One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Will Biden "Pack" The Supreme Court?
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
Oct 18, 2020 20:07:03   #
Cuda2020
 
Michael10 wrote:
Well regulated m*****a, Lets examine the word regulated since every other word in the 2nd means so much.

Definition of regulate
t***sitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule
b(1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2) : to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to
regulate one's habits
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
regulate the pressure of a tire

No where in this definition does it call for individuals to carry weapons or anything else without restrictions. regulated would suggest that guns would have to be registered and/or controlled by the government or law officials. Regulate means just that to put regulations on something. Funny all the people who will quote the 2nd amendment to freely carry a weapon and ignore the other words written in that same amendment.
Well regulated m*****a, Lets examine the word regu... (show quote)


Valid point.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 22:28:28   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
What should be done to put an end for majority control is select three judges for each, three to the left, three to the right and three in the middle, unaffiliated. Judges always used to practice neutrality and go by the simple rule of law, looks like that too is a thing in the past.


Not at all. All of the judges Trump has nominated are Constitutional judges. They do exactly what you said. Remain neutral and follow the law under the Constitution. Support Trump's nominee, and you will get what you want.

Reply
Oct 18, 2020 22:38:29   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Valid point.


“A well-regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Words 1 through 12 define WHY. Words 13 through 26 define WHAT.
It does NOT say, nor imply, that the members of a m*****a can keep and bear arms. It does NOT limit citizens in any way. It says SHALL NOT be infringed.
It means you can not take away a citizen's right to keep and bear weapons without due process.
It can NOT be misinterpreted by anyone who does not believe that "the end justifies the means", so let's twist the meaning of the Constitution to fit our desired result.
If you want it changed, get an amendment approved by the states.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 04:24:35   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
permafrost wrote:
You guys are missing it mike.. it is one thing for a nomination to be v**ed down.. it is very much different to violate the rules and not allow the nominee to come to the floor for a v**e..


The Senate had more than enough v**es to v**e down the nomination of Merrick Garland. The Senate leadership decided that rather than waste everybody's time, they wouldn't bother with hearings or a v**e. I understand their thinking, but we would have been better served had they gone ahead and v**ed his nomination down.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 07:26:43   #
Michael10
 
Kickaha wrote:
The Senate had more than enough v**es to v**e down the nomination of Merrick Garland. The Senate leadership decided that rather than waste everybody's time, they wouldn't bother with hearings or a v**e. I understand their thinking, but we would have been better served had they gone ahead and v**ed his nomination down.


You are exactly right, If Garland had received a trial then v**ed down this would be a completely different subject. Republicans lied and said it was because in an e******n year the PEOPLE should v**e first to allow them a voice. Dam I've already v**ed along with millions of other citizens wanting their voice heard. Now Republicans have stifled the voice of over half of the people by rushing through a Judge because they might not win back the Senate. This is simply another power grab by Republicans plan and simple.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 08:28:10   #
Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial
 
Kickaha wrote:
We agree on something. Can you get on board with a budget resolution? Congress has failed to pass an annual budget only four times in over forty years, the last time was in 1996. Both Republicans and Democrats have been in charge during this time. No continuing resolutions, they must complete the budget process. If the budget isn't done, Congress must remain in session until a budget is passed and Congress doesn't get paid until it is done (none of this Congress still gets paid even if no one else in government gets paid). Also Congress doesn't get 'back' pay after they finally pass a budget. Maybe with a little incentive they will actually do their job. I know Congress does more than just pass a budget, but if we can get them to do this essential job first then maybe we can get them to start doing the other parts of their job.
Next we get any laws they pass to apply to them also.
We agree on something. Can you get on board with a... (show quote)


Scary we agree. Lol. I think Congress fails to do the job they were elected to do. To much outside influence from lobbyist. Then they punt to the Supreme Court to make the decision for them (i.e. gun control, a******n, etc). I read somewhere that appointment of justices use to be automatic. Also, I think a lot of citizens done bother to learn the issues & v**e hence big money thinks they have more say. I know you're a trump supporter and I'm glad you're supporting somebody. I think the most important thing is after the e******n, the country moves forward peacefully. There shouldn't be any radical changes that infringe on any of the amendments. Especially the 2nd amendment.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 08:32:31   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
Michael10 wrote:
You are exactly right, If Garland had received a trial then v**ed down this would be a completely different subject. Republicans lied and said it was because in an e******n year the PEOPLE should v**e first to allow them a voice. Dam I've already v**ed along with millions of other citizens wanting their voice heard. Now Republicans have stifled the voice of over half of the people by rushing through a Judge because they might not win back the Senate. This is simply another power grab by Republicans plan and simple.
You are exactly right, If Garland had received a t... (show quote)


