• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Garland speech may signal new phase in confirmation effort

Interesting.

regulate : to put in good order.

That's from a modern dictionary, btw.

control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"


synonyms: supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for; More


....see how easy that is?
 

control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
"the organization that regulates fishing in the region"


synonyms: supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for; More


....see how easy that is?

Cool stuff. Too bad that definition has nothing to do with their usage.
 
Hey Look....we are on the same page. Us Liberals completely support the Republicans doing nothing on this nomination. It helps us two ways: It continues to make the Party of No look like nothing other than an obstructionist party with no ideas other than "NO".....and it keeps a wimpy moderate appointee off the bench and allows President Clinton to put a much more progressive person on. We are with you!
 
only in your spin.....yep......Well Regulated means don't regulate....LOL....

You do realize I provided a definition that supported my case, right? What do you think you even quoted before?
 
LOL....are you serious? You haven't been paying attention then. All the polling says otherwise. Even Republicans have shifted by double digits that he should be confirmed. Pay attention and then you won't make such silly posts.


Lol.. .

Yea, Americans are consumed with Garland and his lack of confirmation.

And the GOP's refusal to start confirmation hearings threatens to not only cost them the election but threatens the very survival of the Republican party..... :roll:

No one gives a rats ass, really. Obama's plan to Politicize the process as a way to paint the GOP as obstructionist has utterly failed.

Sure, the hacks on the left are up in arms, their feigned outrage palpable but who's really paying attention to them ? No one.

Obama thinks he's far more influential than he actually is.

He should try to remember what happened in 2014.

Remember ? He and his Policies and his signature legislation was so toxic to the Democrats chances of keeping the Senate and or gaining seats in the House that they had to be ignored outright.

The President was shut out by his own party. A embarassment, a detriment not a asset.

Of-course the Democrats still got their asses handed to them. If he wants to do you guys any favors he should start by making himself scarce.

Wont help Hillary much though. I admit I like the optimism coming from the left.

You people think that the lack of indictment equates to a guaranteed win in November.....Lol !

Because corrupt establishment is all the rage these days, right ?

You think Americans WANT to vote for a establishment Politican who just got away with something that would of put the average American in prison for years.

That the whole " the law doesnt apply to me because Im a Clinton ( Democrat ) " is what American voters look for in a leader

Cant wait until she tells the American voter that her adminstration will be the most transparent ever.

She almost better off being indicted.
 
And the senate is intentionally denying him hearings.

Yes, thus he doesn't have a case, at all. If the senate refuses to hear and approve his nomination the issue and his nomination are dead in the water. Period.
 
If Garland is openly lobbying for a Senate hearing, then he damn sure isn't someone we need on The Supreme Court.

Yeah, that's a big time judicial decorum no-no.
 
Kasich doesn't stand a chance. Even IF somehow he came away with the nomination....how can you see the party uniting behind the guy who only won one state, his own and has only a little over 100 delegates? If would throw the GOP into disarray, piss of the Trump supporters, Piss off the Cruz supporters as well....probably cause Trump to run third party....and even if he didn't, a lot of voters would be so disillusioned they would stay home. Kasich is running for Trump's VP spot at this point....that's all.

we will see what happens won't we. I must admit, I'd love seeing Hillary indicted. that would be hilarious
 
we will see what happens won't we. I must admit, I'd love seeing Hillary indicted. that would be hilarious

How many years could we make the liberals to eat crow over that?
 
How many years could we make the liberals to eat crow over that?

They'd deny it to their deaths. Remember, "Clinton was impeached for a blowjob". :mrgreen:
 
How many years could we make the liberals to eat crow over that?


my yet to be born grand children would still be milking it decades from now.

