Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NipkowDisc said:

how the hell can schumer suggest to mcconnell that he be guided by his own advice to obama back in 2016 to not confirm a scotus pick before the big election, how can he now turn that around and aim it at mcconnell WHEN OBAMA, HIM AND HIS FELLOW SENATE DEMOCRATS REJECTED THAT SAME ADVICE BACK IN 2016?

:huh:

 

does chucky wucky now agree with mcconnell that Obama shouldn't have ever nominated merrick garland?

:D

I can't recall but MSNBC is saying that McConnell said that a justice shouldn't be seated during an election year.  BUT it was my understanding McConnell said a Presidential election year and not just any election year; i.e. a mid-term election year.

I clearly can see Dems trying to block any selection during the 2020 election year, using the same lame and sleazy reasoning McConnell used in 2016,  but not during a mid-term election year.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I can't recall but MSNBC is saying that McConnell said that a justice shouldn't be seated during an election year.  BUT it was my understanding McConnell said a Presidential election year and not just any election year; i.e. a mid-term election year.

I clearly can see Dems trying to block any selection during the 2020 election year, using the same lame and sleazy reasoning McConnell used in 2016,  but not during a mid-term election year.   

but 2020 it won't matter anymore.

RGB looks like norman bates' mother.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Swithin said:

As Jeffrey Toobin just announced on CNN, "Roe v. Wade is doomed."

 

It's the bone they throw to their (baindead) followers that then enables them to cut taxes for billionaires and to make America an oligarch society and to ensure that the faithful will live life as indebted worker ants.  In truth, those in control like Tump could care less about Roe v. Wade.  It's just a big scam.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Uh,    she can't prevent herself from dying.   Trump will then be able to replace her. 

Of course if she can hang on until 2020,  the Dems can pull a similar stunt the GOP did to Garland.   But I don't know if the Dems will have that type of power in the Senate after the 2018 election.

Either way,  the Dems should have never taken these risks;  the 2 very old and liberal justices should have retired in 2014.    Too late now so the odds are really, really high the SC will be controlled by conservatives for years, if not decades, to come.

 

You cant force judges to retire. It's THEIR CALL. Yes she will die, but it remains to be seen WHEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hibi said:

You cant force judges to retire. It's THEIR CALL. Yes she will die, but it remains to be seen WHEN.

But you could persuade them - or at least try.  The other problem was in appointing "elderly" people.  A lesson Trump has learned; appoint youngsters.

17 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yes,  no risk for McConnell \ GOP,  only a possible upside that ended up becoming true.

The really poor decision (also arrogant one),  was that liberal justices didn't retire during the first half of Obama's second term.    McConnell wouldn't have been able to delay a vote that early in a President's term.   Of course Dem party leaders,  even the President,  can force a justice to retire.    Bottom line now is that the odds are high Trump and the GOP will be able to seat a few more justices before Trump leave office. 

Even in 2015 it could have worked.  Nobody can force a judge to retire, but they can try and persuade them.  Trump may end up appointing four justices and no telling how many lower level judges.

17 hours ago, Swithin said:

As Jeffrey Toobin just announced on CNN, "Roe v. Wade is doomed."

 

It is and so is any attempt to realistically establish limits on guns.  Any state laws which are passed restricting abortion or guns will result in well-financed court cases with the intention to get them to the Supreme Court so the conservatives can overturn them.  Not to mention voting rights, civil rights and any rights of the people - other than owning guns.

Next in line will be limitations on financial institutions, developers, petroleum companies, big pharma, big agriculture, the automobile industry, the "health" industry, law enforcement, ad infinitum.   I can visualize the "conservative" dark money and lobbying organizations tapping their donors right now.

It will shortly become a war rather than battles.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

But you could persuade them - or at least try.  The other problem was in appointing "elderly" people.  A lesson Trump has learned; appoint youngsters.

Even in 2015 it could have worked.  Nobody can force a judge to retire, but they can try and persuade them.  Trump may end up appointing four justices and no telling how many lower level judges.

It is and so is any attempt to realistically establish limits on guns.  Any state laws which are passed restricting abortion or guns will result in well-financed court cases with the intention to get them to the Supreme Court so the conservatives can overturn them.  Not to mention voting rights, civil rights and any rights of the people - other than owning guns.

Next in line will be limitations on financial institutions, developers, petroleum companies, big pharma, big agriculture, the automobile industry, the "health" industry, law enforcement, ad infinitum.   I can visualize the "conservative" dark money and lobbying organizations tapping their donors right now.

It will shortly become a war rather than battles.

Frankly, I dont think anyone would have the gall to do that (try to persuade them) I wouldnt put it past DUMP though! (Fat chance the 2 Dems would even take his calls...)

