Topic: Ginsberg
started by: Self-Banished
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 17 2020,3:47 pm
< https://www.usatoday.com/story....9277002 >
Posted by Self-Banished on Jul. 19 2020,5:16 am
It’s not looking good, liver cancer is especially invasive 1999 colon cancer
2009 pancreatic cancer
2018 lung cancer
2020 liver cancer
Will she be placed before November? On the off chance Trump loses will she make it to January
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 18 2020,6:45 pm
Well, how about those apples?< https://www.cnn.com/2020....ex.html >
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 19 2020,5:48 am
With 44 days till the election McConnell says the Senate will vote on Trump's Nominee for the Supreme Court...Obama had a year left on his term but McConnell refuse a vote on Merrick Garland saying it too close to the election...
Does that spell Banana Republic?
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 19 2020,6:06 am
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 19 2020,6:10 am
It’s going to be interesting to say the least.Buster didn’t have a friendly senate, Trump does.
I guess the stars are in alignment
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 19 2020,11:26 am
Here she is folks, your next Supreme Court Justice 
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett >
Try pulling the same shit as the Nazis did on Kavanaugh on her.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 19 2020,6:01 pm
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 19 2020,8:21 pm
^^ so in an election year Trump ceases to be President?You say he’s going to lose, then why not? Nominate and confirm, piss on your feelings
Might be different if the Nazis hadn’t been dicks all through his term.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 20 2020,5:18 am
^^McConnell used that argument in 2016 when he refused to even have a vote on Merrick Garland who was nominated by Obama to replace Scalia.Doesn't that set a historic precedent that should be followed seeing we have the same Senate Majority Leader who imposed this ruling in 2016 but now when the tables are turned he doesn't see his past logic...
I only hope the America people can see the stalwart cronyism practiced by the Republican Party....
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 20 2020,5:32 am
^^ that was then, this is now, tough shit buttercup Amy Barrett wil most likely be tapped. Try accusing her of rape
though I imagine the Nazis will think of some bullshit.As I’ve stated, this will impact the court for years to come and in the unlikely event Gropey and the Nazis take over this will protect the constitution against Nazi law making.
By the way, was Ginsberg’s death attributed to covid?
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 20 2020,5:58 am
Here’s an example of Nazi meltdown (be warned, nasty language) holy shit < https://youtu.be/6k9GdwnbcYo >
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 20 2020,11:19 am
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Sep. 20 2020,2:20 pm
(Expatriate @ Sep. 20 2020,5:18 am)
QUOTE
^^McConnell used that argument in 2016 when he refused to even have a vote on Merrick Garland who was nominated by Obama to replace Scalia.
Doesn't that set a historic precedent that should be followed seeing we have the same Senate Majority Leader who imposed this ruling in 2016 but now when the tables are turned he doesn't see his past logic...
I only hope the America people can see the stalwart cronyism practiced by the Republican Party....
< View on YouTube >
Doesn't that set a historic precedent that should be followed seeing we have the same Senate Majority Leader who imposed this ruling in 2016 but now when the tables are turned he doesn't see his past logic...
I only hope the America people can see the stalwart cronyism practiced by the Republican Party....
< View on YouTube >
No it doesn't set a precedent. In fact 17 supreme court justices have been confirmed by the senate during an election year.
Being the majority leader of the senate, the leader can set whether or not a nominee gets a hearing or not.
It isn't out of the norm for a senate to refuse a hearing if one party holds the senate and another party holds the presidency.
Mcconnell took a gamble that trump would get elected over clinton and it payed off, guess it's one of those "fortune favors the bold" type things.
I'm no fan of the "it's an election year" excuse.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 21 2020,5:08 am
This would be an excellent choice < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lagoa >
Already senate approved with about 83 votes
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 21 2020,5:21 am
@GDI have no doubt on your numbers of appointments of nominees in the past.
But what happened in 2016 sets a precedent under Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution, I know it's vague, Senators create a precedent when they go along with the Presiding Officer’s rulings. So now the Democrats have a legal argument. To change it back at this point would take a two thirds Senate vote.
The Senate Judiciary Committee leaders also prominent Republicans spoke out in-favor of Senate Majority leader McConnell's unprecedented ruling that no nominee should receive a vote in the final year of a President.
Personally I don't believe the framers ever meant to give one man ( McConnell ) this type of power. There should have been a vote on Merrick Garland.
So now we have a mess created by political cronyism on McConnell's part...
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 21 2020,5:52 am
^^ legal argument? Show me where in constitutional law where it says our President can’t nominate and the senate approve.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 21 2020,6:03 am
^^^ pffft< https://www.legbranch.org/precede....created >
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Sep. 21 2020,8:56 am
(Expatriate @ Sep. 21 2020,5:21 am)
QUOTE
@GD
I have no doubt on your numbers of appointments of nominees in the past.
But what happened in 2016 sets a precedent under Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution, I know it's vague, Senators create a precedent when they go along with the Presiding Officer’s rulings. So now the Democrats have a legal argument. To change it back at this point would take a two thirds Senate vote.
The Senate Judiciary Committee leaders also prominent Republicans spoke out in-favor of Senate Majority leader McConnell's unprecedented ruling that no nominee should receive a vote in the final year of a President.
Personally I don't believe the framers ever meant to give one man ( McConnell ) this type of power. There should have been a vote on Merrick Garland.
So now we have a mess created by political cronyism on McConnell's part...
I have no doubt on your numbers of appointments of nominees in the past.
But what happened in 2016 sets a precedent under Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution, I know it's vague, Senators create a precedent when they go along with the Presiding Officer’s rulings. So now the Democrats have a legal argument. To change it back at this point would take a two thirds Senate vote.
The Senate Judiciary Committee leaders also prominent Republicans spoke out in-favor of Senate Majority leader McConnell's unprecedented ruling that no nominee should receive a vote in the final year of a President.
Personally I don't believe the framers ever meant to give one man ( McConnell ) this type of power. There should have been a vote on Merrick Garland.
So now we have a mess created by political cronyism on McConnell's part...
I get what you are saying, however precedent isn't law and most of all doesn't negate or change constitutional powers afforded to either house. As you pointed out Article 1 Section 1 does provide that each house can set its rules on how it proceeds.
29 times the senate has blocked a candidate when the senate party differed from the party in the whitehouse. Article 2 Section 2 also states the Senate's role to advice and consent. Rejecting a presidents nominee for consideration, still falls under the consent role of the Senate.
Again, no fan of the "election year" excuse, I however see it for what it is, politics and chess maneuvering.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 21 2020,11:12 am
(Expatriate @ Sep. 21 2020,6:03 am)
QUOTE
^^^ pffft
< https://www.legbranch.org/precede....created >
< View on YouTube >
< https://www.legbranch.org/precede....created >
< View on YouTube >
Oh Robert C Byrd, was he wearing his klan hood when he thought this up
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 22 2020,5:28 am
Look as if McConnell has the votes, welcome to a new court < https://www.politico.com/news....-418910 >
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 22 2020,6:52 am
@GDQUOTE
29 times the senate has blocked a candidate when the senate party differed from the party in the whitehouse. Article 2 Section 2 also states the Senate's role to advice and consent. Rejecting a presidents nominee for consideration, still falls under the consent role of the Senate.
Blocked by vote is one thing for the Majority Leader of the Senate to make a ruling without vote and for the Senate Judiciary Committee to speak out in favor of such a ruling makes it past practice or a precedent.
From what I've read McConnell's actions were unprecedented,
McConnell decreed "there'd be no vote on a Justice in the finale year of a President's term and the people should decide with the election of a new President"
How do we just overlook the Senate Majority leader's Decree of 2016?
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 22 2020,8:07 am
^^ how did we overlook? Just think of Buster and all his lies and you’ll be fine.Not a big fan of McConnell but he does have his moments
< https://youtu.be/IYxl9hsZubw >
You’ll be fine, after trump wins re-election we can talk about Breyer👍
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 22 2020,10:04 am
I’m not a fan of this turd either but I’ll take it today< https://www.politico.com/news....-419898 >
Garland wasn’t appointed because the senate decided he wasn’t worth their time, simple as that, whoever Trump names as a nominee (hopefully Barret) will most likely be considered by the senate.
I wonder how theyd try to pull a “Kavanaugh” on her
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 22 2020,11:39 am
^^what we here is banana republic rule...
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 22 2020,11:55 am
^^ no, constitutional law, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 22 2020,4:02 pm
^^^the push on this Justice is because the Republicans know Trump has lost....even Putin can't save him..
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 22 2020,5:35 pm
^^ well, if you think Trumps going to lose then why not push it though?Always take the advantage no matter what.
Thing is, Trump will win
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 22 2020,8:06 pm
Our next Supreme Court justice?< https://youtu.be/u8LUr414hGE >
Works for me
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 23 2020,8:11 am
GOP will ask Supreme Court to limit mail voting in Pennsylvania in first post-RBG test< https://thehill.com/homenew....-in?amp >
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 23 2020,8:46 am
^^ yes, we are Ruthless Yes, get off your lazy ass and go to the polls👍
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 24 2020,1:40 pm
Turns out Ruth is like Gropey, a racist< https://www.usatoday.com/story....5945001 >
Of course this will be kept quiet
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 26 2020,3:00 pm
Trump will announce his nomination for SCOTUS late this afternoon, almost a sure bet it will be Barrett, furthermore almost a sure bet she’ll be approved👍I have a question and I’m not getting very satisfactory results searching, if, on the off chance Trump loses the election and the senate flips, could they nominate and approve yet another justice?
I’ve heard Thomas is making noises towards retirement 😈
Interesting man
< https://www.cnn.com/2020....ex.html >
Would he want to take it easy and enjoy life or would he want to die with that seat?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Sep. 26 2020,3:24 pm
(Self-Banished @ Sep. 26 2020,3:00 pm)
QUOTE
Trump will announce his nomination for SCOTUS late this afternoon, almost a sure bet it will be Barrett, furthermore almost a sure bet she’ll be approved👍
I have a question and I’m not getting very satisfactory results searching, if, on the off chance Trump loses the election and the senate flips, could they nominate and approve yet another justice?
I’ve heard Thomas is making noises towards retirement 😈
Interesting man
< https://www.cnn.com/2020....ex.html >
Would he want to take it easy and enjoy life or would he want to die with that seat?
I have a question and I’m not getting very satisfactory results searching, if, on the off chance Trump loses the election and the senate flips, could they nominate and approve yet another justice?
I’ve heard Thomas is making noises towards retirement 😈
Interesting man
< https://www.cnn.com/2020....ex.html >
Would he want to take it easy and enjoy life or would he want to die with that seat?
If the senate flips in the 2020 election, the new senators don't take office until January. Barring any complete foul ups in the current senate, the confirmation process will proceed as scheduled and if confirmed the nominee will fill the vacant seat. So until one becomes available the new senate will have to wait, unless they decide to go for broke and take the chance at political suicide and increase seats on the USSC.
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 27 2020,6:25 am
(Grinning_Dragon @ Sep. 26 2020,3:24 pm)
QUOTE
If the senate flips in the 2020 election, the new senators don't take office until January. Barring any complete foul ups in the current senate, the confirmation process will proceed as scheduled and if confirmed the nominee will fill the vacant seat. So until one becomes available the new senate will have to wait, unless they decide to go for broke and take the chance at political suicide and increase seats on the USSC.
My thoughts for the most part, I would think it’d be fine strategy to have Thomas retire in these circumstances and replace him with a younger justice. This would ensure a constitutional court for decades
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 27 2020,6:53 am
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 27 2020,8:47 am
^^ ooooh, Klobuchar, now there’s a mental giant 
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 29 2020,5:36 am
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Sep. 29 2020,7:28 am
^^ elections have consequences and one of them might be Roe v WadePossible no more murdered babies.
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 01 2020,5:38 am
I like these two👍< https://youtu.be/m5wR2u9LFIQ >
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 01 2020,6:48 am
..
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 01 2020,8:10 am
^^ and the country also belongs to little babies waiting to be born and not murdered.
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 03 2020,8:53 am
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 06 2020,5:09 am
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 06 2020,5:45 am
^^ Roe V Wade is barbaric, killing babies?Says a bunch about you Kernal
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 06 2020,6:10 am
^^When this westboro baptist cult handmaid pushes christian Sharia law maybe you'll wake to the realization of why the separation of church and state was important to the founders of our Nation....
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 06 2020,7:53 am
^^ the only ones pushing sharia law seems to be the lefty loonies like you
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 07 2020,6:40 am
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 07 2020,6:55 am
^^ he”s dead 
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 13 2020,6:58 am
..
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 13 2020,8:11 am
Probably by next week this time we’ll have a 6-3 court even if Roberts does his regular trips off the reservation, a 5-4 court
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 14 2020,6:51 am
^^
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 14 2020,7:43 am
^^ of course that’s your thoughts, Barrett is a person of great character and integrity, something you and the pedocrats are severely lacking in. She’s going to make a phenomenal justice, for many years to come.
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 15 2020,6:01 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 15 2020,6:03 am
She’s going to make a fine justice in that 6/3 court
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 16 2020,6:24 am
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 16 2020,6:38 am
^^ Titus Who freaking cares?
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 22 2020,4:55 am
It seems the pedocrats are going to boycott the vote for Barrett tomorrow < https://www.wsj.com/article....3324026 >
Awwwwe, it makes them cry
They’re going to take their toys and go home.
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 27 2020,5:13 am
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 27 2020,11:44 am
^^< View on YouTube >
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 27 2020,12:02 pm
^^ the pedocrats have no one to blame but themselves, you can thank Harry Reid for that
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 28 2020,9:48 am
^^
Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 28 2020,11:36 am
^^ as I stated, nobody to blame but yourselves