But I bought my niece in NYC (a bright but brainwashed Hillary slurped) a "hillary for Prisoner 2016 t-shirt for her 18th birthday. I doubt she will wear it, her prep school friends are just as deluded as she is. they haven't started paying taxes yet
 
They'd deny it to their deaths. Remember, "Clinton was impeached for a blowjob". :mrgreen:

If Hillary, "I got kicked off the Nixon investigation team for ethics violations", Clinton was indicted for a crime, there's no way they could blow it off...no pun intended.
 
last night I heard a GOP talking head claim he was A democrat. He expanded medicare in Ohio. He voted for the clinton gun ban in 94. I guess to a far lefty he's very right wing but most of us who plan on voting GOP see him as a moderate. I support him because Cruz is an ass and Trump is a fraud. Also, and most importantly, Kasich is beating hillary in every poll I have seen. Not so with Trump. Cruz is also losing to her in a majority of the polls I have seen

As an aside, I like Medicaid expansion a lot. When Kasich brings up helping the mentally ill--guess what demographic is going to rely on reimbursements from Medicaid? Yup, you guessed it. Kids and adults with behavioral health needs.
However, he's got a bit of a kink going on right now. His state is being sued for violating Olmstead. On one hand that's bad news. But on the other hand, given so many other states have, and at least Kasich is moving in the right direction, I'm certain that when the state loses its case, you won't get anywhere near the level of fighting some other states have and will. Plus, I'd wager a lot of the blame would be appropriately levied against the Department of Job and Human Services.

He's viewed as an extremist primarily, because:

1) He had pushed for a balanced budget amendment. ---A move I find stupid, but given current circumstances, is hardly registering anymore--and shouldn't.
2) Stripped Planned Parenthood funding at the state level--A move I disagree with, but all things considered, that's about the most "radical" thing he's actually done thus far.

Meanwhile Cruz would do that and a billion other things liberals find extreme. So....all things considered, Kasich not only looks competent, but offers meaningful proposals in comparison with Ted and Trump.
 
Last edited:
Kasich doesn't stand a chance. Even IF somehow he came away with the nomination....how can you see the party uniting behind the guy who only won one state, his own and has only a little over 100 delegates? If would throw the GOP into disarray, piss of the Trump supporters, Piss off the Cruz supporters as well....probably cause Trump to run third party....and even if he didn't, a lot of voters would be so disillusioned they would stay home. Kasich is running for Trump's VP spot at this point....that's all.

That would be a smart move, as it would give the GOP a solid chance to pick up Ohio in the general election. Not many candidates have ever been elected without carrying this bellwether state.
 
If Garland is openly lobbying for a Senate hearing, then he damn sure isn't someone we need on The Supreme Court.

While not publicly lobbying for it, Taft had a hard-on for the appointment and shoved his way to getting Chief Justice by saying he'd accept nothing less. The ability and need to publicly lobby for a position certainly wasn't there in the early 20th century (especially given the limited informational reach to the citizenry), so I wouldn't exactly try to hold the two to the same standards, but these sort of things happen.
 
You mean like when an amendment says "shall not be infringed" and you support limitations being put on the right spoken towards? I believe we call that not supporting the amendment.

Which ignores the rest of the text, its context, and past precedent. I'm a fairly strong supporter of gun rights and have more than a few rifles but I'm willing to acknowledge that it is possible to genuinely come to a different interpretation of the Second Amendment.
 
Which ignores the rest of the text, its context, and past precedent. I'm a fairly strong supporter of gun rights and have more than a few rifles but I'm willing to acknowledge that it is possible to genuinely come to a different interpretation of the Second Amendment.

how? you do understand that the second amendment was intended to guarantee a right the founders all believed existed BEFORE government existed. Now how could the founders want a pre-existing natural right dependent on membership in an organization that is created by government?

the only way you can pretend that the second amendment requires membership in a group that did not pre-exist government is to ignore the entire foundation upon which the founders based the constitution and the bill of rights
 
Sure he will.

When the Senate refuses confirmation he'll have not other place to go except " away "

Obama's plan use Garland as a Politcal pawn so he can paint the GOP as obstructionist isn't working

Voters dont care and Garland needs to understand that

And so does Unitedwestand13. ;)
 
Why do you guys always leave out the "well-regulated" part.....hmmmmmmm.........

so you were taught in law school that the bill of rights contained restrictions on natural rights? Interesting
 
If Garland is openly lobbying for a Senate hearing, then he damn sure isn't someone we need on The Supreme Court.

Sent you a pm but your box is full.
 
Back
Top Bottom