• 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

The "existing" law is that abortion is legal. Changing the existing law in order to satisfy a minority of religious zealots and elitists is not justice - it's an abuse of power. Today's trumpublicans are just barbaric.

So sad for you not to able to tell the difference.
What law is that? What Congress passed it? Which President signed it?
 
Did you forget that Obama nominated someone? Why would Trump be the first President to not nominate a replacement?
Did you forget the Republican Majority Congress refused even to consider Obama's nomination? Why would Trump somehow be immune to that? Just because the D flipped to R? That's just partisan hypocrisy.
 
I was starting to like him. Guess he isn't as independent as he claims.

I can't stand the weasel chameleon swamp monkey. But if he votes as he is required and is expected to, then he saves himself from being politically keel hauled later on in Utah where the weasel chameleon swamp monkey currently resides. Utah ain't Massachusetts, that weasel chameleon swamp monkey knows where his feet are currently planted. He is only naturally doing what a weasel chameleon swamp monkey does, so no heroics at all in his decision--- but we will take his vote.
 
welcome to fascism with 1 party controlling a country indefinitely... then the minorities take over and the US turns into a 4th world shithole
What are you bitching about? Your side wants a one party country more than anything by shutting out Conservatives.
 
Did it get overturned? Or are you just blabbing?

What law is that? What Congress passed it? Which President signed it?

You know that I'm talking about the reversal of the Roe V. Wade decision.

When people start acting like obtuse asses it's time to move on.
 
Did you forget the Republican Majority Congress refused even to consider Obama's nomination? Why would Trump somehow be immune to that? Just because the D flipped to R? That's just partisan hypocrisy.
Did you forget the Democrat Majority Congress refused even to consider Bush's nominations? Why would Obama somehow be immune to that? Just because the R flipped to D? That's just partisan hypocrisy.
 
What are you bitching about? Your side wants a one party country more than anything by shutting out Conservatives.

Are you quoting the right person?
 
Looks like stacking the court is the only option dems have now.
I don't know about "packing" the court, but the Dems should express their outrage, put up a good fight that they will lose... then expand the court to 15 in the new term.

I would not advocate "packing" the court, just deluding the impact of a single justice. The politicization of the SCOTUS has been one of the major corrupting forces on American politics over this generation. It needs to stop.

I think it will be hard to pack a court when more people are on it

Exactly. Expand the court and stop this obsession changing the character of the court with each vacancy. It has not been a healthy thing for American politics or our democracy.
 
Anyone else notice how silent the Lincoln Project is with regards to the SCOTUS seat vacancy? Wake up, people. They are not your friends. There are no moderate Republicans. There are just flavors of deplorable.
 
Did you forget the Republican Majority Congress refused even to consider Obama's nomination? Why would Trump somehow be immune to that? Just because the D flipped to R? That's just partisan hypocrisy.
No, the Majority leader found him unsuitable. I am sure Trump's nominee will be suitable in that they respect the Constitution and don't consider the courts to be a way to bypass the amendment process and have the Court be an unending Constitutional convention. That nominee will be put forth for a vote.
 
After his impeachment vote this is Mitt's opportunity to still be good with the GOP and get some lobbying gigs after he leaves the Senate.
He’s not worried about his standing in the GOP. He’s concerned about his future as a senator of Utah.
 
He’s not worried about his standing in the GOP. He’s concerned about his future as a senator of Utah.

A distinction without much of a difference, as far as my intended point was concerned.
 
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.

do you really think that they'd prioritize that well, though? my guess is that they'd choose other highly divisive issues first and then lose the midterms if they manage to overcome Republican voter suppression tactics. either way, i'd support your proposal here. as for stacking the court, i'm not quite there yet.
 
do you really think that they'd prioritize that well, though? my guess is that they'd choose other highly divisive issues first and then lose the midterms if they manage to overcome Republican voter suppression tactics. either way, i'd support your proposal here. as for stacking the court, i'm not quite there yet.

Stacking the court is how you overcome Republican voter suppression tactics. It's baked into the cake. I'd be happy to explain it if you like.
 
do you really think that they'd prioritize that well, though? my guess is that they'd choose other highly divisive issues first and then lose the midterms if they manage to overcome Republican voter suppression tactics. either way, i'd support your proposal here. as for stacking the court, i'm not quite there yet.

Without the SC gerrymandering and voter suppression will be legal.
 
Stacking the court is how you overcome Republican voter suppression tactics. It's baked into the cake. I'd be happy to explain it if you like.
No, stacking the court is how you decide "screw the country, we want political power". Judges that will go against the Constitution are an absolute necessity for the Democrat party to exist. Their principles are not compatible with our Constitution's firewall between our freedoms and government power.

Another Justice that is guided by the Constitution is a grave threat to them, that is why they are talking about such radical measures as packing the Court, admitting new States, and trying to take out the Executive branch.

They are threatening to hurt America, if they don't get their way. Somehow, they think America will reward them for that.
 
No, the Majority leader found him unsuitable. I am sure Trump's nominee will be suitable in that they respect the Constitution and don't consider the courts to be a way to bypass the amendment process and have the Court be an unending Constitutional convention. That nominee will be put forth for a vote.
No they didn't, they didn't even review him. McConnell refused the whole thing. It seems like maybe you did indeed forget. It's convenient for the partisan to forget that when their side fought that which they now support.
 
Stacking the court is how you overcome Republican voter suppression tactics. It's baked into the cake. I'd be happy to explain it if you like.

yeah, but they will win again even if they lose this time. i'm not convinced that there's any way that this won't be the case. they'll just add even more justices. shit, they might do it anyway now that the idea has been brought up. remember, for them, it's about achieving one party rule, and they are unrestrained by any sort of fair play, or even by the law to some extent.
 
yeah, but they will win again even if they lose this time. i'm not convinced that there's any way that this won't be the case. they'll just add even more justices. shit, they might do it anyway now that the idea has been brought up. remember, for them, it's about achieving one party rule, and they are unrestrained by any sort of fair play, or even by the law to some extent.

No. HR1 specifically ends the voter suppression tactics that make Republican victories possible. It also expands voter rights. However, HR1 only survives if the courts are packed.

Also, Republicans can't add justices now. They need both chambers for that.
 
You know that I'm talking about the reversal of the Roe V. Wade decision.

When people start acting like obtuse asses it's time to move on.
As you may know, there was no law passed by Congress, nor signed by any President, that makes abortion legal throughout the land. It was a decision that was made up out of no where by the SC. There is nothing to support that decision. That is a State level power, the Constitution does not give the federal government that power.

That is why the left is going absolutely batty over Ginsburg's death. They need people like her, that will ignore the Constitution and decide cases according to the leftist agenda. This is a huge threat to them. As you see, they are threatening to do all kinds of lunacy to this country. No one acts like they are, unless they've become unhinged from reality.
 
As you may know, there was no law passed by Congress, nor signed by any President, that makes abortion legal throughout the land. It was a decision that was made up out of no where by the SC. There is nothing to support that decision. That is a State level power, the Constitution does not give the federal government that power.

That is why the left is going absolutely batty over Ginsburg's death. They need people like her, that will ignore the Constitution and decide cases according to the leftist agenda. This is a huge threat to them. As you see, they are threatening to do all kinds of lunacy to this country. No one acts like they are, unless they've become unhinged from reality.
The left wants to stack the court because the turtle man keeps cheating. If he had given garland a fair hearing or stuck to the precedent that he created, none this would even be a discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom