Home Off Topic

Will we see a replacement Supreme Court Justice before January 20th?

1246711

Replies

  • Florida BullfrogFlorida Bullfrog Posts: 3,442 Captain

    How many Supreme Court cases have you Shepardized?

    If the answer to that question is "zero", it's not too late to learn.


    Well considering the State has a contract with Westlaw, not Lexis, and Shepard’s is proprietary to Lexis and I haven’t much used Lexis’ Shepardization since lawschool,  I think the correct question would be how often have I researched Supreme Court cases with Westlaw’s Keycite. 

    Is that what you meant to ask? 
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,021 Admiral
    Not sure who but someone killed the SC filibuster and lowered the senate requirement of votes to 50+1. Just dumb leadership 
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral
    edited September 20 #94
    kellercl said:
    Absolutely NOONE said:
    kellercl said:
    We should do whatever we did last time there was a election.  If I recall correctly the argument was to wait until after the election.  I expect people to be consistent with their views.  

    They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today.  
    Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation. 
    So the last POTUS was allowed his right to appoint a SCOTUS in an election year?  

    I would have a lot more respect if some of you were honest about the situation.  Inability to acknowledge the complete position change from 2016 to 2020 just makes you guys look childish.  

    Absolutely NO ONE prevented the president from making a nomination. It was a political move to block approvals. Just like it was a majority political move to pass legislation that would have to be passed to find out what was in it. There are no precedents. Didn't the blue team recently change the rules to undermine the other teams ability to block legislation????
    And that is what makes me different than most.  

    a) The blocking of hearings for the last admin's SCOTUS was wrong

    b) Passing a big bill before reading it was wrong

    I'm middle ground and blame both parties when appropriate.  I'm not a "us versus them" person, never have been and never will be. 

    And yes, changing the rules was beyond stupid.  I was against that as well.    


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,615 AG
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    We should do whatever we did last time there was a election.  If I recall correctly the argument was to wait until after the election.  I expect people to be consistent with their views.  

    They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today.  
    Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation. 

    Nominate, not appoint. Senate has the final say on who is appointed. I have no issue with the Pres nominating someone. I will be surprised if the senate confirms before election day. Can't say what might happen between then and January. 
    Never said they appointed any justices. 
     And yes, those justices were appointed by those Senate’s. 
    Pretty sure you did. this is your quote from your post. 

    "Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation."

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
      Until a previous one installed a wise racist Latina, and a law professor without experience to the bench, apparently every president was able to get a nominee on the bench in an election year. 
        But until then there wasn’t near as much difference in how parties viewed the country. 
       
  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,258 Captain
    They are welcome to do what they want, but the rhetorical contortions that many are performing to pretend that their new position is not rank hypocrisy are laughable, and just the latest example of how so many can be convinced with alternative facts that 2+2=5. 
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    They are welcome to do what they want, but the rhetorical contortions that many are performing to pretend that their new position is not rank hypocrisy are laughable, and just the latest example of how so many can be convinced with alternative facts that 2+2=5. 
       The parties have politicized every single thing in our lives, right down to lightbulbs and cold severity. 
        What exactly are your expectations at this point? The biggest problem this country has right now is the ruling elite. How much help do they need?
  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 768 Officer
    edited September 20 #99
    dave44 said:
    They are welcome to do what they want, but the rhetorical contortions that many are performing to pretend that their new position is not rank hypocrisy are laughable, and just the latest example of how so many can be convinced with alternative facts that 2+2=5. 
       The parties have politicized every single thing in our lives, right down to lightbulbs and cold severity. 
        What exactly are your expectations at this point? The biggest problem this country has right now is the ruling elite. How much help do they need?
    Arent you paying attention to what the twisted one says? We need more judges, 2 more states, more representatives, less cops, less prisons. Basically more government but less government.  
    Be better dave44! 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral

    “I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said on the Senate floor four years ago. "If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”


    Lol.  Wow.  



    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 768 Officer
    kellercl said:

    “I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said on the Senate floor four years ago. "If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”


    Lol.  Wow.  

