Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

The republicans would be smart to wait until after the election. Even if trump loses, they can still get her in. As far as getting 3 in, trump had some perfect luck there if that's what happens

(09-19-2020, 12:58 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 11:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That reads like learned helplessness on your part.

Please explain what you mean.

You acknowledge that something should happen, then you say it will never happen.
We are not talking about amending the Constitution here. I suggested simply changing the part of US code that says there are always nine seats on the supreme Court.
I agree that the Democrats and the Republicans do not compromise very much lately, but they are still approving budgets more often than not. Compromises are happening. 
If we believe that the very plausible type of change I mentioned should happen, we should demand it. We should not wallow in self-defeating attitudes when the things that we want are plausible for us to get.

(09-19-2020, 04:12 PM)Jag88 Wrote: [ -> ]The republicans would be smart to wait until after the election.  Even if trump loses, they can still get her in. As far as getting 3 in, trump had some perfect luck there if that's what happens

What if the Senate goes blue? It can't wait. The process has to start. Maybe the vote waits til after election, but it has to move foresed. 

Curious if Trump will select Miguel Estrada just to force the Democrats to admit publically they hate immigrants.

The smartest move for the Republicans is for Trump to name his appointee, and for Mitch to put hearings on the schedule that will begin right after the election, during the lame duck period.
Regardless of if Trump wins or loses, or whether the Senate control changes, the nominee would be seated sometime during December, before new Senators come in January 1.
This way the hearings don't disturb the dynamics of the election.
The Democrats have no leverage to stop any of this from happening. However they will feel very upset, because they are not getting their way, and because Republicans in the Senate are behaving as hypocrites. They will pack the court first chance they get, unless they get brought to the table before the year is over, and offered a compromise to have a better system going forward.

-Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

-There should be term limits for EVERYONE.

-The day politicians decided to start paying themselves a salary (as opposed to the per diem they were initially paid and only when in session) is the day they stopped serving the people of this country and started serving themselves.

-If judges in any capacity cannot put aside their political leanings to follow the state and US constitution, they shouldn't be a judge. The same goes for anyone whose job it is to uphold the constitution and not their political affiliation.

(09-19-2020, 09:40 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]The conservative goal for the new Justice shouldn't be abortion, but judicial interpretation. They need a Justice that will adhere to the constitution as rigidly as possible to ensure our Republic survives this next wave of attacks.

+100

The politicization of the Supreme Court is the downfall of our once great nation, and make no mistake this all started with Bork.

Say this all works out as the Reps want before election, then the senate overturns Democratic. Would there be grounds to cast Brett as illegitimate ?

I wonder if Brett would be considered an invalid SCJ because of how he was appointed.

Either way I’m for SCOTUS to be unbiased. For the love of god we need at least one functioning branch of government.

I’m honestly just getting sick of politics and sick of the division amongst our people. It’s come to a point where even Reps fight within their party and Dems fight within their party. There is no ideological compromise anymore.

Here’s hoping McConell doesn’t do this, we keep SCOTUS 4 - 4
And we can wait till after the election. We already have to much we disagree on. This is an appointment that’ll shape politics for the next 20years.

(09-19-2020, 04:19 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 04:12 PM)Jag88 Wrote: [ -> ]The republicans would be smart to wait until after the election.  Even if trump loses, they can still get her in. As far as getting 3 in, trump had some perfect luck there if that's what happens

What if the Senate goes blue? It can't wait. The process has to start. Maybe the vote waits til after election, but it has to move foresed. 

Curious if Trump will select Miguel Estrada just to force the Democrats to admit publically they hate immigrants.

Good question. All this is very interesting because it will likely effect turn out. Its crunch time.

(09-19-2020, 05:24 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 09:40 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]The conservative goal for the new Justice shouldn't be abortion, but judicial interpretation. They need a Justice that will adhere to the constitution as rigidly as possible to ensure our Republic survives this next wave of attacks.

+100

The politicization of the Supreme Court is the downfall of our once great nation, and make no mistake this all started with Bork.

I'm not sure what you mean.
Bork was very influential on guys like Scalia and Thomas though he never served.

(09-19-2020, 05:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 05:24 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]+100

The politicization of the Supreme Court is the downfall of our once great nation, and make no mistake this all started with Bork.

I'm not sure what you mean.
Bork was very influential on guys like Scalia and Thomas though he never served.

Don’t play coy.  Robert Bork was more than qualified to serve as a SCJ.  The democrats instead of approving a qualified nominee decided to play politics and forced Reagan to withdraw the nomination.  That right there was the first shot fired in politicizing the Supreme Court.  The entire process has just gotten nastier with each passing nominee.

(09-19-2020, 06:50 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 05:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what you mean.
Bork was very influential on guys like Scalia and Thomas though he never served.

Don’t play coy.  Robert Bork was more than qualified to serve as a SCJ.  The democrats instead of approving a qualified nominee decided to play politics and forced Reagan to withdraw the nomination.  That right there was the first shot fired in politicizing the Supreme Court.  The entire process has just gotten nastier with each passing nominee.

I wasn't alive for it.  From what I can read about it, I agree that Bork's nomination was probably the most disagreeable incident between the president and the senate in living memory at that time. But it seems to me, that the president and the leaders of the Senate were have consulted privately to prevent something like a bork incident from happening, both in the years before and the years after.
And I have to disagree that he was qualified to be on the supreme Court. he was the guy who said that Nixon could stop the Watergate investigation if he wanted to.

(09-19-2020, 04:17 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 12:58 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Please explain what you mean.

