One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Will Biden "Pack" The Supreme Court?
Page <<first <prev 5 of 8 next> last>>
Oct 19, 2020 11:38:20   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
RandyBrian wrote:
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.


When it cones to e******ns it is the platform that should prevail, yet the left want nothing that does not fit their agenda of control into a socialistic,UN, One World order, mission.

Our agendas thankfully are diametrical opposed and President Trump is showing them how its done!!

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 11:57:21   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
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.


No difference? Republicans controlled the Senate in both examples.

Let me explain a little strategy to you.

In 2018 all the Democrats gave a $ht about was getting rid of Trump by impeaching him (stupid) and all they've done since is keep it up.

Trump focused his efforts to see the Republicans win the Senate for this very reason and it worked.

Your people employed a losing strategy. That's all. If you keep it within the Constitution, if we lose, we accept it. We may b***h and raise hell but that's the way it's supposed to be.

I know it's counterintuitive to how folks have incrementally been taught! OMG! The "micro-aggressions"! I can't stand it! I can't tolerate it! It should be illegal!

That's hogwash. We can tolerate a LOT and we need to...even with people we love.

Years ago Republicans tried to impeach Klinton for a stupid reason. It had nothing to do with anything other than internal power struggling among people who consider themselves "elite".

The factions used the media to manipulate US...our attitude is critical to the successors.

Republican v**ers, however began to sense skunks in our basement three e******n cycles ago and if you'd care to check a LOT of the people you used to h**e are GONE!

Boehner and Ryan (who has a controlling interest in Fox, somehow, I hear and who you also h**e) come to mind.

Remember despising Bush(s) if you're old enough?

Consider what I've said.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 12:02:45   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
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..


Show me the rule.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 13:04:55   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
BigMike wrote:
Show me the rule.



Lot of footnotes and addems, etc but this is how it is supposed to work..

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

The Process
The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.

When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.

During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.

The Judiciary Committee then v**es on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.

The full Senate debates the nomination.

The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the v**es of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture v**e). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required v**es to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option").

When the debate ends, the Senate v**es on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and v****g is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding v**e.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 14:37:00   #
Auntie Dee
 
PeterS wrote:
That's what conservatives are doing right now so he's going to have to even it out. The best suggestion I heard was to add 20 new judges bringing the total to 29. The point being is that with 29 judges there is less incentive to add far left or far-right candidates because to gain a majority you would have to work towards the center instead of taking a radical action...such as abolishing RvW.

McConnell has made it so Biden HAS to pact the court. If Biden does it first thing then we will have a proactive administration that can undo much of the damage that Trump and McConnell had done to this nation. I would like to see him do it first thing then redoing Obamacare and turn it into law. From that, he has a base from which to attack C***D on and be successful in taking it down.
That's what conservatives are doing right now so h... (show quote)


NO, conservatives ARE NOT PACKING THE COURT!!! SPIN SPIN SPIN that's is all the Democrats KNOW TO DO!!!

Republicans are simply EXERCISING their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to nominate & approve the se******n of the SC Justice of their choice when they are in power via the Presidency & the Senate!!!

"PACKING THE COURT" is something entirely different! IF (a very BIG IF), the Dem's are back in power, they would indeed WATER DOWN THE SUPREME COURT so that it has very little power left at all...so that it can NO LONGER be deterrent to their C*******T agenda!!

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 14:40:44   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
permafrost wrote:
Lot of footnotes and addems, etc but this is how it is supposed to work..

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

The Process
The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.

When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.

During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.

The Judiciary Committee then v**es on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.

The full Senate debates the nomination.

The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the v**es of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture v**e). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required v**es to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option").

When the debate ends, the Senate v**es on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and v****g is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding v**e.
Lot of footnotes and addems, etc but this is how i... (show quote)


And how did the Republican Senate break the rules? How are they different than Dems?

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 14:46:03   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
permafrost wrote:
Lot of footnotes and addems, etc but this is how it is supposed to work..

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

The Process
The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.


Usually?

Quote:
When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.


That didn't happen?

Quote:
The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee.


That didn't happen?

Quote:
The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.


Usually?? Again? What's with the "usually" bit?

Quote:
During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.

The Judiciary Committee then v**es on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.

The full Senate debates the nomination.

The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the v**es of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture v**e). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required v**es to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option").

When the debate ends, the Senate v**es on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and v****g is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding v**e.
During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting an... (show quote)


So your contention is none of that happened?

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 14:50:45   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
BigMike wrote:
So your contention is none of that happened?


Hey, Mike. If I may, I would like to throw in an additional point.
Mrs. Barrett went through all of this two years ago. So all the background checks by the FBI etc have already been done and vetted.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 14:57:06   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Hey, Mike. If I may, I would like to throw in an additional point.
Mrs. Barrett went through all of this two years ago. So all the background checks by the FBI etc have already been done and vetted.


Another thread in and of itself. Irrelevant to the fundamentally dishonest.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 14:59:33   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
BigMike wrote:
Another thread in and of itself. Irrelevant to the fundamentally dishonest.


agreed.

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 15:26:12   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
RandyBrian wrote:
agreed.


It is written:

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works.

Sneaky...incrementally...take advantage of their short lives and shorter memories!

He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing.

All it took was a cell phone and he had 'em.

A little fluff...a little glitz...a little hedonism...a few moments of fame...

We're easy. We still fall for the first lie, "Ye shall be like God" and participate in the first sin. Satan's, in fact, p***e leading to the desire to be God. It's a good thing for Satan's p***e we choose to be so stupid because he definitely isn't original.

They perish because they refused to love the t***h and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the t***h but have delighted in wickedness.

It's crushing to think you aren't the boss is all I can boil it down to.

Not all beings can handle free-will which boils down to going God's way or our own. Satan couldn't.

Hell was "enlarged" out of necessity. It was never meant for us but we can sure choose to go there.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2020 15:29:50   #
Cuda2020
 
RandyBrian wrote:
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.


Not really seeing that, seems her opinions have already been recorded before the review. But we shall see, I'm sure she'll get in there before the e******n. The right has been stacking the deck with republican leaning judges, why do you think that is, because they're all neutral and bipartisan?

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 15:42:44   #
Cuda2020
 
lindajoy wrote:
When it cones to e******ns it is the platform that should prevail, yet the left want nothing that does not fit their agenda of control into a socialistic,UN, One World order, mission.

Our agendas thankfully are diametrical opposed and President Trump is showing them how its done!!


Showing how it's done? Like that last debate, LMAO

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 15:46:07   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
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)


Won’t be a problem he won’t get to!!!!!! Losers

Reply
Oct 19, 2020 15:57:45   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Not really seeing that, seems her opinions have already been recorded before the review. But we shall see, I'm sure she'll get in there before the e******n. The right has been stacking the deck with republican leaning judges, why do you think that is, because they're all neutral and bipartisan?


Not the senators, but yes, I think the judges will do their work based on the Constitution and the law, and not their personal beliefs. I know they can because I have seen it, and because, as the head of various committees through the decades, and as a business manager, I have had to make objective decisions that went against my personal beliefs and desires. It is part of the job for an ethical person in authority, but most especially for a judge.
Not being judgmental, but perhaps your core concern with it is because the Constitution is basically a conservative document, and adhering to it does not serve liberal goals.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 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.