    Source? It sounds familiar. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral
    edited September 20 #102
    kellercl said:

    “I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said on the Senate floor four years ago. "If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”


    Lol.  Wow.  

    Source? It sounds familiar. 
    Use Google, you can even see the video.  

    I would say vote these liars out, but odds are they will be replaced with other liars.  So really it is just a giant wheel of crap. 

    Shameful what this country has become.  No honesty, integrity or dignity left.  



    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 9,125 Admiral
    “In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the president or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the president who is elected on November 3rd,” Collins said in a statement Saturday.
    Maine Senator Susan

    “For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election, Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.”

    “I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia,” she said in the statement. “We are now even closer to the 2020 election — less than two months out — and I believe the same standard must apply.”

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski



  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral
    Good to hear some politicians still have morals and ethics.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 768 Officer
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
    Or they have an ounce of integrity are are standing by their words.  As opposed to those who are frauds and cannot be trusted.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    kellercl said:
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
    Or they have an ounce of integrity are are standing by their words.  As opposed to those who are frauds and cannot be trusted.  
    The big problem is integrity is up for interpretation. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
    Or they have an ounce of integrity are are standing by their words.  As opposed to those who are frauds and cannot be trusted.  
    The big problem is integrity is up for interpretation. 
    In most cases, sure.  In a case where words are clearly recorded and people are clearly changing their position...  there is no interpretation.  They lied.  There is no integrity when lying to the American people.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 768 Officer
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
    Or they have an ounce of integrity are are standing by their words.  As opposed to those who are frauds and cannot be trusted.  
    The big problem is integrity is up for interpretation. 
    In most cases, sure.  In a case where words are clearly recorded and people are clearly changing their position...  there is no interpretation.  They lied.  There is no integrity when lying to the American people.  
    Welcome to politics. 
    There isnt a clean politician out there. Even your “integrity” politicians. 
  • conchydongconchydong Pompano BeachPosts: 7,054 Admiral
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
    Or they have an ounce of integrity are are standing by their words.  As opposed to those who are frauds and cannot be trusted.  
    The big problem is integrity is up for interpretation. 
    In most cases, sure.  In a case where words are clearly recorded and people are clearly changing their position...  there is no interpretation.  They lied.  There is no integrity when lying to the American people.  
    Welcome to politics. 
    There isnt a clean politician out there. Even your “integrity” politicians. 

    That is why sometimes it is better to elect someone who is already filthy rich. They don't need to use their office to get rich.

    “Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
    ― Ernest Hemingway

  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
    Or they have an ounce of integrity are are standing by their words.  As opposed to those who are frauds and cannot be trusted.  
    The big problem is integrity is up for interpretation. 
    In most cases, sure.  In a case where words are clearly recorded and people are clearly changing their position...  there is no interpretation.  They lied.  There is no integrity when lying to the American people.  
    You must have been livid the last 20 years. How do you sleep?
  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,258 Captain
    edited September 20 #112
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
    Or they have an ounce of integrity are are standing by their words.  As opposed to those who are frauds and cannot be trusted.  
    The big problem is integrity is up for interpretation. 
    In most cases, sure.  In a case where words are clearly recorded and people are clearly changing their position...  there is no interpretation.  They lied.  There is no integrity when lying to the American people.  
    Welcome to politics. 
    There isnt a clean politician out there. Even your “integrity” politicians. 

    That is why sometimes it is better to elect someone who is already filthy rich. They don't need to use their office to get rich.
    Let me know when that happens. There are worse sins than greed.
  • dogman18dogman18 Posts: 433 Deckhand
    Where is Diogenes when we need him?

    “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
    ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,928 AG
    The President said he will chose a woman...and that is good...but he really will need to check a few more box's.... The past justice was Jewish....so we will probably need that. Now some add ins like being black...or Hispanic...or even better...mixed race. An American Indian might also be a good add. It might be helpful if she "identified" as LGBTQ somehow....and her and her "partner" would have to adopt special needs children. If all this could be wrapped in a wounded warrior with missing limbs ....Well, My Nihlistic world view makes it easy to laugh at foolishness. Surely the Democrats ..at least a couple...would have to vote for her......Maybe anyway....
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    Collins is on her last leg as a senator and she knows it. Murkowski is also up this go around. 
    They are pandering. 
    Or they have an ounce of integrity are are standing by their words.  As opposed to those who are frauds and cannot be trusted.  
    The big problem is integrity is up for interpretation. 
    In most cases, sure.  In a case where words are clearly recorded and people are clearly changing their position...  there is no interpretation.  They lied.  There is no integrity when lying to the American people.  
    You must have been livid the last 20 years. How do you sleep?
    More concerned than angry.  Blind party loyalty is a real issue in this country, I personally would argue it is our biggest issue.  This country will not get better until the people demand more out of our politicians.  And based on the comments in this thread, that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    Why is it the "integrity" is only expected of the Red Team but not Blue team?
  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 9,049 Moderator
    Why is it the "integrity" is only expected of the Red Team but not Blue team?
    Are you really that myopic? With the exception of a very low percentage on both sides, I believe we expect "integrity" from all sides. (Sadly we aren't seeing it.)

    (We're getting close by the way.)

    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral
    edited September 21 #118
    Why is it the "integrity" is only expected of the Red Team but not Blue team?
    It is expected of all politicians.  We should be mandating it.  

    I suggest reading my first post all the way back on page 1 for additional details.  

    "They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today."

    My position was clear from page 1.


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 13,258 AG
    duckmanJR said:
    The President said he will chose a woman...and that is good...but he really will need to check a few more box's.... The past justice was Jewish....so we will probably need that. Now some add ins like being black...or Hispanic...or even better...mixed race. An American Indian might also be a good add. It might be helpful if she "identified" as LGBTQ somehow....and her and her "partner" would have to adopt special needs children. If all this could be wrapped in a wounded warrior with missing limbs ....Well, My Nihlistic world view makes it easy to laugh at foolishness. Surely the Democrats ..at least a couple...would have to vote for her......Maybe anyway....
    Is it good that he said he will choose a woman?  I don't like how everything now has to be qualified on something other than actual qualifications.    Does this person check this box or that one?   Nevermind that someone is better suited for the job, that person doesn't fit the gender that we need to appease the social justice warriors of equality.   
    Saying that the best candidate will be picked for the job regardless of race/creed/gender is the right thing to do.  But all we do now is listen to whichever way the wind is blowing on twitter today 
    Like is like a Helicopter.  I do not know how to operate a Helicopter  
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,021 Admiral
    duckmanJR said:
    The President said he will chose a woman...and that is good...but he really will need to check a few more box's.... The past justice was Jewish....so we will probably need that. Now some add ins like being black...or Hispanic...or even better...mixed race. An American Indian might also be a good add. It might be helpful if she "identified" as LGBTQ somehow....and her and her "partner" would have to adopt special needs children. If all this could be wrapped in a wounded warrior with missing limbs ....Well, My Nihlistic world view makes it easy to laugh at foolishness. Surely the Democrats ..at least a couple...would have to vote for her......Maybe anyway....
    Is it good that he said he will choose a woman?  I don't like how everything now has to be qualified on something other than actual qualifications.    Does this person check this box or that one?   Nevermind that someone is better suited for the job, that person doesn't fit the gender that we need to appease the social justice warriors of equality.   

    I agree 100%, but here's the problem. I don't think appeasement is the problem it's knowing the other team. With having a track record where win at all costs and destroy everyone is a priority then you must play the game. Money pays for a lot of lies. I have a hard throwing lefty who's due to pitch tonight, but I'm going with the rag arm righty junker because of the match up
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,361 Admiral
    I kind of assumed a women is top of the list so there can't be sexual assault hearings for months.  It is a preemptive move to shorten the process (or negate questions).  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
Sign In or Register to comment.