Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

#2,702
#2,702
One of the reasons that both Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz gave today for the urgency of filling RBG's seat before the November 3rd election, was that the Supreme Court should not have an even number of Justices at 8... even for just six weeks, because that could cause "a Constitutional crisis" to potentially have a 4-4 tie vote, especially during a Presidential election year. This hypocrisy is breathtaking. In 2016, those same two Senate Republicans defended leaving Antonin Scalia's seat vacant from the time of his death in February, all the way until April of 2017, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed. Obviously, that was also an election year when there could have been challenges made in the courts to the results... and only having 8 Justices could have also led to a 4-4 tie. There is no chance of RBG's seat being vacant for as long as Scalia's seat was.

Also, Sen. McConnell frequently referred to Barack Obama as being a "lame duck" President in 2016, but by the actual meaning of that term, he wasn't. A "lame duck" office holder, is what you have from the time in between when a successor has been named or elected, and the time that successor takes office. Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March of 2016, therefore, Obama didn't become a true "lame duck" until Trump was elected on November 8th, which was over 7 months later.

The hypocrisy could not be any more clear. Senate Republicans broke precedent in 2016 when they didn't allow the normal Senate confirmation process to run its course. If Senate Republicans wanted to reject Merrick Garland's nomination, all they had to do was hold hearings, and then bring his nomination to a vote, and reject Garland with that vote. Republicans held the majority in the Senate and they could have done that. There has only been one Supreme Court nominee since the Civil War who didn't receive a Senate vote, without either withdrawing their own nomination first, having their nomination pulled by the President before there was a vote, or dying before the Senate could vote... that nominee was Merrick Garland in 2016.

So, why didn't Senate Republicans go ahead and take a vote on Garland? Because they wanted a nominee who was more conservative than Garland was, and they didn't want to have to defend rejecting someone who was qualified and also a moderate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#2,709
#2,709
BowlBrother85 said:
One of the reasons that both Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz gave today for the urgency of filling RBG's seat before the November 3rd election, was that the Supreme Court should not have an even number of Justices at 8... even for just six weeks, because that could cause "a Constitutional crisis" to potentially have a 4-4 tie vote, especially during a Presidential election year. This hypocrisy is breathtaking. In 2016, those same two Senate Republicans defended leaving Antonin Scalia's seat vacant from the time of his death in February, all the way until April of 2017, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed. Obviously, that was also an election year when there could have been challenges made in the courts to the results... and only having 8 Justices could have also led to a 4-4 tie. There is no chance of RBG's seat being vacant for as long as Scalia's seat was.

Also, Sen. McConnell frequently referred to Barack Obama as being a "lame duck" President in 2016, but by the actual meaning of that term, he wasn't. A "lame duck" office holder, is what you have from the time in between when a successor has been named or elected, and the time that successor takes office. Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March of 2016, therefore, Obama didn't become a true "lame duck" until Trump was elected on November 8th, which was over 7 months later.

The hypocrisy could not be any more clear. Senate Republicans broke precedent in 2016 when they didn't allow the normal Senate confirmation process to run its course. If Senate Republicans wanted to reject Merrick Garland's nomination, all they had to do was hold hearings, and then bring his nomination to a vote, and reject Garland with that vote. Republicans held the majority in the Senate and they could have done that. There has only been one Supreme Court nominee since the Civil War who didn't receive a Senate vote, without either withdrawing their own nomination first, having their nomination pulled by the President before there was a vote, or dying before the Senate could vote... that nominee was Merrick Garland in 2016.

So, why didn't Senate Republicans go ahead and take a vote on Garland? Because they wanted a nominee who was more conservative than Garland was, and they didn't want to have to defend rejecting someone who was qualified and also a moderate.
Click to expand...

Here comes the flaming liberal who will interrupt a good party w/his long winded bag of poop post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CABVOL, hog88, AM64 and 2 others
#2,714
#2,714
1972 Grad said:
We would walk home about a mile from the cowboy movies on Sat. sometimes at the theater downtown.

I can also remember seeing The Pit and the Pendulum and The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and having the crap scared out of me. I was probably 10 or so.
Click to expand...

I remember the previews for The Creature from the Black Lagoon - never did see the movie. Loved all the Frankenstein and Dracula movies, though. The one that always stuck with me was The Invasion of the Body Snatchers - the 50s version. It really is bad when they do remakes of movies that you remember as new the first time. I mean Red Dawn already ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,719
#2,719
BowlBrother85 said:
One of the reasons that both Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz gave today for the urgency of filling RBG's seat before the November 3rd election, was that the Supreme Court should not have an even number of Justices at 8... even for just six weeks, because that could cause "a Constitutional crisis" to potentially have a 4-4 tie vote, especially during a Presidential election year. This hypocrisy is breathtaking. In 2016, those same two Senate Republicans defended leaving Antonin Scalia's seat vacant from the time of his death in February, all the way until April of 2017, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed. Obviously, that was also an election year when there could have been challenges made in the courts to the results... and only having 8 Justices could have also led to a 4-4 tie. There is no chance of RBG's seat being vacant for as long as Scalia's seat was.

Also, Sen. McConnell frequently referred to Barack Obama as being a "lame duck" President in 2016, but by the actual meaning of that term, he wasn't. A "lame duck" office holder, is what you have from the time in between when a successor has been named or elected, and the time that successor takes office. Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March of 2016, therefore, Obama didn't become a true "lame duck" until Trump was elected on November 8th, which was over 7 months later.

The hypocrisy could not be any more clear. Senate Republicans broke precedent in 2016 when they didn't allow the normal Senate confirmation process to run its course. If Senate Republicans wanted to reject Merrick Garland's nomination, all they had to do was hold hearings, and then bring his nomination to a vote, and reject Garland with that vote. Republicans held the majority in the Senate and they could have done that. There has only been one Supreme Court nominee since the Civil War who didn't receive a Senate vote, without either withdrawing their own nomination first, having their nomination pulled by the President before there was a vote, or dying before the Senate could vote... that nominee was Merrick Garland in 2016.

So, why didn't Senate Republicans go ahead and take a vote on Garland? Because they wanted a nominee who was more conservative than Garland was, and they didn't want to have to defend rejecting someone who was qualified and also a moderate.
Click to expand...

Tastes great, or less filling?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR
#2,720
#2,720
AM64 said:
I remember the previews for The Creature from the Black Lagoon - never did see the movie. Loved all the Frankenstein and Dracula movies, though. The one that always stuck with me was The Invasion of the Body Snatchers - the 50s version. It really is bad when they do remakes of movies that you remember as new the first time. I mean Red Dawn already ...
Click to expand...
I remember a Body Snatcher movie with Donald Sutherland. I also saw the original Blob movie the other night. Steve McQueen was in it (I had forgotten that), and his girlfriend was ??? who played Helen Crump on Andy Griffith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top