You acknowledge that something should happen, then you say it will never happen.
We are not talking about amending the Constitution here. I suggested simply changing the part of US code that says there are always nine seats on the supreme Court.
I agree that the Democrats and the Republicans do not compromise very much lately, but they are still approving budgets more often than not. Compromises are happening. 
If we believe that the very plausible type of change I mentioned should happen, we should demand it. We should not wallow in self-defeating attitudes when the things that we want are plausible for us to get.

I'm sorry, but that is laughable. You're asking whatever party is in power to give up that power in the name of what is right? Have you not seen our government in the last 15 years? The only thing they compromise on is budgets and that is just to keep the government running. I'd hardly call that a major compromise. It's doing the bare minimum. In the end, people can demand things all they want, but to the ones in power, it's meaningless. They have no incentive to make such a compromise. Unless this is actually put on a ballot, where the public can make their preferences heard, it would never go through and the people in power will never let it get to that point. The days of true compromise in government are over and it's been over for some time. Yes, they will agree on budgets, so the government can keep operating, but when it comes to the real issues, things will stay the same. The party in power will continue pushing their agendas down American's throats and we as voters will have no choice on election day, but to continue to choose from extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism. Neither side will give an inch.

---

(09-19-2020, 05:07 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]-Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

-There should be term limits for EVERYONE.

-The day politicians decided to start paying themselves a salary (as opposed to the per diem they were initially paid and only when in session) is the day they stopped serving the people of this country and started serving themselves.

-If judges in any capacity cannot put aside their political leanings to follow the state and US constitution, they shouldn't be a judge. The same goes for anyone whose job it is to uphold the constitution and not their political affiliation.

Agree 1000%

(09-19-2020, 08:29 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 04:17 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You acknowledge that something should happen, then you say it will never happen.
We are not talking about amending the Constitution here. I suggested simply changing the part of US code that says there are always nine seats on the supreme Court.
I agree that the Democrats and the Republicans do not compromise very much lately, but they are still approving budgets more often than not. Compromises are happening. 
If we believe that the very plausible type of change I mentioned should happen, we should demand it. We should not wallow in self-defeating attitudes when the things that we want are plausible for us to get.

I'm sorry, but that is laughable. You're asking whatever party is in power to give up that power in the name of what is right? Have you not seen our government in the last 15 years? The only thing they compromise on is budgets and that is just to keep the government running. I'd hardly call that a major compromise. It's doing the bare minimum. In the end, people can demand things all they want, but to the ones in power, it's meaningless. They have no incentive to make such a compromise. Unless this is actually put on a ballot, where the public can make their preferences heard, it would never go through and the people in power will never let it get to that point. The days of true compromise in government are over and it's been over for some time. Yes, they will agree on budgets, so the government can keep operating, but when it comes to the real issues, things will stay the same. The party in power will continue pushing their agendas down American's throats and we as voters will have no choice on election day, but to continue to choose from extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism. Neither side will give an inch.

So what can we do?

It's going to be great watching Senate Democrats lock in Trumps reelection.

The left is crazy. A family friend, democrat committee, party, whatever worker got married and had RBG officiate the wedding. Now she is getting death threats and saying she killed RBG. She had to take her twitter down.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

Well hope you are all ready to fight for a women’s right to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies.

Trump has stream lined the short list and ear marked a woman probably a person of non color

(09-19-2020, 08:40 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 08:29 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, but that is laughable. You're asking whatever party is in power to give up that power in the name of what is right? Have you not seen our government in the last 15 years? The only thing they compromise on is budgets and that is just to keep the government running. I'd hardly call that a major compromise. It's doing the bare minimum. In the end, people can demand things all they want, but to the ones in power, it's meaningless. They have no incentive to make such a compromise. Unless this is actually put on a ballot, where the public can make their preferences heard, it would never go through and the people in power will never let it get to that point. The days of true compromise in government are over and it's been over for some time. Yes, they will agree on budgets, so the government can keep operating, but when it comes to the real issues, things will stay the same. The party in power will continue pushing their agendas down American's throats and we as voters will have no choice on election day, but to continue to choose from extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism. Neither side will give an inch.

So what can we do?

That's what I'm trying to tell you. There is nothing we can do. Voters got us into this position. The public elected very divisive figures figures into the office of President like Obama and now a reality star with a narcissistic personality disorder. On top of that, we've kept elected officials in there offices entirely too long with no accountability. The longer they are in, the more corrupt they get. It created the perfect storm. Personally, I feel as though we are well on our way to democracy being toppled in the United States and voters have no one but themselves to blame. All those people out there who voted for candidates based on party without knowing a single thing about them, have ruined what we once had and I fear there is no turning back. When things get really bad though, (trust me, they can get waaaaaaay worse,) the people that got us into this situation will be the ones that complain the loudest.

---

(09-20-2020, 12:08 AM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]Well hope you are all ready to fight for a women’s right to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies.

That's no longer in our hands and the ramifications of that could be catastrophic.

(09-19-2020, 09:22 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2020, 09:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Several Republican senators have already said they don't want to vote on a new Supreme Court justice until after the election.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/lisa-mur...ion-2020-9

Your article mentions 2, not several. Collins is in a tight race in Maine and will be committing political suicide.

---

Doug Collins..... dang...

"RIP to the more than 30 million innocent babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws. With @realDonaldTrump nominating a replacement that values human life, generations of unborn children have a chance to live."

Collins seems steadfast in here beliefs for now. She just reiterated that she believes who ever wins the election should pick the new SCJ. We all know how spineless she is though, so I still expect her to cave to the party. She's on the way out though. She's down by double digit figures in her state.

(09-20-2020, 12:08 AM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]Well hope you are all ready to fight for a women’s right to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies.

I knew it was coming lol..  Just another scare. Can your party please run on a actaul platform, what is it?, because I've yet to hear one other than fear mongering and division along race and sex lines..