 

I do agree w/you about the future. Looks pretty bleak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course RBG doesn't have to die. She could become too ill to carry out her

duties on the court. Start mainlining that chicken soup, RBG. I am more

optimistic than others. Will right wingers and their money try to influence

elections. Sure, but I'm not so sure they will be that successful. Time will

tell. If the Dems are counting on Republicans like Flake or Collins to vote

against Donny's nominee, they'd better think twice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2018/0627/Court-ruling-a-blow-not-a-knockout-to-public-unions

WHY WE WROTE THIS

The court's ruling raises questions about the further weakening of organized labor at a time of rising economic inequality. Yet some say  unions will be able to adjust to the changed landscape.

A US Supreme Court ruling Wednesday has dealt a sharp blow to public-sector labor unions at a time when organized labor is struggling to reverse decades of decline in membership. 

The decision, which affirmed broad free-speech rights for workers, appears certain to undercut the clout of unions representing government employees that have emerged as a bastion of labor activism. It also could inspire follow-on actions by supporters and foes of organized labor in both the public and private sector.

The plaintiff, Mark Janus, who works for Illinois's state government, argued that being called on to pay unions' fees violated his free-speech rights. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court’s conservative majority agreed that the activities of a public-sector union – even collective bargaining over pay and benefits – are inherently a form of political speech.

This upends a long-standing norm of “fair-share” fees: Workers should help cover the costs of union bargaining that determines their compensation, even if they chose not to join the union. Without such a system, argue labor activists, some “free riders” reap the benefits of unionization without sharing the costs. Now, in the public sector, that system of fee collection has been overturned.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheCid said:

But you could persuade them - or at least try.  The other problem was in appointing "elderly" people.  A lesson Trump has learned; appoint youngsters.

Even in 2015 it could have worked.  Nobody can force a judge to retire, but they can try and persuade them.  Trump may end up appointing four justices and no telling how many lower level judges.

It is and so is any attempt to realistically establish limits on guns.  Any state laws which are passed restricting abortion or guns will result in well-financed court cases with the intention to get them to the Supreme Court so the conservatives can overturn them.  Not to mention voting rights, civil rights and any rights of the people - other than owning guns.

Next in line will be limitations on financial institutions, developers, petroleum companies, big pharma, big agriculture, the automobile industry, the "health" industry, law enforcement, ad infinitum.   I can visualize the "conservative" dark money and lobbying organizations tapping their donors right now.

It will shortly become a war rather than battles.

"the golden days are ahead." -claude rains, the adventures of robin hood

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2018/0627/Court-ruling-a-blow-not-a-knockout-to-public-unions

WHY WE WROTE THIS

The court's ruling raises questions about the further weakening of organized labor at a time of rising economic inequality. Yet some say  unions will be able to adjust to the changed landscape.

 

It is closer to a knock out than a "blow."  Union membership overall has been in a steady decline for years.  It is 1.6% in S.C. and 3% in N.C.  The S.C. state government is totally opposed to unions.  Nikki Haley made it a center point of her governorship.  S.C. is a right to work state. Or as I prefer to call it, a right to abuse workers state.

I have recently seen TV ads for New York State as to why companies should move there.  Sounds a lot like the ads the South used for years.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/23/2018 at 6:01 PM, mr6666 said:

NBC NewsVerified account @NBCNews 50m50 minutes ago

 
 

As President Trump’s Supreme Court pick readies for his eventual confirmation hearing,

support for the court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade has hit an all-time high,

according to a new NBC/WSJ poll. https://nbcnews.to/2A3FUA7 

Di0bVXgXsAAZVqp.png

Doesn't matter.  Just like with realistic gun regulations, the people that VOTE and the people they elect decide the issues.  In this case, it is who is on the Supreme Court that will ultimately decide.

Roe v. Wade will NOT be "overturned," but limitations on what each state may do to restrict abortions will be permitted.  Effectively banning abortions in many states.

On 7/31/2018 at 5:38 PM, mr6666 said:

Sen Dianne FeinsteinVerified account @SenFeinstein 6h6 hours ago

 
 

BREAKING: @JudiciaryDems have requested ALL Kavanaugh White House records from the Archives, just as Republicans did for Kagan in 2010.

But today, Rs withheld their support.

We MUST fully vet nominees for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land. #ReleaseTheRecords

Apparently the National Archives has the documents the Dems wanted and the director ruled that only chairman of Judiciary Committee ( Grassley-R) can request them - and he won't.  So records will not be released.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Apparently the National Archives has the documents the Dems wanted and the director ruled that only chairman of Judiciary Committee ( Grassley-R) can request them - and he won't.  So records will not be released.

Yes, only the chairman can request them.   Didn't Reid,  NOT make the request for docs on Kagan back in 2010?  

Anyhow,   Feinstein and Schumer have agreed to meet with Kavanaugh so the process is moving forward.    Feinstein is running against a very liberal Dem candidate (De Leon),  and his entire campaign is based on "oh,  she was ok,  she had her time,  but she hasn't done enough for liberal causes".    Therefore Feinstein has to give the appearance of doing all-she-can to stop this appointment when the reality is that there is little to nothing she can do to block it.    These interviews are unnecessary since she has to vote 'no' to retain here lead over De Leon.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yes, only the chairman can request them.   Didn't Reid,  NOT make the request for docs on Kagan back in 2010?  

Anyhow,   Feinstein and Schumer have agreed to meet with Kavanaugh so the process is moving forward.    Feinstein is running against a very liberal Dem candidate (De Leon),  and his entire campaign is based on "oh,  she was ok,  she had her time,  but she hasn't done enough for liberal causes".    Therefore Feinstein has to give the appearance of doing all-she-can to stop this appointment when the reality is that there is little to nothing she can do to block it.    These interviews are unnecessary since she has to vote 'no' to retain here lead over De Leon.    

Who knows what the operation plan of the Dems is other than them.  It may be they are trying to stall it as long as possible so it will have more impact on the Nov. elections.  Also, if they succeed in getting something, it might be damaging to Kavanaugh and he might withdraw (doubtful on both counts).

Regardless, I don't see Kavanaugh not getting the votes he needs to be confirmed.  If delayed past the election (doubtful) and the Dems take over the Senate (doubtful), they could ask that the vote not be held until after the new senators are sworn in, sort of as McConnell did with the Gorsuch nomination.  Even if GOP retains control, Dems could always say there are new senators, so let's hold off  until Jan for the vote.  Of course, the GOPers would never accept that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Who knows what the operation plan of the Dems is other than them.

I only mention the operation plans of Feinstein and on this I'm highly confident.    The CA Dem party is providing support to De Leon, and Obama didn't endorse her (so far).    An Obama's endorsement would seal the deal for her in this Dem vs Dem contest in CA,  a state that has a lot of respect for all-things-Obama.

Also CA Senator Kamala Harris, elected in 2016,  didn't endorse her and Harris is listed as one of the top 5 or so possible Dem presidential candidates in 2020).    Typically the recently elected 'junior' Senator endorses and supporter (e.g. campaigns for),   an 'old dog' like Feinstein.   

Going forward Feinstein has to vote "NO" for any and all Trump appointees. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I only mention the operation plans of Feinstein and on this I'm highly confident.    The CA Dem party is providing support to De Leon, and Obama didn't endorse her (so far).    An Obama's endorsement would seal the deal for her in this Dem vs Dem contest in CA,  a state that has a lot of respect for all-things-Obama.

Also CA Senator Kamala Harris, elected in 2016,  didn't endorse her and Harris is listed as one of the top 5 or so possible Dem presidential candidates in 2020).    Typically the recently elected 'junior' Senator endorses and supporter (e.g. campaigns for),   an 'old dog' like Feinstein.   

Going forward Feinstein has to vote "NO" for any and all Trump appointees. 

 

Part of delaying plan it to also help the Dems in hot contests to avoid voting before the election, but I doubt that will happen as well.  McConnell and Grassley will push for a pre-election vote.  Hoping that Dems will vote for Kavanuagh or lose votes in election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Part of delaying plan it to also help the Dems in hot contests to avoid voting before the election, but I doubt that will happen as well.  McConnell and Grassley will push for a pre-election vote.  Hoping that Dems will vote for Kavanuagh or lose votes in election.

Yes,  whether an incumbent Dem Senator wishes to have the vote BEFORE or AFTER the election is based on the circumstances of their state.    In CA a vote for a Trump appointment is a death-sign since the only two candidates running are Dems.     Feinstein wants a vote before the election to show that she is anti-Trump enough to represent CA.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like something from the last years of the Soviet Union when the media would 

report that the new premier liked jazz or John Wayne movies. Guy can't be that bad,

can he? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

Kevin M. KruseVerified account @KevinMKruse 6h6 hours ago

 
 

Golly, with all these puff pieces about how good ol' Brett Kavanaugh dutifully drives the car pool and plays basketball by the rules and is polite to law clerks,

I guess we really don't need to see all the documents they're hiding after all.

<_<

Un,  Kruse ,   you don't really need to see all the documents because you're not in the Senate and therefore you don't have a vote.    

Come on be honest;  you know enough about Kavanaugh to NOT support his appointment.    I know I do. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...