was, expecting today's Democrats to return the favor. Any co-operation today's Republicans offer will just be used by Democrats to stab them in the back with. That's the reason Lindsay Graham was so fired up at the Kavanaugh hearing. (he voted FOR Sotomayor) I don't look for him to vote for a liberal justice again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.) Care to give an example? How about 4, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing. Seriously? marc9000 says this on a thread discussing Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy? Seriously? Chiroptera sees differences in Kennedy's Supreme Court decisions versus Kavanaugh's Supreme Court decisions when Kavanaugh hasn't even been there long enough to make a Supreme Court decision yet? And they're both WHITE too!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
marc9000 writes: Seriously? Chiroptera sees differences in Kennedy's Supreme Court decisions versus Kavanaugh's Supreme Court decisions when Kavanaugh hasn't even been there long enough to make a Supreme Court decision yet? And they're both WHITE too! What differences have you seen between Merrick Garland's Supreme Court decisions and Antonin Scalia's decisions? Remember, you are the one who said it was inappropriate to replace Scalia with Garland, so let's see those Garland SCOTUS decisions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
marc9000 writes: How about 4, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. I was asking for decisions based on "consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party". Can you name any such decisions?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024