• 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

Gondwanaland said:
Yet another article that goesinto detail why a constitutional amendment would be needed for DC statehood:
www.bostonglobe.com

The Constitution says no to DC statehood - The Boston Globe

It’s not an oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: the Founding Fathers designed it that way.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

If you are not able to click on the articles and read whilst using your grey matter, I understand.......
Click to expand...


A paywalled newspaper article? Really, quote the Constitution; I’m ready to learn........
 
Rexedgar said:
A paywalled newspaper article? Really, quote the Constitution; I’m ready to learn........
Click to expand...
It's not paywalled. Keep making up excuses though,as it's clear you have no interest in learning.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Yet another article that goesinto detail why a constitutional amendment would be needed for DC statehood:
www.bostonglobe.com

The Constitution says no to DC statehood - The Boston Globe

It’s not an oversight that the nation’s capital isn’t a state: the Founding Fathers designed it that way.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

If you are not able to click on the articles and read whilst using your grey matter, I understand.......
Click to expand...
Another opinion piece. Do you know what opinion means? Are you not able to form your own? Here is my opinion. You are a racist and don't want DC to be a state because of its black majority. There is no constitutional obstacle. Just my opinion. Feel free to refute that with the actual passage that you think helps your claim.
 
99percenter said:
Another opinion piece. Do you know what opinion means? Are you not able to form your own? Here is my opinion. You are a racist and don't want DC to be a state because of its black majority. There is no constitutional obstacle. Just my opinion. Feel free to refute that with the actual passage that you think helps your claim.
Click to expand...
That's nice. According to the left I am not capable of racism, as I am not white.

Now, you have the opportunity to read to different articles relating the constitutional issues of DC statehood. Your refusal to even read let alone grasp the argument is your own issue. Come back when you've read and understood. Or not, I couldn't care less.
 
Gondwanaland said:
That's nice. According to the left I am not capable of racism, as I am not white.

Now, you have the opportunity to read to different articles relating the constitutional issues of DC statehood. Your refusal to even read let alone grasp the argument is your own issue. Come back when you've read and understood. Or not, I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...
It would be easier for you to just admit that there is nothing in the constitution about DC statehood instead of constantly looking like you are dodging the question.
 
Taylor said:
Did you respond to the right person? My post was about Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...
I responded to the right person, but it grabbed the wrong quote
 
Taylor said:
Democrats are in love with neocons now, too. Who'da thunk it?

I hear Bill Kristol is circling Biden's campaign as we speak.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Republicans have principles. Saying you’re anti neocon today, means about as much as you saying you were for free trade and low deficits before Trump. The republican base simply follows whatever dogma their leader sells them.
 
99percenter said:
It would be easier for you to just admit that there is nothing in the constitution about DC statehood instead of constantly looking like you are dodging the question.
Click to expand...
Why would I admit something that is demonstrably untrue when I have already posted numerous links that explain the issue in detail? That you arare incapable of or unwilling to read them is not my problem
 
GDViking said:
There is a very big difference between the two.

Last time was nine months between the nomination and the election, now we have five weeks.

Republicans were willing to leave the seat empty for a year. So their sudden urgency is complete bullshit.

The main difference though is the fact that voting has already begun.

This is not during an election year,this is during an ongoing election...
Click to expand...
Of course it's bull. And Democrats who argued in September of 2016 to hold confirmation hearings are now urging against them. Complete bull. On both sides. Nobody cares, as long as it's their guy doing it. So we are left with what is right; and considering a nominee when one is presented is right, and has been repeatedly done in election years before.
 
99percenter said:
I actually don't think it's a bad justification but the GOP can't even admit that what they were doing in 2016 was wrong. Their egos wont let them.
Click to expand...
Oh well. No one cares. Best to celebrate they are doing the right thing now, even if they are egotistical opportunists that were wrong before.
 
bomberfox said:
That precedent never existed until mitch mconnel set it. No dice. Republicans never realized they were wrong, they are just hypocrites.
Click to expand...
No worries. They were wrong then, and are right now. Get back to following the precedent they broke. Great news that Republicans are doing the right thing now, even though they were wrong in 2016.
 
Rexedgar said:
I think the judge from FL checks too many boxes to ignore.........🤷
Click to expand...
I agree. But she hasn't previously been vetted for the position, and Trump looks like he wants this through as quickly as possible, so I doubt it.
 
Gondwanaland said:
No I have no interest in playing god. Just interested in defending the right of life guaranteed in our founding documents of those who cannot and do not have the voice to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees any rights for a zygote or fetus. You are making that up yourself.
 
Gondwanaland said:
I agree. But she hasn't previously been vetted for the position, and Trump looks like he wants this through as quickly as possible, so I doubt it.
Click to expand...


According to my research, Barrett was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 55-43; Logoa was confirmed by a Senate vote of 80-15.
 
iguanaman said:
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees any rights for a zygote or fetus. You are making that up yourself.
Click to expand...
Our founding documents directly recognize the right to the life and liberty of every human in this nation. You just want to pick and choose which humans are counted as humans, much like slave owners did.
 
Rexedgar said:
According to my research, Barrett was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 55-43; Logoa was confirmed by a Senate vote of 80-15.
Click to expand...
Which means little to Trump. Barrett was vetted for the position a year ago, when she was being seriously considered before Kavanaugh was finally chosen. Logoa has not been vetted for the position.
 
Good. Block the progressive agenda in the court. Democrats love court since they can't get any of their left wing nonsense passed.
 
SheWolf said:
The republicans have had a long game strategy of packing the courts. McConnell even admitted it in his autobiography. What the GOP is doing right now, is packing the court. I want a moderate court. I don’t want a packed court. It’s already far more right wing than the general public, but that’s the point
Click to expand...
a moderate court being one that pretends some constitutional rights-usually ones the Right cherishes-can be bargained away?
 
SheWolf said:
I don’t think Republicans have principles. Saying you’re anti neocon today, means about as much as you saying you were for free trade and low deficits before Trump. The republican base simply follows whatever dogma their leader sells them.
Click to expand...
and you think the collectivist left are independent thinkers?
 
TurtleDude said:
a moderate court being one that pretends some constitutional rights-usually ones the Right cherishes-can be bargained away?
Click to expand...
We have more rights than guns.
 
SheWolf said:
We have more rights than guns.
Click to expand...
we do-sadly left-wingers often ignore the ones that are actually set forth in the Bill of rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom