ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , obituaries , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Supreme Court issues , Supreme Court justices

Reply
Old 19th September 2020, 09:16 AM   #201
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,992
Republicans are being consistent; they consistently argue in favor of whatever will help them through the current moment. Democrats of course are high-minded and principled and so this time around they will stick to their 2016 principle that a Supreme Court nominee should be voted on as soon as one is nominated by the President.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 09:20 AM   #202
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,509
Originally Posted by Cervelo View Post
Is that why California the worlds 5th largest economy can't put out fires or keep the power on? Keep dreaming your dream I hope it comes true for you!
Maybe stick to arguing about bigfoot.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 09:23 AM   #203
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,774
Originally Posted by Cervelo View Post
Is that why California the worlds 5th largest economy can't put out fires or keep the power on? Keep dreaming your dream I hope it comes true for you!
The power is a california issue. Complaining about fires is like asking why louisiana can't stop hurricanes. It is the nature of chaparral.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 09:28 AM   #204
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 29,066
Aren't the power companies private businesses?
If they don't build power stations and distribution grid what is the state supposed to do?
Are you advocating state owned power?
Isn't that socialism?
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 09:57 AM   #205
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,966
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Democrats of course are high-minded and principled and so this time around they will stick to their 2016 principle that a Supreme Court nominee should be voted on as soon as one is nominated by the President.
You think this is a fair characterization? So you believe most Democrats do not make a distinction between a seat opening up in February vs. September? It normally takes two months to seat a Supreme Court Justice. That's plenty of time in February, but not so much now (nevermind the pandemic).

In 2016, Republicans were saying we needed to wait more than a year to fill a vacancy. Democrats were saying it was completely do-able to have hearings. The Republicans weren't even close to choosing a nominee for president.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 10:01 AM   #206
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 4,974
This is a thread about RGB. discussion about how the country might be carved up/dissolve into multiple countries and how they would comparatively perform in economic terms is perhaps more suited to the impending Civil War thread.
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 10:08 AM   #207
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,509
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
This is a thread about RGB. discussion about how the country might be carved up/dissolve into multiple countries and how they would comparatively perform in economic terms is perhaps more suited to the impending Civil War thread.
Damn you, additive color!! Damn you!!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 10:15 AM   #208
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,184
I saw on Twitter that RBG left deathbed instructions that her corpse continue to sit on the bench until after the election at least. It's an interesting proposal, especially since apparently it's the law clerks that do most of the heavy lifting anyway.

But, you know, Twitter. So it's probably not true.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 11:29 AM   #209
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,027
Originally Posted by Cervelo View Post
Is that why California the worlds 5th largest economy can't put out fires or keep the power on? Keep dreaming your dream I hope it comes true for you!
I bet you don't see the irony in your own statement do you?
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 11:59 AM   #210
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,538
Originally Posted by Mitch McConnell
Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.
Try the 1980s, Mitch: The Democratic Senate majority joined Republicans in confirming Anthony Kennedy on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0.

Ted Cruz got called on this once, and inserted an extra clause that made a similar statement true - Kennedy was nominated in 1987, so he said "nominated in an election year" or some such weasel clause. McConnell forgot the weasel clause.

I wish there was an effective way to call McConnell out on this blatant lie. But I can't think of one.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:00 PM   #211
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,366
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
Ted Cruz, 2016, following Justice Scalia’s death.

"I believe that the president should next week nominee a successor to the court, and I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day, this nomination is why Donald Trump was elected."
Ted Cruz, yesterday.
And Lyin' Ted was Lyin' anyhow.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:18 PM   #212
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,946
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Republicans are being consistent; they consistently argue in favor of whatever will help them through the current moment. Democrats of course are high-minded and principled and so this time around they will stick to their 2016 principle that a Supreme Court nominee should be voted on as soon as one is nominated by the President.

No. In 2016 the Republicans and Democrats disagreed over what the proper course of action is when a president nominates a supreme court justice replacement in the final year of their term. Republicans argued that it's proper and traditional to wait until after the election and let the election winner select a nominee to be the new justice; Democrats argued that it's proper and traditional to allow the current president to select a nominee to be the new justice. Republicans won that argument.

The fact they won the argument doesn't mean the Republicans were right about what the policy was prior to 2016 or what the policy should have been in 2016. But it does mean that a precedent was set and that when a supreme court opening comes up during a presidential election year the policy we are now supposed to follow is to wait on the submission of a nominee until after the election so that the election winner can make the selection.

There are basically 2 possibilities: the Republicans were wrong in 2016 when they argued it's proper and traditional to wait, or the Republicans were right in 2016 when they argued it's proper and traditional to wait. Which do you think it is? And, more importantly, which do Republicans now think it is?

If the Republicans still think what they claimed then is right, then the path forward is simple: we continue doing it that way. No nomination should be considered and voted on in the senate until the 2020 election winner is able to make the selection.

But if the Republicans now think what they claimed in 2016 is wrong, there are several choices for how to proceed forward.

(a) The simplest is to admit they were wrong in 2016, apologize for their error then, but acknowledge that a precedent was set in 2016 to wait until after the election and that's now the established rule. If at some future time agreement can be reached to change the policy back to what it used to be that's fine, but until and unless such agreement is reached we continue following the 2016 precedent of waiting. That's a reasonable course which honorable people of both parties should be comfortable with.

(b) Or, there's an alternative honorable course Republicans could take if they now feel that setting a policy of delaying the selection was a mistake which needs to be remedied and that we need to return to the policy of allowing the current president to select the nominee. That's to admit they were wrong in 2016, acknowledge that Merrick Garland's nomination deserved to be voted on, and agree to work with Democrats on addressing and fixing that mistake.

It's too late for Merrick Garland to be considered for the seat Alito left, since that seat has already been filled. But if the GOP now feel that Barack Obama had a right to select a nominee to fill Alito's seat and his selected nominee, Merrick Garland, was improperly denied a vote, then they should pressure Donald Trump to submit Merrick Garland as the nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg and refuse to accept any other nominee from Trump until Garland's nomination has been submitted, discussed and voted on. Once that's been done, there should be no problem returning to previous tradition of letting the sitting president submit a nominee for consideration even during election years -- although, of course, it will likely be quite a ways in the future before the matter comes up again unless another of the current justices dies or resigns before November.

(c) A third path would be for Republicans simply to ignore the wrongness of what they did in 2016 -- denying a Democratic president the chance to fill a supreme court vacancy which occurred during their term in order to steal the opportunity for their party to fill the seat instead -- and simply return to letting the sitting president submit nominees for consideration even in the final year of their presidential term now that the sitting president is a Republican. But obviously it would be very hypocritical and dishonorable on the part of any Republican who chose to follow such a path.

That kind of partisan behavior presents a serious threat to our cooperative democratic form of government, which relies on members of congress putting country above party. There is an obligation for honorable politicians to call out and oppose such partisan behavior when it's as blatant as this and when it's on a matter as important as this. It would be neither high-minded nor principled for Democrats to go along with such a blatantly partisan attempt to subvert the way supreme court justices are approved, and I am surprised you would use those words to describe it. I hope you weren't serious, and that was simply an attempt at humor on your part.

Last edited by Nova Land; 19th September 2020 at 12:22 PM.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:41 PM   #213
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,435
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
No. In 2016 the Republicans and Democrats disagreed over what the proper course of action is when a president nominates a supreme court justice replacement in the final year of their term. Republicans argued that it's proper and traditional to wait until after the election and let the election winner select a nominee to be the new justice; Democrats argued that it's proper and traditional to allow the current president to select a nominee to be the new justice. Republicans won that argument.

The fact they won the argument doesn't mean the Republicans were right about what the policy was prior to 2016 or what the policy should have been in 2016. But it does mean that a precedent was set and that when a supreme court opening comes up during a presidential election year the policy we are now supposed to follow is to wait on the submission of a nominee until after the election so that the election winner can make the selection.

There are basically 2 possibilities: the Republicans were wrong in 2016 when they argued it's proper and traditional to wait, or the Republicans were right in 2016 when they argued it's proper and traditional to wait. Which do you think it is? And, more importantly, which do Republicans now think it is?

If the Republicans still think what they claimed then is right, then the path forward is simple: we continue doing it that way. No nomination should be considered and voted on in the senate until the 2020 election winner is able to make the selection.

But if the Republicans now think what they claimed in 2016 is wrong, there are several choices for how to proceed forward.

(a) The simplest is to admit they were wrong in 2016, apologize for their error then, but acknowledge that a precedent was set in 2016 to wait until after the election and that's now the established rule. If at some future time agreement can be reached to change the policy back to what it used to be that's fine, but until and unless such agreement is reached we continue following the 2016 precedent of waiting. That's a reasonable course which honorable people of both parties should be comfortable with.

(b) Or, there's an alternative honorable course Republicans could take if they now feel that setting a policy of delaying the selection was a mistake which needs to be remedied and that we need to return to the policy of allowing the current president to select the nominee. That's to admit they were wrong in 2016, acknowledge that Merrick Garland's nomination deserved to be voted on, and agree to work with Democrats on addressing and fixing that mistake.

It's too late for Merrick Garland to be considered for the seat Alito left, since that seat has already been filled. But if the GOP now feel that Barack Obama had a right to select a nominee to fill Alito's seat and his selected nominee, Merrick Garland, was improperly denied a vote, then they should pressure Donald Trump to submit Merrick Garland as the nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg and refuse to accept any other nominee from Trump until Garland's nomination has been submitted, discussed and voted on. Once that's been done, there should be no problem returning to previous tradition of letting the sitting president submit a nominee for consideration even during election years -- although, of course, it will likely be quite a ways in the future before the matter comes up again unless another of the current justices dies or resigns before November.

(c) A third path would be for Republicans simply to ignore the wrongness of what they did in 2016 -- denying a Democratic president the chance to fill a supreme court vacancy which occurred during their term in order to steal the opportunity for their party to fill the seat instead -- and simply return to letting the sitting president submit nominees for consideration even in the final year of their presidential term now that the sitting president is a Republican. But obviously it would be very hypocritical and dishonorable on the part of any Republican who chose to follow such a path.

That kind of partisan behavior presents a serious threat to our cooperative democratic form of government, which relies on members of congress putting country above party. There is an obligation for honorable politicians to call out and oppose such partisan behavior when it's as blatant as this and when it's on a matter as important as this. It would be neither high-minded nor principled for Democrats to go along with such a blatantly partisan attempt to subvert the way supreme court justices are approved, and I am surprised you would use those words to describe it. I hope you weren't serious, and that was simply an attempt at humor on your part.
1. Do the rules allow behavior X? Yes.
2. Do the rules allow behavior Y, which is the opposite of X? Yes.
3. Do the rules allow the same person to do X at one point in time, and Y at another? Yes.

There appears to be nothing in the rules about being consistent, being decent, being ethnical, or not being an unmitigated donkey-butt. If those are principles that matter to the people, the people ought to see that the rules are amended to reflect them. Until such time, the rules is what the rules is, and every player is going to play to their own maximum advantage at every opportunity allowed within the rules. Expecting anything else is naive, if not downright idiotic. One wins a game by winning, not by nobly exemplifying one's dedication to rules from a different game, or rules as they should be in an ideal world, or rules as they will be amended in a future date TBD.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:43 PM   #214
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,538
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
Ted Cruz, 2016, following Justice Scalia’s death.
See, this is how Ted Cruz split this hair. By sticking the "nominated" in there he is not technically lying.

Why is he in such a rush to do it before the election? I can't see any tactical advantage. There are some tight Senate races in which being seen as a Trump lackey really has no obvious upside. And it's pretty ******* rich that contenders for the seat are loudly calling for swift action.

It's possible that calling for such action is the main point - a bit of virtue signaling while knowing some GOP senators are going to be balk at the timeline.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:50 PM   #215
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
....
Why is he in such a rush to do it before the election? I can't see any tactical advantage. There are some tight Senate races in which being seen as a Trump lackey really has no obvious upside. And it's pretty ******* rich that contenders for the seat are loudly calling for swift action.
....
If they do it now, they can at least claim that they are exercising their legitimate authority. If they do it during a lame-duck session after an election that puts Biden in the White House and turns the Senate to the Dems, it is a blatant abuse of power.

Last edited by Bob001; 19th September 2020 at 12:59 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:54 PM   #216
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,027
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
If they do it now, they can at least claim that they are exercising their legitimate authority. If they do it after an election that puts Biden in the White House and turns the Senate to the Dems, it is a blatant abuse of power.
As if they care.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:55 PM   #217
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,435
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
If they do it now, they can at least claim that they are exercising their legitimate authority. If they do it after an election that puts Biden in the White House and turns the Senate to the Dems, it is a blatant abuse of power.
No, it would be a jerk move, but it wouldn't be an abuse of power because that power is entirely legitimately theirs at that point. Just because you, me, anyone, or everyone wishes they would choose not to do something doesn't mean it's abuse of power. It's just power.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:56 PM   #218
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,225
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
As they should complain.....and then take the vote on Trump's nominee (probably during the lame duck period)?

If you want a norm, then you should apply the norm to your own behavior?
Nope, nope not doing it, not going to let the thread be bobbed.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 12:58 PM   #219
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,538
OK here's a fantasy scenario: The nominee is not confirmed before the election because it's really not a good look for a few key senators. Then, if there's a lame-duck Senate, a few Republicans join Dems in boycotting a vote to confirm. A quorum is 51, so the Senate would not be able to act.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 01:12 PM   #220
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,538
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
If they do it now, they can at least claim that they are exercising their legitimate authority. If they do it after an election that puts Biden in the White House and turns the Senate to the Dems, it is a blatant abuse of power.
I'm pretty sure it would stick a fork in my state's Republican Senate candidate. Lindsey Graham is in a very tight race. Collins will probably lose. But more to the point: Do you think these weasels give a damn about appearing to exercise legitimate authority? [ETA: Ninja'd by Stacyhs]

A few do. That might be enough, in fact I think it's likely that some senators are going to be "allowed" to voice reservations and delay a vote. The "before election day" is just chest-thumping virtue signaling.

Last edited by Minoosh; 19th September 2020 at 01:13 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 01:14 PM   #221
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,966
I don't know why Trump's team wants (or pretends to want) to confirm someone before the election. I'd think they should use this nomination to mobilize voters. They put up that Catholic White woman/environmental terrorist (seven kids). She'll probably be appealing to Catholics, Whites and suburban moms.

Trump says that if they win the election, they confirm her.
If they lose, they say Dems stole the election and confirm her anyway.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 01:20 PM   #222
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,027
Interesting article on Amy Coney Barrett who is on Trump's short list for SCJ:
Quote:
The Top Contender for RBG’s Seat Has a Fundamentally Cruel Vision of the Law
Here’s what we can expect if Trump fills the late justice’s seat.

She is a hardcore conservative, but that description doesn’t quite capture how radically her jurisprudence differs from Ginsburg’s. The justice viewed the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has either written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.

Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.

There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.


Abortion and guns, however, are just the beginning. Barrett’s confirmation would heighten the odds that the Supreme Court will eradicate the entire Affordable Care Act in 2021, stripping health insurance from more than 20 million people. Red states challenged the law after Congress zeroed out the penalty for those who forgo health insurance in 2017, a frivolous challenge that nonetheless found support among conservative judges in the lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts, who twice saved the ACA, seems unlikely to kill it now. Barrett has criticized Roberts’ 2012 opinion saving the law, suggesting she would join the other four conservatives to destroy it root and branch. That decision would reverse Medicaid expansion, abolish the exchanges and federal subsidies for insurance, end protections for preexisting conditions, erase what’s left of the contraceptive mandate, allow insurers to kick young adults off their parents’ plans, and much more. All available data indicates that people will die as a result of such a ruling.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...us-future.html
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 01:35 PM   #223
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,600
Originally Posted by Cervelo View Post
Is that why California the worlds 5th largest economy can't put out fires or keep the power on? Keep dreaming your dream I hope it comes true for you!
So it's just a problem of money then? Nothing to do with climate change?

How about the west coast states take their money back that went to the federal government and was redistributed to the red states? That would be a start.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th September 2020 at 01:37 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 01:35 PM   #224
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,496
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There's been on and off talk of expanding the Supreme Court beyond 9 members, but that would be pretty politically transparent.
As opposed to ramming through a candidate in a lame duck senate for a kame duck pres?

The democrats must take the senate to prevent anything. Because the threat of going to 11 justices is the only way to prevent that crap
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 01:44 PM   #225
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 83,600
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I don't know why Trump's team wants (or pretends to want) to confirm someone before the election. I'd think they should use this nomination to mobilize voters. They put up that Catholic White woman/environmental terrorist (seven kids). She'll probably be appealing to Catholics, Whites and suburban moms.

Trump says that if they win the election, they confirm her.
If they lose, they say Dems stole the election and confirm her anyway.
It tells you a lot about McConnell's conviction that Trump will be reelected. Shove the nominee through as it's his last chance to get another partisan seat.
__________________
ORANGE MAN BAD? Why yes, yes he is.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 01:59 PM   #226
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
No, it would be a jerk move, but it wouldn't be an abuse of power because that power is entirely legitimately theirs at that point. Just because you, me, anyone, or everyone wishes they would choose not to do something doesn't mean it's abuse of power. It's just power.
True enough in the narrowest sense, but they could not even pretend to claim, as they do now, that they are serving the people who elected them if the voters have booted them out.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 02:08 PM   #227
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,538
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I don't know why Trump's team wants (or pretends to want) to confirm someone before the election. I'd think they should use this nomination to mobilize voters. They put up that Catholic White woman/environmental terrorist (seven kids). She'll probably be appealing to Catholics, Whites and suburban moms.

Trump says that if they win the election, they confirm her.
If they lose, they say Dems stole the election and confirm her anyway.
I think you may be overestimating how many Americans are champing at the bit to make abortion illegal. The mobilization works both ways, too.

I hope whoever Trump doesn't pick is so butthurt they go into a terminal sulk.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 02:10 PM   #228
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,774
If roe v wade is over turned, you just have to then pass laws in all the states. The better you think it is as a solution, then the easier it should be to get it done.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 02:17 PM   #229
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,966
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I think you may be overestimating how many Americans are champing at the bit to make abortion illegal. The mobilization works both ways, too.
Well, that's exactly the thing. The pro-choicers are motivated/activated regardless of what Trump and McConnell accomplish. If Trump and McConnell confirm a Justice before the election, reluctant Trump supporters can sit back. Some Republicans are already saying another conservative on the court is "worth" losing the Senate and the Presidency. They see a Mission: Accomplished.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It tells you a lot about McConnell's conviction that Trump will be reelected. Shove the nominee through as it's his last chance to get another partisan seat.
I agree there's daylight between Trump's interests and McConnell's. Trump's vested in his legacy, but he cares more about his immediate ambitions (securing four more years for a variety of reasons, including appointing a Justice).
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 02:26 PM   #230
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,405
Originally Posted by Cervelo View Post
Is that why California the worlds 5th largest economy can't put out fires or keep the power on? Keep dreaming your dream I hope it comes true for you!
You seriously underestimate how difficult it is to fight forest fires... or more succinctly put, you have no ******* idea.

Its not about the "economy". Its about weather and wind conditions... you can't control that with "economy", no matter how much money you have, and no matter how much you throw at the problem for equipment and manpower.

Just ask anyone who has been a forest firefighter, and they will tell you that despite everything you can do, and all the equipment and firefighters you have, there are significant elements of luck involved... some of it good and some of it bad.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 19th September 2020 at 02:32 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 02:59 PM   #231
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 29,066
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You seriously underestimate how difficult it is to fight forest fires... or more succinctly put, you have no ******* idea.

Its not about the "economy". Its about weather and wind conditions... you can't control that with "economy", no matter how much money you have, and no matter how much you throw at the problem for equipment and manpower.

Just ask anyone who has been a forest firefighter, and they will tell you that despite everything you can do, and all the equipment and firefighters you have, there are significant elements of luck involved... some of it good and some of it bad.
Exactly. Australia has a good economy and look at the problems they have had!
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 03:02 PM   #232
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 29,066
Lindsey Graham tweets

I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 03:02 PM   #233
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,027
Collins has declared whoever is elected in Nov. should nominate next SC judge.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 03:04 PM   #234
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,027
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Lindsey Graham tweets

I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from.
Of course he does; the same ethical cess pool he wallows in.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 03:04 PM   #235
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 29,066
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Lindsey Graham tweets

I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from.

Of course he does. Russia insists on it.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 03:17 PM   #236
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17,204
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Lindsey Graham tweets

I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from.
I fully remember what you said in 2016 concerning the SC vacancy. You said "Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you can use my words against me, and you'd be absolutely right."

So I am, and I am.
__________________
He must be removed.

George Will on
President Donald J. Trump.
June 1, 2020
Resume is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 04:17 PM   #237
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,760
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
As opposed to ramming through a candidate in a lame duck senate for a kame duck pres?

The democrats must take the senate to prevent anything. Because the threat of going to 11 justices is the only way to prevent that crap
Yes. I'm sorry I forgot to mention that the standards for Democrats and Republicans are different. I assume we all knew that.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 04:19 PM   #238
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,760
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Collins has declared whoever is elected in Nov. should nominate next SC judge.
She'll fold if push comes to shove. Nobody is falling for her "I'm oh so concerned... lookit how concerned I am... I am just so concerned guyz like totally for realzies you wouldn't believe how concerned I am... oh whoopsie daisy looks like I voted for it anyway tee hee hee." routine anymore.

As someone once put it doesn't matter how long she looks at the menu, she's gonna order what Mitch McConnell is having.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 04:45 PM   #239
Sherkeu
Graduate Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 1,787
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Collins has declared whoever is elected in Nov. should nominate next SC judge.
I think if that actually happened, it would be the first time, right?

Has there been a sitting president who has delayed nominating a candidate until after an election?
I'm not talking about confirmation which depends on procedure and votes in the Senate, but just a Presidential nominee.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2020, 06:19 PM   #240
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 25,737
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Interesting article on Amy Coney Barrett who is on Trump's short list for SCJ:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...us-future.html

She sounds like every Repugnican's wet dream.

About the only thing she could do to improve her resume in their eyes would be to wear KKK robes on the bench.

And I'm not sure there are any rules against that.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.