• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

Should Republicans block any nominee from Hillary indefinitely?

Should Republicans block any Hillary SC nominee's?

  • Total voters
    51

There is something wrong with you.
 
MaggieD said:
If what YOU say is true, then it makes no difference, does it??
Click to expand...

Thanks to the tantrum throwing GOP it will be worse with a much more liberal scotus. Folks like you deserve it.
 

where did I say Romney was going to win the election. I always figure the candidate who appeals to losers and failures will beat one who appeals to winners and successful people.

You appear to want to push for a civil war. How do you think the far left would do in such a thing? Are you claiming that you support the lying bitch because you hope she attacks and oppresses people who don't buy into your far left hate?
 
MaggieD said:
Absolutely. We don't need nine justices. We haven't always had nine justices. In fact, I say keep it even. Let 'em duke it out like a jury does.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. We haven't always had nine justices, true, but we have always had an odd number except for three years in the 1860s. And it's not good for the uniformity of federal law to have constant ties which allow conflicting appeals court rulings to stand.

I also think this is short sighted. Yes doing so benefits the conservatives now, but this precedent would be used by the Democrats as soon as they get the opportunity. If this seat remains unfilled until 2020 and suddenly Anthony Kennedy retires or dies then suddenly it's a liberal supreme court and the Democrats would not let the new Republican president appoint any seats.

At best this is a stall for Republicans, while setting a precedent that seriously undermines the legitimacy of the Court as a whole.
 

yeah, but that is different.
 

The ***** GOP and their supporters don't have the balls for a civil war. And Hillary beats the mysogynistic sexual assault enabling idiot like trump.
 

the fact is, this country's constitution has become poisoned by justices who engaged in political nonsense. No ONE can possibly believe that the commerce clause was intended to allow the congress to punish a farmer for growing wheat for his own use on his own farm in Ohio. But the FDR pet monkeys said so. What should have happened was immediate impeachment of both the administration and the justices but in those days no one cared if the FDR administration and the court violated the tenth amendment.

I really don't care much what a foreigner says about our court but you seem to think that as long as our justices do something you like, you don't care about our constitution
 

Partisan much?
 

Excellent points.
 

If you don't vote, then don't bitch about the consequences of not voting and if you choose to vote for a third party candidate that has no chance at all of winning, then don't bitch about the consequences of that either.
 
Last edited:
Praxas said:
The ***** GOP and their supporters don't have the balls for a civil war. And Hillary beats the mysogynistic sexual assault enabling idiot like trump.
Click to expand...

You seem rather agitated and angry towards the GOP. what are the issues that cause such a level of hatred?

Do you think your life will actually improve from what it is now if we get another four years of essentially Obama again
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If you don't vote, then don't bitch about the consequences of not voting and if you choose to vote for a third party candidate that has no chance at all of winning, then don't bitch about the consequences of that either.
Click to expand...

That's dumb. Everyone can complain if they so please.
 

No, it actually pleases me.
 
Henrin said:
That's dumb. Everyone can complain if they so please.
Click to expand...

Your argument was that Hillary should not get to choose the next SCOTUS justice if she wins because all the people that didn't vote for her or voted for someone else. That is what is dumb. If don't want Hillary to win and thus pick Scalia's replacement, then you have to vote for the only individual that has any chance at all of defeating her.
 
Praxas said:
And that just proves how much the GOP and their supporters are crybabies with sour grapes. You and the others just keep letting dems get more seats to shut your asses down. Keep up the good work lol
Click to expand...

How do you figure that?...lol!
 
Fiddytree said:
I agree in sentiment, but I don't foresee Clinton being able to vastly change the ideological composition of the court. She can get one, maybe two hard-liberal picks, but I would doubt she could push her luck further than that.
Click to expand...

If and it looks very likely at this point that the Democrats take control of the senate next year, I would lay odds that Schumer will utilize Reid's nuclear option. All the Democrats need if Hillary wins is four senate seats. The Republicans have 24 up vs. only 10 for the Democrats and nine of those ten Democratic seats look very safe. Illinois, Wisconsin look like a lock for a Democratic gain. Tossup Republican seats are Florida, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. If the Democrats can keep Nevada, then they need two out of the six GOP seats I just mentioned. GOP Rubio has a five point lead in Florida, Bayh has a three point lead in Indiana, The Democrat trails Blount in Missouri by only one, Republican Ayotte has a three point lead in New Hampshire, Republican Burr a two point lead in North Carolina, Pennsylvania Democrat McGinnty is ahead by four.
 
Your Star said:
The election of a president is a pretty damned valid reason.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a very valid reason to give liberals the courts for decades to come. :shrug:
 

She can choose whoever the hell she pleases. What I said is that republicans should not accept anyone she throws their way. There is a difference.
 
TurtleDude said:
ah we're still waiting to pay the dems back for what they did to Bork. But the real crybabies are the Clintonistas when the lying Bitch is perp walked

she's a criminal-you know it, I know it and she knows it
Click to expand...

Robert Bork received and up-or-down vote, and was rejected.
 
Henrin said:
I don't think that is a very valid reason to give liberals the courts for decades to come. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The elected president should be able to select a SCOTUS judge.

God damn whiny conservatives need to grow the **** up.
 
Your Star said:
The elected president should be able to select a SCOTUS judge.

God damn whiny conservatives need to grow the **** up.
Click to expand...

Not a conservative. You should learn to look at leans or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…