SCOTUS Catch-all | SCOTUS agrees to hear TikTok case on expedited basis

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 54
  • Views: 1K
  • Politics 
PBOHEEL said:
LOL....

You don't think that is what would have happened?? And you typed that in "good faith" correct?? Come on man.... you are smarter than that. You and I, as well as everyone reading this thread knows damn well the same thing would have happened. For that matter, the same thing would have happened with Barrett.

Ask Harry Reid what to do when you don't get the Judges you want and how easy it is to get your way when you have the votes. Then, when McConnell did the same thing for the SCOTUS many on the old board had a fit and how it was "undermining democracy..."

You see the hypocrisy there? If not... not much I can say to that.

Politics is dirty and it's not a one-sided deal. Both parties do all they can to cling to power. One side tries to pretend they don't and lie about it at every turn.

Imagine the GOP hiding a POTUS who is obviously suffering mental deficiencies and coronating a nominee as opposed to having an actual election.

How many pages do you think that hypothetical would go with the "GOP undermining the will of the people?"

But, as always, when the Democrats do something to that goes against Democratic norms it is perfectly OK because it is painted as "saving Democracy.."

Oh... and for the poster that said I had no credibility because I posted the wrong age of Harris she is 59. Hope that helps and makes you sleep better at night.
Click to expand...
That’s a lot of words just to admit you keep making shit up.
 
Awinisawin said:
Mitch McConnell says hold my beer. The court is this way because of sham Republican maneuvering to stack said court within the confines of the 9 members. They would do it again if the opportunity arises. The court as it’s its comprised is not legitimate secondarily.
Click to expand...
How so? I am curious as to how you can make that statement and believe it to be true.

It's not compromised at all. If you mean Thomas taking gifts then I will challenge you to look into Sotomayer and Jackson. They both have had "questionable" activities in the last year or so.

There was no "sham maneuvering." Vacancies came up. The processes in place were followed. What are you referring to as a "sham?" I'm sure a few of the lawyers on here will disagree with you if they are honest that there was any type of "sham."

You are upset because your heir apparent Queen was not elected in 2016. Your beef should be with RBG and here unwillingness to retire.

McConnell did what every damn politician worth his weight in salt would do. He took advantage of the situation at hand within the confines of the Constitution and the law.

And don't get it twisted. Your side would have done the same damn thing. i.e. Harry Reid. Your chapped because you didn't get the chance.

Here's another question for you.... since the court is "compromised" as you put it and Trump is re-elected and has the Senate should he expand the court or replace Justices to amend the wrongs? Or should that only happen if the Democrats take power? Please answer those.

Thanks in advance.
 
lawtig02 said:
That’s a lot of words just to admit you keep making shit up.
Click to expand...
What's made up Law? You are a legal "expert" in many people's eyes on here.

You resort to that comment because you know that in that hypothetical what I said is 100% accurate.

Point out what in the hypothetical is untrue please.
 
PBOHEEL said:
How so? I am curious as to how you can make that statement and believe it to be true.

It's not compromised at all. If you mean Thomas taking gifts then I will challenge you to look into Sotomayer and Jackson. They both have had "questionable" activities in the last year or so.

There was no "sham maneuvering." Vacancies came up. The processes in place were followed. What are you referring to as a "sham?" I'm sure a few of the lawyers on here will disagree with you if they are honest that there was any type of "sham."

You are upset because your heir apparent Queen was not elected in 2016. Your beef should be with RBG and here unwillingness to retire.

McConnell did what every damn politician worth his weight in salt would do. He took advantage of the situation at hand within the confines of the Constitution and the law.

And don't get it twisted. Your side would have done the same damn thing. i.e. Harry Reid. Your chapped because you didn't get the chance.

Here's another question for you.... since the court is "compromised" as you put it and Trump is re-elected and has the Senate should he expand the court or replace Justices to amend the wrongs? Or should that only happen if the Democrats take power? Please answer those.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
You seem to be full of crap. My queen. Wtf are you talking about. There’s no sound reasoning to hold up or deny an appt Becuase of some arbitrary time limit left on a presidents term. And likewise rhe rush to push through Robert’s. There’s no justification for McConnell behavior. None. Theirs is no normalization of that kind of behavior. Unless you are just plain weird.
 
PBOHEEL said:
What's made up Law? You are a legal "expert" in many people's eyes on here.

