1. The KillerFrogs

RBG dead at 83 - Roe v Wade next

Discussion in 'The Pit' started by The Degenerate Frog, Sep 18, 2020.

  1. I'm beginning to think Trump is going to nominate Judge Barbara Lagoa and is using the rumor of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a smokescreen. Both have been recently confirmed by the Senate so either nomination could be taken straight to the floor for a vote instead of subjecting the nominee to another circus like Kavanagh. However Lagoa's background and the fact that she is a first generation Cuban-American means she'll probably be very bullish on strict construction issues.
    HFrog1999 likes this.
  2. And help with Florida.
  3. #223 TCUdirtbag, Sep 22, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2020
    Look, I don’t disagree with the idea that everything about scotus politics and all politicians suck. (Reminder: I called out how awful scotus politics are and called for a complete re-work of the system around it a few pages back!) But McConnell is engaging in a completely legal but very raw exercise of power. It can’t be denied that after 2016–refusing to have meetings with Garland, much less hearings or a vote–this is a clear and significant escalation (coupled with nuking the filibuster-which Dems certainly teed up).

    No doubt adding justices would be another significant escalation. But it’s perfectly legal and has precedent. It’s constitutional, so it’s just as “democratic” as the electoral college and unequal per capita representation in the senate (in that it’s not all that democratic, but this is a republic and we do a lot of undemocratic things). The consequences will suck and the escalations will continue. But it is certainly not illegal. And both parties’ hands are dirty. The “bridge too far” for liberals is filling Ginsburg’s seat now. The “bridge too far” for conservatives would/if it happens will be democrats expanding the Court. Until we get to the next bridges too far.

    IMO we’re going to be living in this escalating political hell until we do the hard work and go in and reform/modernize the constitution to de-escalate politics.
  4. The Heritage Foundation wants Coney Barrett. The Trump campaign wants Lagoa. It’s really gross to think a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is even being considered as a nakedly political attempt to win electoral votes in the last 6 weeks of a general election. But that’s politics—especially in 2020. I suspect the Heritage Foundation will win out, though. Coney Barrett was thoroughly vetted last time so it’s an easier process. Appellate court vetting is thorough but it’s not as intense as scotus vetting.

    Regardless of who they go with, there will be a hearing in some form—they won’t just put it on the floor. The GOP will want to try and recreate the Kavanaugh circus, especially with Harris on judiciary. And Trump is down big with women so they want to try and get a clip of men being mean to the nominee that they can put in an ad.
  5. Does it require both House and Senate approval? I couldn’t figure out how the 1869 act was enacted.
    This ugliness started with Bork, not Garland. That’s on the Dems, several of whom are still leaders in Congress.

    I think it’s a stretch to say there is a legitimate precedent for expanding the SC since it hasn’t been done since 1869 and it certainly wasn’t for political power back then, especially when you are saying it in the context of “modernizing” the constitution. “Modernizing” it by using a 160 year old precedent is quite a dichotomy of logic.
  6. Yes, that awful Democratic crime of blocking Robert Bork and yet *still* confirming a Republican justice.

    If you’ve read my posts, you’ll see I never came close to saying the ugliness began with Garland. Never said the Democrats had clean hands—the opposite in fact. But Garland was an escalation. And this seat far, far more.
  7. I think the Republicans have finally had enough of Pelosi's constant threats of impeachment...

  8. This doesn’t mean anything unless enough Democrats get on board which I don’t see happening
  9. Two things:

    1. Nancy Pelosi (nor any elected democrat so far as I’ve seen) has suggested impeaching Trump “for appointing a Supreme Court Justice.” What has been mentioned are various procedural tactics after the election, if Biden wins, to constrain the Senate’s ability to cram through a vote. Some have indicated those tactics might include sending articles of impeachment to the Senate (for Barr or Trump) to grind Senate business to a halt. Note: that tactic is unlikely to even work. Also note: it looks like the Senate plans to vote before the election, so the whole argument is likely moot. Regardless, the proposition itself still amounts to nothing more than a very raw (but still constitutional) exercise of power. Raw exercise of power is the Republican justification for filling Ginsburg’s seat. So, [ teat ] for tat.

    2. Impeachment is just as legal as nominating a Supreme Court justice. Which is something we should all bear in mind both now and next year in the event Biden wins and Dems take control of the Senate. And presently Democrats do not have the votes to remove Trump from office and Republicans do not have the votes to remove Pelosi from the Speakership.

    This story is much ado about nothing.
  10. unaware?
  11. Showtime Joe 2.0 likes this.
  12. [​IMG]
    Showtime Joe 2.0, Salfrog and Eight like this.
  13. #235 Dogfrog, Sep 26, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
  14. Yep

    Friedman and his “progressive” warriors on the right

  15. What the scheiss, literally, what the scheiss? How many Haitian children did he save and adopt. Not a scheissing one.

  16. talking with friends who have done multiple mission trips to Haiti it is one of the worst places they have ever visited and that includes slums in india, Central America, etc...

    crime rate so bad they sleep on a boat because it isn't safe to stay on land.
  17. Utterly disgusting. Yeah, kid would have been better off licking the dripping of milk cartons in trash heaps in Port Au'Prince.

    I've seen several comments from the left about her adoptions and it's about the lowest thing I've ever seen from them. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder if you're questioning a family's decision to adopt. As a prospective adoptive parent this is about as disgusting a thing I've ever hear.
  18. He says white people “adopting these children are cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”

    Admit I’m not sure of all the details but I’m going to go ahead and assume that these children were voluntarily put up for adoption by their biological parents, for various reasons, not the least of which is to give these children a chance, an act of love.

Share This Page