How long must we have this 8 person Supreme Court? (Page 2): It appears to me that you were watching Fox News to see that crowd. I watched the other two channels just to see what was...

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Radiance3 wrote:

============== br Schumer wants to delay it. So th... (show quote)

It appears to me that you were watching Fox News to see that crowd. I watched the other two channels just to see what was going on out on those steps and they just didn't show the same crowd that Fox did. I didn't watch those two to see what was going, but to see what they were showing and try to figure out how they managed it all.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Chocura750 wrote:

This new appointee is a typical Republican judge, v**es for employers versus employees, favors the government over the individual and has rigid uncharitable world view. What did you expect. He also repeats the Republican unt***hful legal philosophy that judges interpret the law and don't make the law. This is meaningful to the low intelligence party members, but not true.

Come on, Chocolate, surely you can somehow figure out that only liberal activist judges think they are to make law rather than to interpret it and apply it to cases that come up. You sound like you are one cinch v**e v**e for Cory Booker. He might not be smart enough to get the nomination but he is running already with stupid words like you just used.

Honestly, Choc, you should be smart enough to know that the duty of courts is to interpret laws not to make laws. Why do we have three branches of government? According to the Constitution one branch(Congress) makes law, another branch interprets the laws(Courts) and the third one enforces those laws. Yes, during the 50s and 60s the Justices of the Supreme Court (liberal majority) did make some law instead of interpreting it. Does it hurt to have some proof rammed up you?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Dave, that is one of the best pictures of the all day behavior of Democrats I have seen.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

lpnmajor wrote:

Well, if you'll recall, ole Mitch poisoned the well......................when he refused to give Obamas nominee ( Garland ) a v**e..................and held the seat open for 17 months. That is now the precedent; no nominee will be approved during an e******n year, or the year before.

Is there a chance that p**********l e******n years aren't the same as mid-terms? Of course, you of the left lean don't see that when you aren't able to win the e******n. I don't think the GOP sees this as precedent and they do outnumber the jackasses in the Senate. It tickles me to know that a******n, whether to keep it or not, may well cause some Dems to v**e for Kavanaugh. Come on and look at both sides, major.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

oldroy wrote:

Is there a chance that p**********l e******n years aren't the same as mid-terms? Of course, you of the left lean don't see that when you aren't able to win the e******n. I don't think the GOP sees this as precedent and they do outnumber the jackasses in the Senate. It tickles me to know that a******n, whether to keep it or not, may well cause some Dems to v**e for Kavanaugh. Come on and look at both sides, major.

Why are mid-terms different? Is there something in the constitution about holding SCOTUS vacancies during P**********l e******n years only? Seems like you're making up rules as you go.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

working class stiff wrote:

Why are mid-terms different? Is there something in the constitution about holding SCOTUS vacancies during P**********l e******n years only? Seems like you're making up rules as you go.

Biden referring to Lame duck POTUS Election years.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

working class stiff wrote:

Why are mid-terms different? Is there something in the constitution about holding SCOTUS vacancies during P**********l e******n years only? Seems like you're making up rules as you go.

I don't know of anything like you suggest in the Constitution. However, the Founders didn't really consider the e******ns to be special determined by whether the e******n was P**********l or not. They didn't really have political parties when they did their work, though.

It seems just a bit foolish, to me, that we have to wait 2 1/2 years to grow the Court back to 9 because Democrats are so sure they can take over the Senate and maybe the Presidency in 2020. I say that we follow the document and appoint the judge before the new Court term starts.

Won't that appointment cause some consternation among progs who remember back when liberal justices were creating law instead of interpreting, and applying it to cases?

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

working class stiff wrote:

Why are mid-terms different? Is there something in the constitution about holding SCOTUS vacancies during P**********l e******n years only? Seems like you're making up rules as you go.

They're different from POTUS e******n years, and even more so on lame duck POTUS e******n years because the POTUS is being elected, or on the case of a lame duck POTUS e******n, it's guaranteed that a "new" POTUS will be elected.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Super Dave wrote:

They're different from POTUS e******n years, and even more so on lame duck POTUS e******n years because the POTUS is being elected, or on the case of a lame duck POTUS e******n, it's guaranteed that a "new" POTUS will be elected.

I wonder if you explained that well enough for a progressive to understand. Great attempt, anyway.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

oldroy wrote:

I don't know of anything like you suggest in the C... (show quote)

Personally, I don't see how the Dems can stop the nomination, much less delay for 2 1/2 years. I was just curious why you think it's right to do it during a P**********l e******n as opposed to a mid term.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

oldroy wrote:

I wonder if you explained that well enough for a progressive to understand. Great attempt, anyway.

Thanks.

I did my best...

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Kevyn wrote:

Don’t worry in 2020 or 21 we will ave 11 justices.

Now, now, Kev...you know that won't happen.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

working class stiff wrote:

Personally, I don't see how the Dems can stop the nomination, much less delay for 2 1/2 years. I was just curious why you think it's right to do it during a P**********l e******n as opposed to a mid term.

I personally thought Mitch should have v**ed Garland out.

It wasn't right not to v**e at all.

Just like it wasn't right for Democrats to refuse to v**e for Estrada for over 2 years.

Just like it wasn't right for Democrats to lie and smear Bork and Thomas.

Lots of things aren't right.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Chocura750 wrote:

This new appointee is a typical Republican judge, v**es for employers versus employees, favors the government over the individual and has rigid uncharitable world view. What did you expect. He also repeats the Republican unt***hful legal philosophy that judges interpret the law and don't make the law. This is meaningful to the low intelligence party members, but not true.

Seriously? That's deranged. It's a good thing you folks are continuing to lose power. You're dangerously unAmerican.

I, however, am happy because the left is being neutered in so many delightful ways.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

BigMike wrote:

Seriously? That's deranged. It's a good thing you folks are continuing to lose power. You're dangerously unAmerican.

I, however, am happy because the left is being neutered in so many delightful ways.

It is fun to watch