You resort to that comment because you know that in that hypothetical what I said is 100% accurate.

Point out what in the hypothetical is untrue please.
Click to expand...
1. There is zero evidence Dems would have done the same thing in 2016 that McConnell and the Pubs did. You’re making that up so you feel better about your side’s unprecedented power grab.

2. Please advise what McConnell and the Senate Pubs did in 2016 to fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise and consent on Obama’s timely nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court.
 
lawtig02 said:
1. There is zero evidence Dems would have done the same thing in 2016 that McConnell and the Pubs did. You’re making that up so you feel better about your side’s unprecedented power grab. I don't need to stick my head up a bull's ass to see the quality of meat. I also don't think for one second you believe that the Dems would not have done the same thing. This is the very party that has wanted to expand the court because they are acting like spoiled petulant children when a ruling doesn't go their way. And you can claim the moral high ground all you want on what happened and what did not happen. It was all legal and within the United States Constitution. I see you conveniently keep forgetting to mention that key part of the story.

2. Please advise what McConnell and the Senate Pubs did in 2016 to fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise and consent on Obama’s timely nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. They said they had considered it and found him not to be a worthy candidate and since the Senate had been duly elected by the GOP citizens of the United States then McConnell felt it necessary to allow the next POTUS to nominate for the vacancy. Exactly the same damn thing the Dems would have done. At least I have the stones to admit it. As far as the use of the word "timely"... what measure of time is that exactly? Is that one hour? One day? One week? One month?
Click to expand...

If you want to continue to play "ring around the roses" with the BS you are trying to spin saying the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing and would have approved a Conservative Justice please do.

It is entertaining as hell to see one of the "legal experts" showing out in the manner in which you have this morning over a situation that you wish the Dems would have been put in not only with Gorsuch but with ACB as well!!

Who was the President that coined the phrase "elections have consequences?" Refresh my memory please.

While you are at it... tell Harr Reid the GOP says "thanks!!" and "cheers" to Harry for being the pioneer in making sure the party who has the votes gets to pick the Judiciary.
 
PBOHEEL said:
If you want to continue to play "ring around the roses" with the BS you are trying to spin saying the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing and would have approved a Conservative Justice please do.

It is entertaining as hell to see one of the "legal experts" showing out in the manner in which you have this morning over a situation that you wish the Dems would have been put in not only with Gorsuch but with ACB as well!!

Who was the President that coined the phrase "elections have consequences?" Refresh my memory please.

While you are at it... tell Harr Reid the GOP says "thanks!!" and "cheers" to Harry for being the pioneer in making sure the party who has the votes gets to pick the Judiciary.
Click to expand...
“They said they had considered it and found him not to be a worthy candidate“

Link, please.
 
PBOHEEL said:
If you want to continue to play "ring around the roses" with the BS you are trying to spin saying the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing and would have approved a Conservative Justice please do.

It is entertaining as hell to see one of the "legal experts" showing out in the manner in which you have this morning over a situation that you wish the Dems would have been put in not only with Gorsuch but with ACB as well!!

Who was the President that coined the phrase "elections have consequences?" Refresh my memory please.

While you are at it... tell Harr Reid the GOP says "thanks!!" and "cheers" to Harry for being the pioneer in making sure the party who has the votes gets to pick the Judiciary.
Click to expand...
The Dems had a chance to pull a McConnell in 1992. They did not. They allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas. Boy what a mistake that was. Oh, the guy who allowed the vote? Joe Biden.

Anyway, we don't have to play your "what if" games given that there is direct evidence on that point.
 
LOL... You don't "have to play my what if game" but glad you joined in Super.... Can't wait for a 1500 word essay on how McConnell outfoxed the Dems and reshaped the SCOTUS for a generation!

As far as the link... there are several search engines you can utilize to research the process that was 100% legal, 100% within the United States Constitution and 100% left the Democrats whining and crying like a fat kid that dropped his cake!

I think the terms a few posters would use on the old board when making fun of Conservatives was "big mad?"

Well.... as an old timer would say to the Dems...... "it's no fun when the rabbit has the gun...."

As far as the hypothetical..... I'll say it again.... there is not one single person walking the Earth that thinks that for one iota of a millisecond the Democrats would have done anything different. And given the chance to expand the court they will in an instant. They have already tried. Manchin and Sinema kept it from happening.

So if you want to discuss hypotheticals and what not you can. But let's have an honest conversation and not pretend that the Democrats are the holier than thou party that would never play the political games.

Your party coronated a nominee that received ZERO votes from the American people and odds are she would not have won judging from her showing in 2020. If she wasn't the nominee the Democrats lose in a wipeout because they would lose the black voting block by stepping over Harris.

There's your political gamesmanship. Well played Democrats... well played.
 
PBOHEEL said:
LOL... You don't "have to play my what if game" but glad you joined in Super.... Can't wait for a 1500 word essay on how McConnell outfoxed the Dems and reshaped the SCOTUS for a generation!

As far as the link... there are several search engines you can utilize to research the process that was 100% legal, 100% within the United States Constitution and 100% left the Democrats whining and crying like a fat kid that dropped his cake!

I think the terms a few posters would use on the old board when making fun of Conservatives was "big mad?"

Well.... as an old timer would say to the Dems...... "it's no fun when the rabbit has the gun...."

As far as the hypothetical..... I'll say it again.... there is not one single person walking the Earth that thinks that for one iota of a millisecond the Democrats would have done anything different. And given the chance to expand the court they will in an instant. They have already tried. Manchin and Sinema kept it from happening.

So if you want to discuss hypotheticals and what not you can. But let's have an honest conversation and not pretend that the Democrats are the holier than thou party that would never play the political games.

Your party coronated a nominee that received ZERO votes from the American people and odds are she would not have won judging from her showing in 2020. If she wasn't the nominee the Democrats lose in a wipeout because they would lose the black voting block by stepping over Harris.

There's your political gamesmanship. Well played Democrats... well played.
Click to expand...
Take it outside.
 
I'm not sure what is meant by "leave to file the bill of complaint" exactly in a case of original jurisdiction. It seems to me that the Court is saying, "get lost, we're not going to hear you" and Alito and Thomas would say, "we've heard you and we want to note that for the record, but you lose."

I could be wrong.
 
PBOHEEL said:
LOL... You don't "have to play my what if game" but glad you joined in Super.... Can't wait for a 1500 word essay on how McConnell outfoxed the Dems and reshaped the SCOTUS for a generation!

As far as the link... there are several search engines you can utilize to research the process that was 100% legal, 100% within the United States Constitution and 100% left the Democrats whining and crying like a fat kid that dropped his cake!

I think the terms a few posters would use on the old board when making fun of Conservatives was "big mad?"

Well.... as an old timer would say to the Dems...... "it's no fun when the rabbit has the gun...."

As far as the hypothetical..... I'll say it again.... there is not one single person walking the Earth that thinks that for one iota of a millisecond the Democrats would have done anything different. And given the chance to expand the court they will in an instant. They have already tried. Manchin and Sinema kept it from happening.

So if you want to discuss hypotheticals and what not you can. But let's have an honest conversation and not pretend that the Democrats are the holier than thou party that would never play the political games.

Your party coronated a nominee that received ZERO votes from the American people and odds are she would not have won judging from her showing in 2020. If she wasn't the nominee the Democrats lose in a wipeout because they would lose the black voting block by stepping over Harris.

There's your political gamesmanship. Well played Democrats... well played.
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton won. HRC got 3M more votes than Trump. Biden won by 7M over Trump. Where is this Wipeout you are talking about. Ahh it's turnout. That's why ee saw all the anti-Voting rights laws being pushed.
 


“…
The chief justice’s Feb. 22 memo, jump-starting the justices’ formal discussion on whether to hear the case, offered a scathing critique of a lower-court decision and a startling preview of how the high court would later rule, according to several people from the court who saw the document.

The chief justice tore into the appellate court opinion greenlighting Mr. Trump’s trial, calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned. On one key point, he complained, the lower court judges “failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.” He wrote not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it.

… The chief justice wrote the majority opinions in all three cases, including an unsigned one in March concluding that the former president could not be barred from election ballots in Colorado.

…
In April, the chief justice assigned Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to write a majority opinion saying that prosecutors had gone too far in bringing obstruction charges against some Capitol rioters. But in late May, the chief justice took it over.

Who initiated the change, and why, is not clear. The switch came days after The Times reportedthat an upside-down flag, a symbol of the Stop the Steal movement, had flown outside the Alito home following the Capitol attack. While that timing is suggestive, it is unclear whether the two are linked. (All nine justices declined to respond to written questions from The Times, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.) …”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top