Trump Says Supreme Court Needs Ninth Justice to Decide Election

[apdst]

It's okay if you don't understand what words mean. You can always pick up a book. Knowing you, you might need a few volumes though.

It's ok that you have to resort to personal attacks to mask your lack of knowledge. We expect it from the Left.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It's ok that you have to resort to personal attacks to mask your lack of knowledge. We expect it from the Left.

Lol

For someone who has no problem insulting anyone who disagrees with him, you sure do bitch a lot when its thrown back into your face.

I know you may think its very special, but nothing America has done invalidates the definition of words and what they mean. We are a representative democratic republic. The attempt to distinguish between democracy and republic is pointless, because not only do they not contradict one another (they are in fact complimentary) there is nothing to be gained or lost by accepting this.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I think you mean the heads of some liberals will explode. But these explode quite easily, so it's difficult to get too worried about that.

It's a valid point though. Many recent elections have involved legal challenges. You wouldn't want such a challenge to end in a deadlock at the supreme court. An unfavorable decision is better than no decision. It also makes a great case for sitting a justice before the election.

Actually if the US had an honest electoral system that NEITHER the "Republicans" (whatever that means) NOR the "Democrats" (whatever that means) took great joy in subverting in a naked lust for power (and to hell with the consequences to the country), there wouldn't be so many "legal challenges" (most of which are totally bogus and are instituted solely to advance a political agenda).

 

[Oborosen]

‘I don’t kid’: Trump says he wasn’t joking about slowing coronavirus testing

Administration officials have scrambled in recent days to clean up the president’s remarks from his weekend rally in Oklahoma.

www.politico.com

View attachment 67296480

That's a cute take on the subject, but you're still not showing me something that hasn't been picked apart and laughed off these forums. I mean you must know this by now right?

 

[Oborosen]

Lol

For someone who has no problem insulting anyone who disagrees with him, you sure do bitch a lot when its thrown back into your face.

I know you may think its very special, but nothing America has done invalidates the definition of words and what they mean. We are a representative democratic republic. The attempt to distinguish between democracy and republic is pointless, because not only do they not contradict one another (they are in fact complimentary) there is nothing to be gained or lost by accepting this.

I'd hate to butt in at this point. But the problem with this designation, is that it ignores the fact that we've basically mauled and wrangled them both together. So as to forge a system that is complimentary.

Even going back to the age of ancient Greece. These concepts continually collided.
Don't get me wrong, the system has come about of the evolutionary process that our country allowed and it wasn't easy. But on face value it just wasn't like these concepts would fit together like matched puzzle pieces.

 

[Metric Mouse]

I think McConnell said there will be a peaceful transfer of power, but he is full of shit. He created the McConnell Rule, and then violated it based on absurd logic. It's hard to trust the GOP when they have made themselves out to be a bunch of liars

I think that everyone should be celebrating that the crappy McConnell rule is getting tossed in the waste basket.

 

[Godric1970]

That's a nice opinion for you to have. It's stupid and rather foolish of you to actually voice that out loud, but it's your opinion nonetheless.

The fact that you're own citation is calling you on your BS, for me. Is probably the sweetest icing on this particular cake, that I've had in a while.

he even said himself he does not do jokes

 

[Oborosen]

he even said himself he does not do jokes

Yes, in that conversation. But if you're going to be that desperate as to claim that he meant, every single time he talks, ever. Then I really don't need to explain to you how far from reality, you're actually starting to tread.

 

[snakestretcher]

Let's all let the irony of what snakestretcher just said, sink in for a little bit.

There's no irony in truth. Sorry that reality bothers you so much that you have to deny it exists. Trump is a thief, a fraudster and a racist, and you're defending him.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That's a cute take on the subject, but you're still not showing me something that hasn't been picked apart and laughed off these forums. I mean you must know this by now right?

Im sure others have humiliated you with your own ignorance on this subject alone many times previous when this has come up. I don’t need to even imagine it.

 

[dcsports]

I think that everyone should be celebrating that the crappy McConnell rule is getting tossed in the waste basket.

It would be more accurate to call it the "Biden rule", although it predates even him. People have short memories. And since the President and Senate majority are of the same party it's being followed here.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Silly me. And here I thought that it was American voters who decided the election.

Everything points to the fact that Trump isn't running against Biden, but against democracy.

Trump Talks Up Need for Full Court as He Casts Doubt on Election

President Donald Trump predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the outcome of the November election and argued the Senate should confirm his nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to break any tie.

www.bloomberg.com

He was just joking. That's not what he meant. He really meant to say something else. He's playing 50d chess. Benghazi, Clinton's e-mails. Obama something something.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why would we want a situation where SCOTUS has eight members if they had to make a decision about some issue of election law pertaining to the presidency?

The state legislatures are the ones who choose their electors. And ideally, any sort of problem with their election should be resolved by the state legislature without interference from the courts, state or federal. And if the problem can't be resolved by the particular state legislature (ie. democratically) Congress resolves it (ie democratically).

But lets face it: we all know that in ANY contested election, the Democrats will run to the courts and demand they resolve it. The Republicans would probably also. We all know this. So ensuring there will be no ties in any possible SCOTUS ruling seems like a pretty wise move.

What was your position when the Supreme Court had only eight members, Mr. Trump was NOT the President, and there was an election coming up shortly?

Was it "The incoming President should be the one to decide who fills the vacancy.", or was it "The sitting President should be the one to decide who fills the vacancy."?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So you disagree with counting a vote by mail if the state requirement is a postmark on or before election day?

And what would your position be if the USPS decided, in order to improve the efficiency of the mail flow, (after a nudge by way of an Executive Order) NOT to postmark absentee/mail-in ballots?

Should ballots that the USPS refused/neglected/failed to postmark be counted?

 

[Athanasius68]

What was your position when the Supreme Court had only eight members, Mr. Trump was NOT the President, and there was an election coming up shortly?

Was it "The incoming President should be the one to decide who fills the vacancy.", or was it "The sitting President should be the one to decide who fills the vacancy."?

In 2016 we didn't have all the hysteria about counting the votes, impact of new voting systems pulled together on the fly and so on.

I had the same sort of opinion as the Democrats of today-- Merrick Garland simply didn't have the pants to fill the seat of the great Antonin Scalia.
But it was a pointless view of course-- it's not Scalia's seat then any more than its Ginsbergs today. I wasn't particularly happy or unhappy with keeping the seat open.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The United States isn't a democracy.

If you are using the term "democracy" the way that "Claque Trump" uses is, then you are correct. Of course no other country in the world is such a "democracy" either.

If you are using the term "democracy" to mean a country with universal franchise wherein the government consists of "representatives" chosen through what PURPORT TO BE "free, fair, open, and honest elections", then you are wrong.

However, if you are using the term "democracy" to mean a country with universal franchise wherein the government consists of "representatives" chosen through what ARE "free, fair, open, and honest elections", then you are probably a bit in advance of an actuality that is appearing more and more likely to eventuate.

 

[dcsports]

What was your position when the Supreme Court had only eight members, Mr. Trump was NOT the President, and there was an election coming up shortly?

Was it "The incoming President should be the one to decide who fills the vacancy.", or was it "The sitting President should be the one to decide who fills the vacancy."?

That's a fair point.

Personally, I think it's a bigger issue with this election due to the left making extensive use of the strategy to shotgun the courts with cases. Its very possible we could end up with two different decisions by appeals courts, and could need that tiebreaker at the supreme court.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'd hate to butt in at this point. But the problem with this designation, is that it ignores the fact that we've basically mauled and wrangled them both together. So as to forge a system that is complimentary.

I'm not sure why you think the two systems are radically different or even conflicting.

 

[Deuce]

The Democrats are already planning out how to win the election via the courts.

No, Trump is clearly the one doing this by trying to undermine mail-in votes. He's going to sue and try and get mail-in votes rejected en masse.

And you, apdst, are absolutely going to support him doing so.

 

[Deuce]

That's a fair point.

Personally, I think it's a bigger issue with this election due to the left making extensive use of the strategy to shotgun the courts with cases. Its very possible we could end up with two different decisions by appeals courts, and could need that tiebreaker at the supreme court.

No, that is clearly what the GOP is doing.

 

[Deuce]

It's ok that you have to resort to personal attacks to mask your lack of knowledge. We expect it from the Left.

A republic is a form of democracy, you'd get laughed out a freshman-level polisci course.

 

[iguanaman]

If Trump loses, contests the election, then has it overturned by a split decision after filling RBG's seat, America will literally explode.

That is Trump plan nonetheless. It has also been repeated by others in the Administration and Lindsey Graham too.

https://news.yahoo.com/lindsey-graham-ninth-supreme-court-033853924.html

 

[iguanaman]

Putin has guaranteed him an easily hackable electronic win, but he has to get the massive Biden postal vote discounted by the courts, ending at "his" SC.

I had not even thought of that but now that you mentioned it Trump is saying only votes with no paper trail are "secure".

 

[apdst]

A republic is a form of democracy, you'd get laughed out a freshman-level polisci course.

No it isn't. Stop lying.

 

[apdst]

No, Trump is clearly the one doing this by trying to undermine mail-in votes. He's going to sue and try and get mail-in votes rejected en masse.

And you, apdst, are absolutely going to support him doing so.

The undermining started when the Democrats tried to totally transition to mail in ballots 6 months before the election. That decision was either totally ****ing stupid, or an attempt to rig the election. And you, Deuce, are going right along with it.