• 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!

Mitt Romney backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation

Ikari said:
It's standard Republocrat shenanigans. I don't think that Biden has any more integrity that Moscow Mitch.
Click to expand...
He definitely does not. The only difference is that, in this particular case, Republicans are right to consider a nominee if one is presented. Joe and anyone who agrees with him that a nomination should wait is on the wrong side of history.
 
Gondwanaland said:
No, not really. Hes just filling a vacancy as is precedent. It's happened plenty of times in the past - a president with a Senate of the same party fills on election year. A president with a Senate of a different party doesnt tend to. Nothing new here other than the rabid idiocy of the current Dem party.
Click to expand...
There was no precedent until mcconell made one. He should have just said we cant take up obama's nomination because it's and election year and there is an solar eclipse the following year. That way he wouldn't sound like a hypocrite this year.
 
99percenter said:
Looks like stacking the court is the only option dems have now.
Click to expand...

No, Nancy has some options up her sleeves, according to her. She doesn't wish to discuss them publicly yet, according to her.
 
Metric Mouse said:
He definitely does not. The only difference is that, in this particular case, Republicans are right to consider a nominee if one is presented. Joe and anyone who agrees with him that a nomination should wait is on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...
I agree that Trump has the right to present the Senate with a nominee and the Senate has the right to consider and vote on that nominee. But Mitch is a hypocritical pile of shit because Obama had presented a nominee and the Senate should have done its duty then and considered the nominee. Not just block out the choice because of partisan bullshit.

But R and D are into partisan bullshit as well and if this situation reverses, they'll do what they can to the benefit of their party. And all the people making excuses here for Mitch in 2016 and Mitch in 2020 will be bitching their heads off.
 
RAMOSS said:
No, Nancy has some options up her sleeves, according to her. She doesn't wish to discuss them publicly yet, according to her.
Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but there are few if any mechanisms preventing a confirmation. Democrats can do a little delaying game, but in the face of a determined Republican majority, it won't be effective.

Personally, I hope they confirm Donald Trump Jr. The crazier Republicans drive Democrats, the fewer Democrat holdouts there'll be on the topic of eliminating the filibuster and stacking the courts.
 
Cardinal said:
That's not necessarily true for several reasons:

1) Assuming Democrats retake both chambers and the WH (this discussion is moot otherwise), they'll add PR and DC, thereby lessening the likelihood of Republicans taking back the Senate, and
2) Democrats pass HR1, which severely limits Republican voter suppression efforts.

If both of these things come to pass, Republicans won't get the opportunity to restack the courts.
Click to expand...

welcome to fascism with 1 party controlling a country indefinitely... then the minorities take over and the US turns into a 4th world shithole
 
Cardinal said:
No.

en.wikipedia.org

Admission to the Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

And if you still think I'm wrong, go ahead and find an Amendment adding a state. You're going to be in for a nasty shock.
Click to expand...
Except, it's different in this case, because DC is literally established in the constitution as a Federal place that is to be kept separate from the States. Which is why you'd need to amend the constitution in order to make it a state, unlike ant other area that has ever become a state. Hence it needs an amendment where others do not. DUH. Try reading my posts for comprehension.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Except, it's different in this case, because DC is literally established in the constitution as a Federal place that is to be kept separate from the States. Which is why you'd need to amend the constitution in order to make it a state, unlike ant other area that has ever become a state. Hence it needs an amendment where others do not. DUH. Try reading my posts for comprehension.
Click to expand...
Where in the constitution does it say DC cant be a state?
 
99percenter said:
Looks like stacking the court is the only option dems have now.
Click to expand...
Haven't you heard ... “Bad idea when [FDR] tried to pack the court… If anything would make the court appear partisan it'd be...one side saying, ‘When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we'll have more ppl who will vote the way we want them to.’" - Ruth Ginsburg
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,"- Ruth Ginsburg
And this isn't even Trump's last year.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Except, it's different in this case, because DC is literally established in the constitution as a Federal place that is to be kept separate from the States. Which is why you'd need to amend the constitution in order to make it a state, unlike ant other area that has ever become a state. Hence it needs an amendment where others do not. DUH. Try reading my posts for comprehension.
Click to expand...

Find me the Constitutional Amendment admitting Hawaii.
 
Cardinal said:
Find me the Constitutional Amendment admitting Hawaii.
Click to expand...
So you failed to read my post.

In that case let me turn that around on you: show me any state that was - prior to becoming a state- established in the Constitution as the capital of the nation, placed under federal rule, and made up of land that was seceded from states in order to be established as said capital, under federal government rule.

I'll wait, but won't hold my breath (largely because I doubt you'll read this post either).
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
Haven't you heard ... “Bad idea when [FDR] tried to pack the court… If anything would make the court appear partisan it'd be...one side saying, ‘When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we'll have more ppl who will vote the way we want them to.’" - Ruth Ginsburg
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,"- Ruth Ginsburg
And this isn't even Trump's last year.
Click to expand...
She also wants the next president to replace her? But of course you don't care what she wants, so your quotes are irrelevant.
 
Metric Mouse said:
The only one that has flipped harder than the Republicans on the issue is Joe Biden. It's amazing they don't all have whiplash from spinning so hard.
Click to expand...
Biden didnt set the precedent
 
99percenter said:
So i will take that as you don't have the passage in the constitution that says DC can't be a state.
Click to expand...
So I will take this to mean that you did not read the article that you were given that answers that very question, and that you were never interested in the answer to begin with, and are happy to wallow in your historical ignorance.
 
Cardinal said:
I hate to say this, but there are few if any mechanisms preventing a confirmation. Democrats can do a little delaying game, but in the face of a determined Republican majority, it won't be effective.

Personally, I hope they confirm Donald Trump Jr. The crazier Republicans drive Democrats, the fewer Democrat holdouts there'll be on the topic of eliminating the filibuster and stacking the courts.
Click to expand...
Those democratic holdouts on the filibuster are just idiots i swear.
 
Gondwanaland said:
So I will take this to mean that you did not read the article that you were given that answers that very question, and that you were never interested in the answer to begin with, and are happy to wallow in your historical ignorance.
Click to expand...
I don't read biased conservative blogs. Post the actual passage from the constitution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom