ALF Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Sen Whitehouse presented the most compelling and thorough argument that I have ever seen. He is one heck of a lawyer, follow the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, ALF said: Sen Whitehouse presented the most compelling and thorough argument that I have ever seen. He is one heck of a lawyer, follow the money. And Cruz followed with a complete teardown of Whitehouse assertions 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Klobachar, repeating the same Lincoln claim Harris tried doesn't make it a truth. Congress was not in session so nominating someone would have been fruitless. He did however on the first day they returned to session. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 13 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Oh for the days when only the left loved to tax and spend. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-09/trump-has-approved-a-revised-stimulus-plan-kudlow-says https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-total-cost-of-trumps-new-tariffs/ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932 Somewhere there's a small government Republican Party left. I'm just not sure exactly where. Agree, both parties suck on fiscal responsibility. I don't know which is worse right now. The lefties that are the spenders out in the open or the righties that B word and moan when they aren't in power and then when they are they ignore the matter. Sorry to carry on off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) Klobuchar following the tracks and doing some hunting and shooting down Amy's stances,. Obviously they have differing opinions. Edited October 13, 2020 by Uncle Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Yes I would be fine with it as long as it's within whatever rules exist at that time. Why are you crapping your pants over Barrett? The president has every right to fill that seat. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 How about the parties agree to 9 justices and that the Senate must take up nominations within so many days of the President making such? Fix the constitution on this. Otherwise, the party in power does what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, keepthefaith said: How about the parties agree to 9 justices and that the Senate must take up nominations within so many days of the President making such? Fix the constitution on this. Otherwise, the party in power does what they want. That's kind of what the Calabresi plan would do, as well as rotating Supreme Court justices out after 18 year terms. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/ginsburg-supreme-court-confirmation.html There are other variants of the plan that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, just a statutory fix (for example: justices appointed for life, but rotating out to hear lower appeals or trial court cases after they turn 70 if they decide not to retire) IF the Dems take the presidency and the Senate I hope they don't squander this opportunity. There'd have to be something in it for them -- for example, adding one or two of "their" picks right away -- in order for them to give up the prospect of filling a seat or two for life during the course of the next 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 22 minutes ago, Cinga said: And Cruz followed with a complete teardown of Whitehouse assertions Sen Cruz was very impressive (I'm not watching live version) . btw I'm pro life so I favor restrictions and I respect the law that they decide on. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: That's kind of what the Calabresi plan would do, as well as rotating Supreme Court justices out after 18 year terms. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/ginsburg-supreme-court-confirmation.html There are other variants of the plan that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, just a statutory fix (for example: justices appointed for life, but rotating out to hear lower appeals or trial court cases after they turn 70 if they decide not to retire) IF the Dems take the presidency and the Senate I hope they don't squander this opportunity. There'd have to be something in it for them -- for example, adding one or two of "their" picks right away -- in order for them to give up the prospect of filling a seat or two for life during the course of the next 4 years. always the Democratic plan is to change the rules to their benefit with no heed for having those rules come back to bite them in the ass thank you Harry Reid 3 minutes ago, ALF said: Sen Cruz was very impressive (I'm not watching live version) . btw I'm pro life so I favor restrictions and I respect the law that they decide on. more fun thought if Trump wins and holds enough votes in Senate without Cruz, Cruz could be the next Trump nominee to replace a retiring conservative 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, spartacus said: always the Democratic plan is to change the rules to their benefit with no heed for having those rules come back to bite them in the ass thank you Harry Reid What Prof. Calabresi (by the way, NOT a liberal -- more of a conservative-libertarian) is proposing is not a way to change the rules to benefit one side. It's a compromise to get past these pitched battles in which each President chooses younger and younger nominees so that they can bind future generations to their view of the proper role of the Supreme Court c. 2020. It's become ridiculous, and we need to think of a better way. 18 years terms were selected because as a practical matter that's 6 years longer than any one party has held the presidency since the days of FDR-Truman. Do we really want to go through this all over again when Justice Breyer (82) becomes ill? If Trump wins again do we want to see him hanging on for dear life till he's 86 and a Democrat may be in office? Or vice versa with, say, Justice Thomas (70)? Edited October 13, 2020 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: What Prof. Calabresi (by the way, NOT a liberal -- more of a conservative-libertarian) is proposing is not a way to change the rules to benefit one side. It's a compromise to get past these pitched battles in which each President chooses younger and younger nominees so that they can bind future generations to their view of the proper role of the Supreme Court is c. 2020. It's become ridiculous, and we need to think of a better way. 18 years terms were selected because as a practical matter that's longer than any one party has held the presidency since the days of FDR-Truman. Do we really want to go through this all over again when Justice Breyer (82) becomes ill? If Trump wins again do we want to see him hanging on for dear life till he's 86 and a Democrat may be in office? Or vice versa with, say, Justice Thomas (70)? maybe a better answer is to stop using the Court as an activist platform BOTH parties could then nominate the best candidates to enforce the Constitution as written again - stop changing the rules because you can't get your way 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 22 minutes ago, spartacus said: maybe a better answer is to stop using the Court as an activist platform BOTH parties could then nominate the best candidates to enforce the Constitution as written again - stop changing the rules because you can't get your way We will just have to wait and see. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Dems hold the Presidency, the Senate, and the House after January 20, it will be the Republicans who are lining up to "change the rules" -- a/k/a reform the process. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 The gameplans: Dems vs Kavanaugh - he's a rapist Dems vs Barrett - she will repeal ACA, anyone with a pre-existing condition will die 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said: I was hoping for some Boofing with Amy! Random rape accusations! A quote of "I LOVE BEER!" Am I going to be disappointed? Exactly what kind of Irish Catholic from New Orleans is she? A. The boring kind. A kind I didn't know existed. This is an affront to all Irish Americans, all Catholics, and everyone who just wants to laissez les bontemps rouler! Edited October 13, 2020 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: What would the rights reaction be if the Democrats nominate a Muslim? If said Muslim rules by the law? Got a great friend that is Muslim. Wht are you implying? Edited October 13, 2020 by fansince88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just to reiterate, if the Dems were in the same positions the Repubs are, you can bet the farm they'd be doing the same thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, westside2 said: Why are you crapping your pants over Barrett? The president has every right to fill that seat. ...and she has more lawyering smarts than most if not all of the "purported" lawyers questioning her... 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 I listened to the hearing as I traveled through PA Trump country for 8 hours today. Every dem senator made speeches for the sole purpose of slamming Trump, hoping to hurt his reelection possibility. Whitehorse did not ask Barrett one question during his 30 minutes. Mazie Hirona has to be the stupidest Senator ever. Klobachar is a very accomplished liar. I like her less than I did previously and that says a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 12 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...and she has more lawyering smarts than most if not all of the "purported" lawyers questioning her... This is unquestionably true. Her command of Supreme Court precedent is impressive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 16 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: We will just have to wait and see. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Dems hold the Presidency, the Senate, and the House after January 20, it will be the Republicans who are lining up to "change the rules" -- a/k/a reform the process. the only way that happens is that the Dems change the voting structure to allow more fraud already regions are being allowed to vote and count votes a week or more after the election multiple ballots are being mailed to people long dead always changing the rules because they can't win under the current rules 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 15 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...and she has more lawyering smarts than most if not all of the "purported" lawyers questioning her... I’m thinking the term is photographic memory. It’s very interesting to see someone who is incredibly talented handle the questions thrown at her. The sad fact is that the senators trying to take her out have a paid research team doing all the heavy lifting and outline the points of attack, while the sens want to give the appearance of knowing case law, precedent and the like. It happens when either party is the opposition of course, but it’s either the worst sort of political theater or a really cool David Copperfield illusion depending on how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 57 minutes ago, spartacus said: always changing the rules because they can't win under the current rules They also can't win on their platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 I have to give any nominee a ton of credit. Having to sit there and listen to nonsensical stump speeches for hours on end from political numbskulls with less than the half the intellect of your local paper boy must be excruciating! I’m sure the justice must be thinking ‘and these are the idiots who’re making the laws that I have to rule on’? Sheeesh 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: When "sexual preference" was brought up yesterday I immediately thought how nice it would be to bring bi people into the equation and make Klobachar go nuts. (even more so) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 14, 2020 Author Share Posted October 14, 2020 This judge is one arrogant person 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: This judge is one arrogant person How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 12 minutes ago, Tiberius said: This judge is one arrogant person LMAO......looking in the mirror, she would pale in comparison to your purported omnipotence..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: How so? Probably thinks the compliant leftist judges that legislate from the bench are perfectly fine. They literally arrogate to themselves the power reserved to the people who vote for their representatives in the legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 14, 2020 Author Share Posted October 14, 2020 10 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: How so? Her attitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Her attitude Would you consider a Senator being in the building but not coming to the room and questioning via Zoom an act of "arrogance" or "attitude"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 14, 2020 Author Share Posted October 14, 2020 12 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Would you consider a Senator being in the building but not coming to the room and questioning via Zoom an act of "arrogance" or "attitude"? 12 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Would you consider a Senator being in the building but not coming to the room and questioning via Zoom an act of "arrogance" or "attitude"? Nope, but I’d call the White House super spreader event an act of arrogance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 15, 2020 Share Posted October 15, 2020 That's funny, considering Kammy. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFT Posted October 15, 2020 Share Posted October 15, 2020 After watching Amy Coney Barrett get pulverized by Democrats over 3 days (not for anything she did, but for what she might do) and deflecting every effort and attempt of theirs with the unmistakable grace that her condemners lacked, most of the country said... ”She handled it with grace, intelligence and an unrivaled knowledge of the law.” Tibs... “The judge is one arrogant person.” Remember when your party stood for equality for women, regardless of their beliefs, lifestyle or race? Here you have a women who has demonstrated a knowledge of the law and constitution that maybe a handful of men could rival. She’s dedicated her life to the mastery of her knowledge and it was on full display. At no point did she stray from the law, or constitution. She’s had her career and family dragged through the mud, been accused of being a white colonizer, has her bi-racial adoptions questioned, and that’s just the tip of her experience. At no point did she grin, chuckle, become angry or stoop to anything remotely resembling the disgusting politicians that interviewed her. But Tibs, you know your own unconscious bias is showing. She‘s conservative, faith-based and ran graceful circles around your entire political base, while never referring to a single note as Democrats LITERALLY read their talking points to try and make her stumble. Yep... She’s arrogant, Tibs. Way to see things intelligently and from the lens of neutrality. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 15, 2020 Share Posted October 15, 2020 6 hours ago, Tiberius said: This judge is one arrogant person This comment gets the prize for the dumbest comment of the day but unfortunately that spot will FOREVER be taken by the Senator from Hawaii. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 15, 2020 Author Share Posted October 15, 2020 8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: This comment gets the prize for the dumbest comment of the day but unfortunately that spot will FOREVER be taken by the Senator from Hawaii. Just the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts