Oh boy....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try to follow along here...we are governed by a document called the constitution, not by popular vote.

The constitution lists powers granted to the federal government, it specifies areas where the feds have the say. It also clearly says that all other matters are to be handled by states.

Nowhere in the constitution does it mention abortion or privacy. This doesn't mean abortion is illegal. It means the feds don't have jurisdiction, that states should decide the question.

Any state where most of the citizens support abortion, is likely to elect a state legislature that also supports it.

That's. How. It's. Supposed. To. Work.

Instead, it was legalized by activist judges who aren't elected, and therefore who aren't accountable to anybody. That's what's contrary to democracy.

Christ, you are slow and dense at times.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

so activist courts can create laws but activist courts can't overturn laws...?

as long as the laws they create are liberal.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Christ, you are slow and dense at times.

his power curve is early morning...like weekend at biden's

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the hypocrisy is one sided? let’s examine the facts.

ginsburg was approved with 94 votes, meaning almost every republican votes for her.

then biden came
up with The Biden Rule, where he said no nominations should be made in an election year. did he stick to that in 2026? or did he flip flop for his party’s gain? now is he flip flopping again?No, that is not what he said.

the democrats torpedoed BorkBC of his role in the Sat. night massacre and his wanting to roll back civil rights. Even some Rep. voted against him while some Dems. voted for him.. they tried to lynch Thomas by appealing to the most base creeds of racists ( darkies can’t control
themselves around women)so Anita Hill wasn't credible?. then they tried to crucify kavanaugh.

of course there’s gop hypocrisy here. but you reap what you sow. republicans won’t forgive senate democrats for what they did to kavanaugh, no should
they.you mean look into credible evidence he lied? The Repub. limited the FBI in their investigation.

if this costs trump re election and costs the gop the senate, it’s worth it. because the most liberal congress ever will be limited by what they can do with a new court.

when you cry about republican hypictisy and mention nit a syllable if democrat tactics regarding scotus nominations, you reveal yourself very clearly.

liberals are threatening violence and arson and riots. to quote you, it’s to be expected by that bunch of sociopathic, anarchist babies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden didn't argue for a delay in an election year, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election.

This close they should put it off until after the election and they will have plenty of time to vote the justice in. However if the Repub. do confirm a justice and the Dems win the Pres and Sen. be prepared for a bunch of new justices and probably a need to put 2 more stars on ourflags.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Biden didn't argue for a delay in an election year, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election.

This close they should put it off until after the election and they will have plenty of time to vote the justice in. However if the Repub. do confirm a justice and the Dems win the Pres and Sen. be prepared for a bunch of new justices and probably a need to put 2 more stars on ourflags.

"Biden didn't argue for a delay in an election year,"

Read this, and tell me he didn't say that. He said that the potus shouldn't nominate in an election year, and if the does, the senate should refuse to have a hearing. Biden said that. You just make sh*t up now?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...s-in-1992.html

[PaulS]

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

and from the article

Hours after archival C-Span video clips of the speech began circulating, Mr. Biden issued a statement saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and stressing that he believed, then and now, that the White House and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” on Supreme Court nominations. He had a record of moving such candidates during his time as chairman of the judiciary panel, he said.

“Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year,” Mr. Biden said. “This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

[PaulS]

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
By C. Eugene Emery Jr. on Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 5:37 p.m.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...t-nominations/
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called "Biden Rule" to justify why the Senate should not consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court in an election year.
Yes, as in Vice President Joe Biden.
McConnell is using Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.
"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" on who to name to the court, McConnell said in a March 16 speech on the floor of the Senate.
McConnell went on to quote some words from then-Judiciary Chairman Biden to show why the Senate’s disagreement with Obama is "about a principle, not a person."
Help PolitiFact fact-check the immigration debate in 2016
Did Biden really say he would be against the president nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year when political control of the Senate and White House were flipped?
We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell’s sound bite. Readers can determine if it’s relevant now.
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:
"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.
"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.
Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.
"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."
In the case of Obama's nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.
Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people "may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

and from the article

Hours after archival C-Span video clips of the speech began circulating, Mr. Biden issued a statement saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and stressing that he believed, then and now, that the White House and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” on Supreme Court nominations. He had a record of moving such candidates during his time as chairman of the judiciary panel, he said.

“Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year,” Mr. Biden said. “This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

Paul, Biden said that Bush shouldn't make a nomination during an election year, and that if he did make a nomination, the senate should delay a vote. Those are Biden's words in his speech. I don't care what context someone puts it in to make it seem like he didn't contradict himself in 2016.

Those remarks cannot be misinterpreted, there is zero ambiguity. Zero.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, Biden said that Bush shouldn't make a nomination during an election year, and that if he did make a nomination, the senate should delay a vote. Those are Biden's words in his speech. I don't care what context someone puts it in to make it seem like he didn't contradict himself in 2016.

Those remarks cannot be misinterpreted, there is zero ambiguity. Zero.

Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Those are his exact words

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

However if the Repub. do confirm a justice and the Dems win the Pres and Sen. be prepared for a bunch of new justices and probably a need to put 2 more stars on ourflags.

oh good...more childishness from the democrats

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Those are his exact words

I agree. He said that presidents should not name a nominee in an election year (you conveniently left out the part where he said that if the president does make a nomination in an election year, the senate should refuse to vote).

Here is Biden's naked hypocrisy Paul. In 2016, he an dObama violated the Biden rule, and nominated a candidate during an election year.

Therefore, Biden is every bit the hypocrite that McConnell and Graham are.

Sorry, what's god for the goose...

I'm struggling to figure out how you think you are refuting my point, when you are making my point. Biden did the opposite of what he asked Bush to do.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh good...more childishness from the democrats

not going to happen. What will eventually happen, is that as people flee liberal states, those states will lose congressional seats, and therefore, electoral votes.

[Jim in CT]

liberals don’t need to worry, according to the Babylon Bee, the 9th circuit court of appeals, has overturned the death of Ginsberg, declaring it unconstitutional.

so no worries.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. He said that presidents should not name a nominee in an election year no, he didn't say that.(you conveniently left out the part where he said that if the president does make a nomination in an election year, the senate should refuse to vote).I didn't conveniently leave anything out as I provided everything he said

Here is Biden's naked hypocrisy Paul. In 2016, he an dObama violated the Biden rule, and nominated a candidate during an election year.

Therefore, Biden is every bit the hypocrite that McConnell and Graham are.

Sorry, what's god for the goose...

I'm struggling to figure out how you think you are refuting my point, when you are making my point. Biden did the opposite of what he asked Bush to do.

I've only provided what he said - "...After the election"

Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not going to happen. What will eventually happen, is that as people flee liberal states, those states will lose congressional seats, and therefore, electoral votes.

and where will they go - to the warmer conserv. states and will turn them into blue states. Once Texas becomes blue (largely from Latinos) the Rep. party will be dead.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I've only provided what he said - "...After the election"

Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

"no, he didn't say that"

Are you feeling OK? Yes, he did.

"I didn't conveniently leave anything out as I provided everything he said "

Wrong. Biden said that if a president made a nomination in an election year, the senate should refuse to have a vote. Watch the video!

Even the article you posted to "counter" my argument, admitted he said there should be no nominations in an election year. They just pointed out there didn't happen to be any nominations in that election year, so push never came to shove. But the article you posted, said that the Biden Rule was a rule saying presidents should not make nominations in an election year.

My god, you turned into Pete.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

and where will they go - to the warmer conserv. states and will turn them into blue states. Once Texas becomes blue (largely from Latinos) the Rep. party will be dead.

No. Again, you aren't thinking. The liberal whackos aren't feeing CT, why would they? Its conservatives who are fleeing.

You are 100% correct on TX flipping because of demographic shifts, and once that happens, it will be a gold mine for democrats. No way for a republican to win if TX flips. Republican presidential candidates will be dead.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"no, he didn't say that"

Are you feeling OK? Yes, he did.

"I didn't conveniently leave anything out as I provided everything he said "

Wrong. Biden said that if a president made a nomination in an election year, the senate should refuse to have a vote. Watch the video!

Even the article you posted to "counter" my argument, admitted he said there should be no nominations in an election year. They just pointed out there didn't happen to be any nominations in that election year, so push never came to shove. But the article you posted, said that the Biden Rule was a rule saying presidents should not make nominations in an election year.

My god, you turned into Pete.

He said until after the election is over.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No. Again, you aren't thinking. The liberal whackos aren't feeing CT, why would they? Its conservatives who are fleeing.

You can't help yourself but constantly insult people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device