|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Dec 24, 2008 12:00:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Streeter on Sept 20, 2020 11:14:31 GMT -5
When Scalia died less than a year before elections was a new Justice pushed through or did they wait till the election was over and that was 9 months before election not 2 months.... or did McConnell block it or threaten to? You tilt the SC too far 1 way n it no longer serves it's intent as it becomes a weapon. SC should always be at least nearly even as far as political bias.
Anyway to get 1 in before election the woman would need to be untouchable n have a background a pure as a fresh snow fall. good luck with that. Otherwise its going to spark drastic action the other way untill its just a tits up cluster f%@! of a situation.
let the winner get the nom. simple
|
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Apr 22, 2002 6:40:17 GMT -5
|
Post by Riley on Sept 20, 2020 11:31:19 GMT -5
..if he picks Logoa, then it be hard for liberals to go against a minority....but, hey, liberals be such as to give her hell.................................... I think we all know the Democrats are not really interested in black or brown people or minorities in general. Instead, they're nothing but tools to be used to their advantage. If the person nominated is a Conservative Republican regardless if they're black, hispanic, asian, female or whatever, you can bet they'll trash them viciously and without mercy especially since they'll be replacing a Democrat partisan hack like Ruth Bussey Ginsburg. ...oh, yeah....but still, if they give her the grief like they gave Kavanaugh, a white man, then it'll show the minorities even more about what kind of scourge they be.....but, hey, they'll just shoot themselves on the foot once more..... |
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Mar 21, 2019 12:37:12 GMT -5
|
Post by fiddlingone on Sept 20, 2020 12:23:59 GMT -5
The SC "should" have zero political bias. It's job is to interpret the law, not make law. If the law needs to be changed or there needs to be a new law, Congress should do that. It doesn't work that way in the real world though. Because of that, I prefer right and you prefer left. If Pelosi or Schumer had their way, they'd ram a lefty through, so full speed ahead. Let's go for Logoa and see what happens.
|
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Sept 20, 2020 12:42:34 GMT -5
All three good choices brilliant principled, and consistent in their interpretation of constitutional issue . Ilike amy barret and reall the only reason shes not on the court now is that folks didnt think she had as extensive a public record as needed. The best choice politically would be Lagoa without question left would have issues trying to demolish her.
While it might be politically risky the blues need to place one of these jurists on in scotus. Election means nothing dems if they win will dismantle the court and constitution as we know it.
Fool senators should realize that. Collins is gone sally ride is gone maybe gardner and tillis we will pick up alabama and keep georgia. 2018 election was nothing this is a definitive election for this country. I think romney will vote correctly the alaskan woman will or will lose her seat romney that jerk may be on his lst leg in utah hope so anyway
|
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Sept 20, 2020 12:58:07 GMT -5
When Scalia died less than a year before elections was a new Justice pushed through or did they wait till the election was over and that was 9 months before election not 2 months.... or did McConnell block it or threaten to? You tilt the SC too far 1 way n it no longer serves it's intent as it becomes a weapon. SC should always be at least nearly even as far as political bias. Anyway to get 1 in before election the woman would need to be untouchable n have a background a pure as a fresh snow fall. good luck with that. Otherwise its going to spark drastic action the other way untill its just a tits up cluster f%@! of a situation. let the winner get the nom. simple Disagree with that as osama bin obama said famously elections have consequences. Last time repubs had power in senate. It had consequences on scotus. Harry reid did away with filibuster on court nominees it bit dems in the ass. Now we have now RBG passed not potus doing of course her wish to be replaced by next potus is a moot issue and of zero consideration. Absolutely guarantee that dems had the chance theyed have the hearing the same day the Hon. RBG was laid to rest and probably come up with some arcane process to put her on the court the next day Now does descency demand the honor to the next elected president probably for most of us but this is political hardball big boy/girl/indeterminate time the asses in the senate have to stand up before and after nov 3rd. If the decision to wait is so damn important joe and chuckie put out your shortlist see how it goes. Well that aint happening now is it at least yet |
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Sept 20, 2020 13:00:56 GMT -5
If there is still a republican senate and trump loses it is possible at least for the one justice we could get a true moderate same if dems try to pack the court. Folks the senate is the real key to orotecting the constitution and im not real secure with that thought
|
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Nov 21, 2002 21:39:38 GMT -5
|
Post by chatycaty on Sept 20, 2020 15:08:45 GMT -5
I think we all know the Democrats are not really interested in black or brown people or minorities in general. Instead, they're nothing but tools to be used to their advantage. If the person nominated is a Conservative Republican regardless if they're black, hispanic, asian, female or whatever, you can bet they'll trash them viciously and without mercy especially since they'll be replacing a Democrat partisan hack like Ruth Bussey Ginsburg. ...oh, yeah....but still, if they give her the grief like they gave Kavanaugh, a white man, then it'll show the minorities even more about what kind of scourge they be.....but, hey, they'll just shoot themselves on the foot once more..... Exactly! And you know Trump and his team are very aware of that same thing making Democrats attack a woman right before the election  |
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Sept 20, 2020 16:13:55 GMT -5
The thing is these women are top notch selections they sre conservative and constitutionalist with excellent records across the board on issues they are fair a d do what they should as jurists they dont make law they leave that to the legislative branch if these courts were toapprove of a law they would be legislators. RBG for all the good she did and with all her brilliance wanted to make law not judge in with regard to the constitution
|
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Nov 21, 2002 21:39:38 GMT -5
|
Post by chatycaty on Sept 20, 2020 16:31:53 GMT -5
What good did Ruth Bussey Ginsburg do?
|
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Apr 22, 2002 6:40:17 GMT -5
|
Post by Riley on Sept 20, 2020 17:47:25 GMT -5
What good did Ruth Bussey Ginsburg do? ...perhaps our resident biden harris voter can answer that question....Streeter, you care to answer Chaty's question?...thanks in advance.... |
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Sept 20, 2020 18:20:31 GMT -5
What good did Ruth Bussey Ginsburg do? Much improvement in womens work place rights and wages. Many of the right to work laws now are children of her court battles. Most of her particular judicial philosophy i do not agree with but work place lawings and hiring practices have improved as in equal work equal pay. She won five major cases in the supreme court primarily in the 70 s for gender and workplace equality rights. Love her or hate her she was a legal genius and believed in what she did not many other then scalia and a couple of others can lay claim to that kind of impact on society. Reagan had that kind of influence not many others i cam think of |
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jun 3, 2002 11:49:19 GMT -5
|
Post by ruppsrunt on Sept 20, 2020 18:51:48 GMT -5
supporting pedophile access to 12/13 year old children as "age of consent" hardly exemplifies Christian/ Jewish beliefs--but she supported such eVIL. Never got it into law. chamberlain believed hitler could be trusted and was ok--we all know how pacifist attitudes toward activist evil turns out. rr  |
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Nov 21, 2002 21:39:38 GMT -5
|
Post by chatycaty on Sept 20, 2020 21:30:38 GMT -5
What good did Ruth Bussey Ginsburg do? Much improvement in womens work place rights and wages. Many of the right to work laws now are children of her court battles. Most of her particular judicial philosophy i do not agree with but work place lawings and hiring practices have improved as in equal work equal pay. She won five major cases in the supreme court primarily in the 70 s for gender and workplace equality rights. Love her or hate her she was a legal genius and believed in what she did not many other then scalia and a couple of others can lay claim to that kind of impact on society. Reagan had that kind of influence not many others i cam think of Those things may seem good to you, but as far as I'm concerned, none of that negates the fact the old hag was a dedicated baby murderer and didn't find an abortion method too abhorrent or barbaric she didn't support. |
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Sept 8, 2001 20:59:02 GMT -5
|
Post by Katman on Sept 21, 2020 7:21:10 GMT -5
Much improvement in womens work place rights and wages. Many of the right to work laws now are children of her court battles. Most of her particular judicial philosophy i do not agree with but work place lawings and hiring practices have improved as in equal work equal pay. She won five major cases in the supreme court primarily in the 70 s for gender and workplace equality rights. Love her or hate her she was a legal genius and believed in what she did not many other then scalia and a couple of others can lay claim to that kind of impact on society. Reagan had that kind of influence not many others i cam think of Those things may seem good to you, but as far as I'm concerned, none of that negates the fact the old hag was a dedicated baby murderer and didn't find an abortion method too abhorrent or barbaric she didn't support. She fought hard for 12 year olds to be able to give consent to adults to have sex. Yes, this is true. |
|
|
Became a Dynasty Defender: Jan 9, 2006 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
Post by houstoncat on Sept 21, 2020 8:04:52 GMT -5
I am not diputing her
views imposed on the masses but she had significant positive impact on womens and general work place rights.
She also has said she didnt think the constitution didnt reall apply to many things now yet on a few issues ery few she we t with consttutkonal law. She was also very outspoken against this president publicly all thst aside she was a brilliant jurist able to drive decisions by force of argument and streaching the limits of constitutional textural meaning that takes brilliance hard work a d force of personLity. I can appreciate whatshe did without agreeing. Her only equal on the court because he was also a brilliant jurist whocould e press in a simple way in writing cogent arguments was Scalia. Thomas is a half step back because he is not as glib with a quieter personality. In fact he should speak up more in the cases he reviews
|
|
