| |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
| Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
02-06-2019, 02:20 PM
|
#31
|
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Fascinating. You know more about the confirmation process than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who complained last year at how political it has become, she noted that Scalia got confirmed unanimously, and her vote was 96-3.
She should have consulted you. You could have told her that it's always been political, even though only 3 voted against her.
You just make it up as you go along.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/...gress_justice/ |
You just believe whatever rightwing gibberish you happen to read.
The Supreme Court from the moment of it's inception has been political.
In September 1789, on the same day that the Judiciary Act passed Congress, President Washington nominated the six justices to serve on the first Supreme Court. For Chief Justice, he chose John Jay, one of the leaders of Washington’s Federalist Party and one of the chief advocates of the Constitution and a strong federal government throughout the founding period. Washington’s other five nominees, including John Rutledge who would succeed Jay as the second Chief Justice six years later, were likewise staunch Federalists and allies of the president. |
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 02:37 PM
|
#32
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
You just believe whatever rightwing gibberish you happen to read.
The Supreme Court from the moment of it's inception has been political.
In September 1789, on the same day that the Judiciary Act passed Congress, President Washington nominated the six justices to serve on the first Supreme Court. For Chief Justice, he chose John Jay, one of the leaders of Washington’s Federalist Party and one of the chief advocates of the Constitution and a strong federal government throughout the founding period. Washington’s other five nominees, including John Rutledge who would succeed Jay as the second Chief Justice six years later, were likewise staunch Federalists and allies of the president.
|
"You just believe whatever rightwing gibberish you happen to read"
Ruth Bader Ginsburg spews right-wing talking points? That's what you are saying?
Oh, I needed that laugh like you can't believe... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 02:54 PM
|
#33
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
PeteF. is having a bad day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 03:07 PM
|
#34
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles
PeteF. is having a bad day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Understatement.
I also watched the liberal, angry hens all dressed in white and scowling all night like they got stood up at prom. They refused to cheer for low unemployment, wage growth, or crime reform, for opposing late-term abortions, for the first lady, and for cracking down on sex trafficking.
But when Trump expressed joy for the record number of women in congress, then they stood, cheered, hugged, and high-fived each other, and even chanted "USA! USA!". They celebrated their own success, but not anyone else's.
Very, very telling. Self absorbed a**holes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 04:18 PM
|
#35
|
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"You just believe whatever rightwing gibberish you happen to read"
Ruth Bader Ginsburg spews right-wing talking points? That's what you are saying?
Oh, I needed that laugh like you can't believe...
|
You might be better off studying history than thinking just because an 85 year old person said something it's true.
To think the Supreme Court is apolitical is silly, though you can wish it.
When the Democrats win and increase the number of Supreme court justices to 15 and appoint them then you'll be whining.
Although that early Court did not hear nearly as many cases as would subsequent ones, those first decisions reflect its political make-up and perspective. In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), for example, the court ruled 5-1 that federal courts had the power to supersede states’ “sovereign immunity” and hear disputes between citizens and the states.
The case and decision were so controversial that they led directly to the first post-Bill of Rights Constitutional Amendment, the 11th, which when ratified in early 1795 reasserted the states’ sovereign immunity to federal court decisions.
The Court’s first reorganization, less than a decade after Chisholm, was even more overtly tied to partisan and electoral politics. In the aftermath of the hotly contested presidential election of 1800, President John Adams and a lame duck Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices from 6 to 5 and instituted a number of other sweeping changes to the federal judiciary that would benefit the current President’s party, and disadvantage the incoming one. Although the act passed only 19 days before Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration, Adams and Congress filled as many open judgeships as possible, leading to the act’s popular nickname, the Midnight Judges Act. |
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 04:53 PM
|
#36
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
|
Pete, the fact is, until recently, senators not in the presidents party usually voted to confirm SCOTUS nominees. they didn’t go berserk trying to block the other party’s nominees. the democrats changed that, and as usual, they didn’t like being on the receiving end of what they started.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 06:11 PM
|
#37
|
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Pete, the fact is, until recently, senators not in the presidents party usually voted to confirm SCOTUS nominees. they didn’t go berserk trying to block the other party’s nominees. the democrats changed that, and as usual, they didn’t like being on the receiving end of what they started.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
You are wrong, 37 times out of 115 justices who have served is not usually, in 11 cases they were rejected in Senate roll call votes, in 11 cases the President withdrew the nominee and 15 lapsed at the end of a Senate session. |
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 06:59 PM
|
#39
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
You might be better off studying history than thinking just because an 85 year old person said something it's true.
To think the Supreme Court is apolitical is silly, though you can wish it.
When the Democrats win and increase the number of Supreme court justices to 15 and appoint them then you'll be whining.
Although that early Court did not hear nearly as many cases as would subsequent ones, those first decisions reflect its political make-up and perspective. In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), for example, the court ruled 5-1 that federal courts had the power to supersede states’ “sovereign immunity” and hear disputes between citizens and the states.
The case and decision were so controversial that they led directly to the first post-Bill of Rights Constitutional Amendment, the 11th, which when ratified in early 1795 reasserted the states’ sovereign immunity to federal court decisions.
The Court’s first reorganization, less than a decade after Chisholm, was even more overtly tied to partisan and electoral politics. In the aftermath of the hotly contested presidential election of 1800, President John Adams and a lame duck Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices from 6 to 5 and instituted a number of other sweeping changes to the federal judiciary that would benefit the current President’s party, and disadvantage the incoming one. Although the act passed only 19 days before Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration, Adams and Congress filled as many open judgeships as possible, leading to the act’s popular nickname, the Midnight Judges Act.
|
Nonsensical meltdown
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 07:40 PM
|
#40
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
Is there anybody else who discovered Kyrsten Sinema last night?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 07:42 PM
|
#41
|
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
|
As has been said before you can make it work by defining the dates to get the results you want
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 07:46 PM
|
#42
|
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles
Is there anybody else who discovered Kyrsten Sinema last night?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Did you have a wet dream?
She’d probably love to peg you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2019, 07:55 PM
|
#43
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
PeteF. The wet dreams stopped around 40 years ago. Thanks for the offer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2019, 09:20 AM
|
#44
|
|
Ledge Runner Baits
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,389
|
Trump continued his attack on the intelligence and justice systems, threatening no legislation if they continue investigations, I guess it was time to come up with a new catch phrase; no collusion was getting old. The arrogance of this guy is unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2019, 09:50 AM
|
#45
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers
Trump continued his attack on the intelligence and justice systems, threatening no legislation if they continue investigations, I guess it was time to come up with a new catch phrase; no collusion was getting old. The arrogance of this guy is unbelievable.
|
i thought hisnline attacking the investigations was awful, as was his line that we’d be at war with NK if he hadn’t won. two awful lines that never should
have been in there. i liked the rest, as did a huge majority of
americans, even according to cnn and cbs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 PM.
|
| |
Linear Mode