Garland's situation was a little different from now. Obama could not run for ree******n and the smart money was on Hillary winning the 2016 e******n. There is no guarantee that she would have picked Garland for her choice for the Supreme Court. This time Trump is up for ree******n and as such it would be his choice to nominate the next justice. It is also the responsibility of the President to nominate someone when an opening occurs. He has done his duty by nominating ACB, it is now up the the Senate to do their duty and either confirm or deny her nomination.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 08:53:19   #
Michael10
 
There is no difference here, Trump is not guaranteed a re-e******n and the peoples voice should be heard. If he is re-elected this could have waited, if not Republicans have stolen a seat. To place a lifetime appointment in the middle of an e******n is a power grab plan and simple doesn't matter how you spin it.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 09:06:00   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
Michael10 wrote:
There is no difference here, Trump is not guaranteed a re-e******n and the peoples voice should be heard. If he is re-elected this could have waited, if not Republicans have stolen a seat. To place a lifetime appointment in the middle of an e******n is a power grab plan and simple doesn't matter how you spin it.


Trump fulfilled his obligation under the Constitution to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court when it occurred. The Senate's duty is to confirm or deny the nominee. The schedule for doing so is up to the Senate. Part of the rush to fill the vacancy is the perceived need for a full court to adjudicate disputes concerning this e******n.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 09:47:26   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Michael10 wrote:
You are exactly right, If Garland had received a trial then v**ed down this would be a completely different subject. Republicans lied and said it was because in an e******n year the PEOPLE should v**e first to allow them a voice. Dam I've already v**ed along with millions of other citizens wanting their voice heard. Now Republicans have stifled the voice of over half of the people by rushing through a Judge because they might not win back the Senate. This is simply another power grab by Republicans plan and simple.
You are exactly right, If Garland had received a t... (show quote)


They are finally learning to fight the democrats with their own tactics. Yes, it is somewhat hypocritical, but not so much as you are implying, and is NOWHERE near as bad as what the democrats have been doing for decades.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 09:52:33   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
woodguru wrote:
Biden won't "do" anything, the president doesn't "do" anything. The responsibility for wh**ever is done lies with the house and senate, and quite frankly it really isn't the president's job to interfere with the people's business as pertains to making laws.

He keeps being asked will he pack the supreme court? The answer is it has nothing to do with him except signing the legislative bills when they are passed. There would be no reason for him to veto such an action if that's what elected officials decide to do.
Biden won't "do" anything, the president... (show quote)


I agree with you. There is no doubt if Trump wins then after that the next incoming president if Democrat will be signing some sort of passage to add more supreme court justices. Of course that was tried before 1937 and pretty well got dropped.
Politics being what it is one never knows....

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 09:53:43   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
RandyBrian wrote:
They are finally learning to fight the democrats with their own tactics. Yes, it is somewhat hypocritical, but not so much as you are implying, and is NOWHERE near as bad as what the democrats have been doing for decades.


In other words you are saying Democrats taught them well, I guess? LOL LOL.. Agreed~~

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 10:30:40   #
Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial
 
RandyBrian wrote:
And, of course, democrats will have no problem making up reasons to impeach them. I wonder how many of them will be accused of colluding with Russia or talking to the Ukraine on the phone? Or will they fall back on the tried and true "sexual assault 30 years ago"? Of course, in a democrat administration evidence will be optional.


I think impeachment requires 60 v**es? Not an easy task.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 10:37:12   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
lindajoy wrote:
In other words you are saying Democrats taught them well, I guess? LOL LOL.. Agreed~~


Exactly. I have NEVER believed that the end justifies the means. nor that winning takes precedence over principle. But those are demonstrably the unofficial mottos of the democrats and l*****ts. I do not think the republicans have embraced those ideas, thankfully, but they are clearly learning they must stand up and FIGHT if they wish to defeat these l*****t evil schemes. The President is showing them what it looks like to have a spine.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 11:11:45   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
Ricktloml wrote:
The Democrat/Socialist Party is more than willing to do any, and everything they can think up to attain and wield unfettered power. Court packing is just one part of the anti-American agenda of the Democrat/Socialist Party. If God forbid they are able to c***t their way back into power, they intend to make sure the American people NEVER have the opportunity to wrest it away from them again. They are totalitarians.


Might as well settle the issue before our kids and grandkids have to.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.