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 donald trump , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 19th June 2020, 11:45 AM   #201
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,643
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

Why are the Democrats allowed to make fake and fraudulent ads.
"But I want to be able to make fraudulent ads too!"
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 June 2020, 11:45 AM   #202
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,467
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Glibness is neither an answer nor a defense.
There is no possible answer or defense. I always am whatever you say I am.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 June 2020, 11:46 AM   #203
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,643
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Why would a liberal judge resign at this point? Remember, unless one of them dies between now and the inauguration (if even that late), there is no opening. A liberal judge is not going to resign knowing that Trump an McConnell would push through a right wing judge. No one can 'sack' a SC judge. There are three things that can create an opening:
1. A judge dies
2. A judge retires/resigns voluntarily
3. A judge is impeached

Trump has zero ability to sack/force to resign a SC judge.
They can still nominate new judges as they want. There isn't a set number of supreme court justices.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 June 2020, 11:48 AM   #204
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 9,865
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Plus, when you look at various states, you see even more problems... states like Texas (that he won easily) and Florida are now competitive.

Now, I doubt very much that places like Texas will go for Biden in the next election... but it may force the republicans to spend money an other resources to shore up their base there (which leaves fewer resources for the swing states.)
Doesn’t Trump have the largest war chest in history? If so, I’ll guess no one is worried about resource allocation
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 June 2020, 11:50 AM   #205
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I can however imagine an older conservative jurist resigning. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito might be talked into resigning just so they can put in some 40 year old right winger to keep the balance of the court represented by troglodytes for decades to come. As much as the left is afraid of Ginsburg dying the right's nightmare is Trump loses Ginsburg steps aside and Alito and or Thomas kick the bucket.
Clarence and Alito are 71 and 70 respectively. That's not all that old. I can't see them resigning unless bad health made it necessary. As conservative as they are, I don't think they'd resign just to put younger conservatives into office.
Stacyhs 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 June 2020, 11:51 AM   #206
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,467
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
that's not the "only" reason, as the provided link shows.
Here's a fresh headline from Daily Mail...

Originally Posted by Daily Mail
Donald Trump threatens harsh treatment for 'protesters' 'lowlifes' and 'agitators' who want to disrupt his Tulsa rally as city declares 'civil emergency' out of fears of 'extremely violent' protests

Factual Reporting ranked as "Low".
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 June 2020, 11:51 AM   #207
pgwenthold
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,097
I would like to believe that any attempt to nominate and approve a USSC judge at this point would guarantee Mitch McConnell's loss in November. Anyone who would be that blatantly hypocritical certainly needs to be voted out. The question is whether Kentucky would be smart enough to do that is a different question.
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 June 2020, 11:54 AM   #208
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 9,865
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I am not denying that Trump's legal team has been less than stellar. (Of course, some of the things they are arguing are so stupid that they would probably lose even if they did have good lawyers.)

My earlier post wasn't about the reason why Trump was losing those cases.

My post was in response to a question about why Trump was bringing up the second amendment after losing court cases on gay rights and DACA. In that case, talking about gun rights seemed like a bit of a non sequitur.... he lost an immigration case, why doesn't he complain about the rulings on immigration rather than the 2nd amendment.
At this stage “your 2A rights” is just one more of his limited-vocabulary verbal tics.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 June 2020, 12:01 PM   #209
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They can still nominate new judges as they want. There isn't a set number of supreme court justices.
It takes Congress to do that. The House would never allow a bill to increase the number of justices through now.
Quote:
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
Stacyhs 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 June 2020, 12:06 PM   #210
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,578
I will wager if we see either part gain a majority in both Houses they will try though.

SCOTUS Judges are by far your best long term, "value for the person" political power you can get.

If you can get... 5 SCOTUS judges on the bench, on your side, under the age of... like 50 or so you've got at least some political power to bring to bear, even if you lose the Presidency or the Legislature Branch, for years to come.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue 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 June 2020, 12:31 PM   #211
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Clarence and Alito are 71 and 70 respectively. That's not all that old. I can't see them resigning unless bad health made it necessary. As conservative as they are, I don't think they'd resign just to put younger conservatives into office.
70 is past the traditional year for retirement. Nothing shocks me about politics any more.

This is the GOP.. You don't think someone will offer them millions to step down? I can see Democratic power brokers doing this and the Republicans are far less ethical than the Dems.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 June 2020, 12:31 PM   #212
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Another account of how we got here, and a warning:
Quote:
So, five full years into this political disaster there is another mistake Americans could make, at least decent Americans who believe in democracy and liberty rather than autocracy.

The mistake is to assume that Trump is so badly wounded by botching response to the pandemic and his racist response to the Black Lives Matter movement that he is toast. Trump is feral, a wild animal who cannot be domesticated and tamed.

To count him out before the ballots are cast and counted would be a mistake as awful as those of the politics reporters who covered the 2016 campaign.

Be smarter than they were.
https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/don...t-yet_partner/
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 June 2020, 12:38 PM   #213
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,100
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Another account of how we got here, and a warning:

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/don...t-yet_partner/


Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 June 2020, 12:39 PM   #214
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
70 is past the traditional year for retirement. Nothing shocks me about politics any more.

This is the GOP.. You don't think someone will offer them millions to step down? I can see Democratic power brokers doing this and the Republicans are far less ethical than the Dems.
There is no traditional year for retirement. All federal judges are appointed for life. If any of these people cared about money, they would have retired years ago, joined corporate boards and gone on the speaking circuit. People at their level can collect $100K+ at a time. I can imagine the right-wingers leaving to make room for another right-winger, as Kennedy did for his ex-clerk Kavanaugh. But they're not leaving for money.
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 June 2020, 12:40 PM   #215
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It takes Congress to do that. The House would never allow a bill to increase the number of justices through now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 June 2020, 12:43 PM   #216
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.
The point is we can't be complacent. Some people are already talking about when Biden is President. Like they talked about when Hillary is President. Trump has all the powers of the Presidency, and the support of Repub governors and legislatures in a majority of the states. We can't forget it.
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 June 2020, 12:43 PM   #217
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
There is no traditional year for retirement. All federal judges are appointed for life. If any of these people cared about money, they would have retired years ago, joined corporate boards and gone on the speaking circuit. People at their level can collect $100K+ at a time. I can imagine the right-wingers leaving to make room for another right-winger, as Kennedy did for his ex-clerk Kavanaugh. But they're not leaving for money.
You're funny. One thing I know about money is that with some people, there can never be enough money.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 June 2020, 12:47 PM   #218
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.

But the Judiciary Act of 1869 does.
Quote:
The Judiciary Act of 1869, sometimes called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, a United States statute, provided that the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices, established separate judgeships for the U.S. circuit courts, and for the first time included a provision allowing federal judges to retire without losing their salary.[1] This is the most recent legislation altering the size of the Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869
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 June 2020, 12:49 PM   #219
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You're funny. One thing I know about money is that with some people, there can never be enough money.
Sure, for some people, including Trump. But not for these specific people, as demonstrated by the life choices they have already made.

Last edited by Bob001; 19th June 2020 at 12:58 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 June 2020, 01:04 PM   #220
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,860
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.
I can't see anyone who voted Trump turn and change for Biden. But they could lose interest and not show up. The other matter is all the voters that did not show up for Hillary because she was not Obama. How did that work for those folks?

Turnout is an unknown factor. Trump voter polling is another. They do not like to give polling info. They would rather type away at websites, hidden only by an ISP number.
Tero 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 June 2020, 01:06 PM   #221
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.
Yes, it does.

It's not debatable that Congress has control over the number of judges and it would take a new act to change the number as I said. The House would never allow an act doing so to pass as long as Trump is president. So Trump can nominate all the judges he wants but unless there is an opening, it means nothing. Trump is just spouting more of his usual crap to his base.

Quote:
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates.
Stacyhs 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 June 2020, 01:07 PM   #222
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sure, for some people, including Trump. But not for these specific people, as demonstrated by the life choices they have already demonstrated.
Maybe you're right. But they might also think it serves many of their purposes. Thomas has been a Supreme for going on 30 years. Alito, only 14 but Alito served on the third circuit for 16 years. Combine a possible interest in changing chapters in their own life, keeping their own ideology on the court, a chunk of change in their pocket might be enough to persuade them to move on.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 June 2020, 01:10 PM   #223
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
I can't see anyone who voted Trump turn and change for Biden. But they could lose interest and not show up. The other matter is all the voters that did not show up for Hillary because she was not Obama. How did that work for those folks?

Turnout is an unknown factor. Trump voter polling is another. They do not like to give polling info. They would rather type away at websites, hidden only by an ISP number.
I absolutely can. Many held their noses and voted for him because of their intense dislike for HRC, not because they liked Trump. Some placed hope in Trump being different and cleaning up the swamp, etc; he didn't. He made it worse. I see a lot of independents changing from T to B.
Stacyhs 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 June 2020, 01:11 PM   #224
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Yes, it does.

It's not debatable that Congress has control over the number of judges and it would take a new act to change the number as I said. The House would never allow an act doing so to pass as long as Trump is president. So Trump can nominate all the judges he wants but unless there is an opening, it means nothing. Trump is just spouting more of his usual crap to his base.
You are reading what a law passed by Congress wrote. It does not constitute an Amendment to what the Constitution has to say. Does it?

I'm not arguing what would happen, only an argument that could be made saying the law is irrelevant.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 June 2020, 01:12 PM   #225
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 27,706
FDR attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in the 1930's. It did not go well for him, which is why no one has tried since.
__________________
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 June 2020, 01:14 PM   #226
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Maybe you're right. But they might also think it serves many of their purposes. Thomas has been a Supreme for going on 30 years. Alito, only 14 but Alito served on the third circuit for 16 years. Combine a possible interest in changing chapters in their own life, keeping their own ideology on the court, a chunk of change in their pocket might be enough to persuade them to move on.
If either declare their intentions of resigning between now and when (if) Biden is elected, it will be pretty damn obvious what is going on. But nothing could be done about it and we know that McConnell would push through any judge toute suite despite the hypocrisy of his actions over Garland. McConnell is nothing if not consistent in his hypocrisy.
Stacyhs 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 June 2020, 01:17 PM   #227
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I absolutely can. Many held their noses and voted for him because of their intense dislike for HRC, not because they liked Trump. Some placed hope in Trump being different and cleaning up the swamp, etc; he didn't. He made it worse. I see a lot of independents changing from T to B.
Also, in 2016 Trump was running on his promises. Now he has to run on his record. The coal mines didn't re-open, the factories didn't come back, the farmers are worse off, people are dying of an infectious disease. People can be selfish without being stupid.
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 June 2020, 01:18 PM   #228
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
FDR attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in the 1930's. It did not go well for him, which is why no one has tried since.
I disagree. It went very well for him. He did it as a threat to get legislation passed. It worked.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 June 2020, 01:21 PM   #229
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You are reading what a law passed by Congress wrote. It does not constitute an Amendment to what the Constitution has to say. Does it?

I'm not arguing what would happen, only an argument that could be made saying the law is irrelevant.
You could make the same argument that all laws are irrelevant. But no rational person would make that argument. The Congress passes the laws and appropriates the money, and the courts determine whethe any particular law is constitutional.

Last edited by Bob001; 19th June 2020 at 01:24 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 June 2020, 01:37 PM   #230
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,599
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Also, in 2016 Trump was running on his promises. Now he has to run on his record. The coal mines didn't re-open, the factories didn't come back, the farmers are worse off, people are dying of an infectious disease.

Yes, but that won’t stop him saying that he has achieved everything he promised, and that it’s somebody else’s fault that he didn’t.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 June 2020, 01:39 PM   #231
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You could make the same argument that all laws are irrelevant. But no rational person would make that argument. The Congress passes the laws and appropriates the money, and the courts determine whethe any particular law is constitutional.
The Constitution says who has what authority and the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court justices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many or grants Congress the right to decide how many. You're arguing Congress has a right that it does not have.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 June 2020, 01:46 PM   #232
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,337
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.
I have seen a few articles that basically go down that road. 538 has this article: The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016
portlandatheist 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 June 2020, 01:55 PM   #233
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The Constitution says who has what authority and the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court justices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many or grants Congress the right to decide how many. You're arguing Congress has a right that it does not have.
Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Possibly relevant:
Quote:
Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To
.......
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
http://constitutionus.com/
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 June 2020, 02:08 PM   #234
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
I am predicitng a major meltdown by Trump at the rally.....even by Trumpian standards.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 June 2020, 02:15 PM   #235
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,805
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am predicitng a major meltdown by Trump at the rally.....even by Trumpian standards.
How will a "major meltdown" look different from his usual rally behavior.

Here's a question: Will the SS agents surrounding him be wearing masks?
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 June 2020, 02:15 PM   #236
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.
Does it now? The law to the best of my knowledge has never been tested. But if you know a case, I'll concede the point.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 19th June 2020 at 02:20 PM.
acbytesla 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 June 2020, 02:17 PM   #237
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,664
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
I have seen a few articles that basically go down that road. 538 has this article: The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016
That's actually very common...

In several polls, the number of people who plan to vote for biden is much higher than the number of people who think Biden will win.

Maybe its a good thing for the Democrats... desperation may drive people to the polls. (As long as it doesn't make them defeatist and decide to stay home.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur 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 June 2020, 02:19 PM   #238
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,768
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Yes, but that won’t stop him saying that he has achieved everything he promised, and that it’s somebody else’s fault that he didn’t.
Which is what he is already doing. After all, he's achieved more in his 3.5 years
and done more for black people than any president in history!

ETA: and no new healthcare is because of the Dems and Loser McCain.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th June 2020 at 02:23 PM.
Stacyhs 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 June 2020, 02:25 PM   #239
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,664
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
SCOTUS Judges are by far your best long term, "value for the person" political power you can get.

If you can get... 5 SCOTUS judges on the bench, on your side, under the age of... like 50 or so you've got at least some political power to bring to bear, even if you lose the Presidency or the Legislature Branch, for years to come.
Perhaps Supreme court justices are good "value for the person". There are a couple of problems though;

- To get those supreme court justices, you need to have control of the presidency, and the senate.

- Justices are limited in what they can rule on.... cases must be presented to them (i.e. they can't proactively make rulings.)

- Even a 'friendly' judge may sometimes rule against you, if there is little or no ambiguity in the law. (Witness Gorsuch and the recent gay ruling)

A president may only be in power 4 or 8 years, but in that time they can issue executive orders over a much wider range of areas proactively, and while they may be constrained by law, they can also play a role in changing existing laws.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur 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 June 2020, 02:27 PM   #240
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,643
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Possibly relevant:

http://constitutionus.com/
The law and the constitution are two things.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 11:13 PM.
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.