• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Damn; can I get you any cheese with that whine?

All Dems have to do is go win the WH and win the Senate. Stop talking about it and get it done. 2020 is your chance.
If Dems put as much energy into getting out the vote rather than crying how they have been taken advantage of by Pubs, they would be a hell of a lot more successful.

YEAH DUMS! All you have to do is get more people to vote for your candidate than the Republican candidate!
 
Damn; can I get you any cheese with that whine?

All Dems have to do is go win the WH and win the Senate. Stop talking about it and get it done. 2020 is your chance.
If Dems put as much energy into getting out the vote rather than crying how they have been taken advantage of by Pubs, they would be a hell of a lot more successful.

Got it. Honesty and integrity don't matter to trumpublicans. As others pointed out,, Moscow mitch has held scores of Obama's judicial nominees. He won't allow dem bills to even come to a vote. That's not politics. That's dereliction of duty. He's certainly not doing the people's business.
 
For Dems to win the senate they have to be about +5 nationally on average. Pubs can pander to their disgruntled white resentment base and just obstruct any progress. The bad news for them is this cynicism is losing them an entire generation of voters and their minority share gets more and more pronounced every election.
 
Damn; can I get you any cheese with that whine?

All Dems have to do is go win the WH and win the Senate. Stop talking about it and get it done. 2020 is your chance.
If Dems put as much energy into getting out the vote rather than crying how they have been taken advantage of by Pubs, they would be a hell of a lot more successful.

LOL. I kind of said that in the post, Pop. The part about the if the Dems win the Senate and WH and try to expand the Courts that your side will scream bloody murder like they've had nothing to do with it? It's not a whine, it's the truth, and you didn't refute any of it.
 
Last edited:
LOL. I kind of said that in the post, Pop. The part about the if the Dems win the Senate and WH and try to expand the Courts that your side will scream bloody murder like they've had nothing to do with it? It's not a whine, it's the truth, and you didn't refute any of it. By the way, do you still think that Republicans don't hate immigrants? Just asking for a friend.

Touche HD. First, tell your "friend" that I hate to disappoint them but I only speak for this Republican and this Republican doesn't hate immigrants. My Grandparents were immigrants. Do I believe in "open borders"? No I do not. I believe anyone who would like to come to this great Country should follow a process as they did.

As far as refuting your statement, I again say, win the election and do what you feel needs to be done. Personally, I think "stacking the Court" is a strategy that the Founding Fathers would frown upon so yes, I would be strongly opposed to that.

And since BD and WB are so interested in my voting intentions, as I have said in the past I will be sitting out the entire federal election process this November. I take my vote seriously and see no one on either the presidential side or senatorial side who deserves my support.
 
Touche HD. First, tell your "friend" that I hate to disappoint them but I only speak for this Republican and this Republican doesn't hate immigrants. My Grandparents were immigrants. Do I believe in "open borders"? No I do not. I believe anyone who would like to come to this great Country should follow a process as they did.

As far as refuting your statement, I again say, win the election and do what you feel needs to be done. Personally, I think "stacking the Court" is a strategy that the Founding Fathers would frown upon so yes, I would be strongly opposed to that.

And since BD and WB are so interested in my voting intentions, as I have said in the past I will be sitting out the entire federal election process this November. I take my vote seriously and see no one on either the presidential side or senatorial side who deserves my support.

The Dems want to not only open the borders completely but really abolish borders all together so you probably shouldn’t vote for them.
 
Touche HD. First, tell your "friend" that I hate to disappoint them but I only speak for this Republican and this Republican doesn't hate immigrants. My Grandparents were immigrants. Do I believe in "open borders"? No I do not. I believe anyone who would like to come to this great Country should follow a process as they did.

As far as refuting your statement, I again say, win the election and do what you feel needs to be done. Personally, I think "stacking the Court" is a strategy that the Founding Fathers would frown upon so yes, I would be strongly opposed to that.

And since BD and WB are so interested in my voting intentions, as I have said in the past I will be sitting out the entire federal election process this November. I take my vote seriously and see no one on either the presidential side or senatorial side who deserves my support.

Unfortunately your Party doesn't seem to agree with you at all about immigration, so your brave personal stand doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the GOP. And the GOP is already "stacking the Courts", and has been for some time, so your point is rather moot there. Somehow I don't think that the Framers would be very happy with a party deliberately abusing the lifetime appointment feature by deliberately naming relatively young adults who will push an ideological and partisan agenda for decades, perhaps well over a generation. No surprise that you would be opposed to the Democrats responding in kind, though.
 
Unfortunately your Party doesn't seem to agree with you at all about immigration, so your brave personal stand doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the GOP. And the GOP is already "stacking the Courts", and has been for some time, so your point is rather moot there. Somehow I don't think that the Framers would be very happy with a party deliberately abusing the lifetime appointment feature by deliberately naming relatively young adults who will push an ideological and partisan agenda for decades, perhaps well over a generation. No surprise that you would be opposed to the Democrats responding in kind, though.

Yes, sorry to disappoint. I know you Dems get a kick out of calling all Pubs, anti-immigrant.
And really, HD. Nothing about naming nominees to the Court that are "young adults with an ideological and partisan agenda for decades" is unconstitutional or "abusing the lifetime appointment feature"
Sounds like sour grapes to me, let alone far from accurate.
 
Touche HD. First, tell your "friend" that I hate to disappoint them but I only speak for this Republican and this Republican doesn't hate immigrants. My Grandparents were immigrants. Do I believe in "open borders"? No I do not. I believe anyone who would like to come to this great Country should follow a process as they did.

As far as refuting your statement, I again say, win the election and do what you feel needs to be done. Personally, I think "stacking the Court" is a strategy that the Founding Fathers would frown upon so yes, I would be strongly opposed to that.

And since BD and WB are so interested in my voting intentions, as I have said in the past I will be sitting out the entire federal election process this November. I take my vote seriously and see no one on either the presidential side or senatorial side who deserves my support.

I’m curious what you don’t like about Harrison.
 
Yes, sorry to disappoint. I know you Dems get a kick out of calling all Pubs, anti-immigrant.
And really, HD. Nothing about naming nominees to the Court that are "young adults with an ideological and partisan agenda for decades" is unconstitutional or "abusing the lifetime appointment feature"
Sounds like sour grapes to me, let alone far from accurate.

Because the vast majority of them don't like immigrants, especially from non-white places, Pop. You can deny it all you want, but the evidence is there if you care to look. You said you opposed Court Packing as something that "the Founding Fathers would frown upon", but you've made it clear that apparently that only applies to Democrats, not Republicans. And god forbid that the Democrats try to do something about it if they win the WH and Senate control this year. After all, isn't that what you keep saying - Democrats just need to win and stop whining and do something about it? Nice to see that you're onboard with that.
 
Apologies if this has already been raised, but 2004 (yes, 2004) Wake Forest grad (Duke Law School), Allison Jones Rushing (Allison Jones at WF) is reportedly among those on Trump's short list for the SCOTUS. She is only 38, and has only sat on the 4th Circuit since March 2019. https://apnews.com/83027e5351a1e40d6ee3ff58c8ba4427

Allison-Jones-Rushing.jpg

I know nothing about her, but there’s no 38 year old that is deserving of being a Federal Circuit Court Judge. Let alone a Supreme Court Justice.
 
Stacking the Court is different than following the rule of law and appointing SC Judges, a Presidential function. I understand the Dems have the right and can change law to add justices if they win the Senate/WH in 2020. And I know its been used (and rebuked) in our history.
But c'mon man, its a dangerous precedent. Even your man Biden is not a fan saying "we'd rue that day" knowing full well that it could come back to haunt you.
RBG herself was on record being against the strategy.

(and that is one scary ass photo. Can we not post it again.)
 
Last edited:
DeacsPops will approve of whatever dirtypool the Republicans use to keep power, but disapprove of Democrats using the same tactics. We shouldn’t be fighting the Republicans with one hand tied behind our back on behalf of temporary support from Anti-Trump Republicans such as him.
 
Not really sure why bastardizing the advise and consent function which is technically allowed by the Constitution is okay but changing the number of Supreme Court members which is technically Allowed by the Constitution isn't okay.
 
Stacking the Court is different than following the rule of law and appointing SC Judges, a Presidential function. I understand the Dems have the right and can change law to add justices if they win the Senate/WH in 2020. And I know its been used (and rebuked) in our history.
But c'mon man, its a dangerous precedent. Even your man Biden is not a fan saying "we'd rue that day" knowing full well that it could come back to haunt you.
RBG herself was on record being against the strategy.

(and that is one scary ass photo. Can we not post it again.)

I hate to tell you this, but there have been a great many precedents shattered under this administration, and I have heard very few Republicans condemn any of them. The Framers never intended for the process of choosing federal judges and justices to become a partisan process, especially if it meant handing lifetime appointments to blatantly political nominees. You can argue all you want that what Republicans did to Garland and the flip-flop they're now making is perfectly OK, but the fact is the GOP has clearly escalated the nominee process into little more than another partisan exercise. The "dangerous precedents" have already been set. What Republicans don't want is to see the Democrats retaliate. That's their problem, and fear.
 
I hate to tell you this, but there have been a great many precedents shattered under this administration, and I have heard very few Republicans condemn any of them. The Framers never intended for the process of choosing federal judges and justices to become a partisan process, especially if it meant handing lifetime appointments to blatantly political nominees. You can argue all you want that what Republicans did to Garland and the flip-flop they're now making is perfectly OK, but the fact is the GOP has clearly escalated the nominee process into little more than another partisan exercise. The "dangerous precedents" have already been set. What Republicans don't want is to see the Democrats retaliate. That's their problem, and fear.

So you believe Biden and RBG are wrong with their assessment?
 
So you believe Biden and RBG are wrong with their assessment?

Yes, yes I do. It's abundantly clear that trying to compromise with Republicans gets Democrats nowhere. Obama nominated a centrist in Garland and got sand kicked in his face. And I do believe that a growing number of people are going to think that as well once this appointment gets rammed through.
 
Yes, yes I do. It's abundantly clear that trying to compromise with Republicans gets Democrats nowhere. Obama nominated a centrist in Garland and got sand kicked in his face. And I do believe that a growing number of people are going to think that as well once this appointment gets rammed through.

I respect that though I disagree that nominating "conservatives" to the Court are "blatantly political nominees".
They have views; they have ways the interpret things. But they are all qualified.
Antoin Scalia was as qualified and exemplary a jurist as RBG was.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top