NDL Forum

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:19 pm**

shel311 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:46 am
wdoupis wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:12 am ignoring obligations they swore to uphold when elected to serve
So...politics

Beat me to it.

I think her dying will bring a lot of people out to vote if the person isn't confirmed before election day

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:10 pm**

I find it humorous that justification for not appointing a replacement during the last year in Obamas administration (in March) will not (most likely) be adhered to during Trumps.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:13 pm**

Have any of the people on record and video in 2016 been on record yesterday or today reversing course?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:20 pm**

shel311 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:13 pm Have any of the people on record and video in 2016 been on record yesterday or today reversing course?

All of them lol. Mitch McConnell says the difference is 2016 it was a Dem president with R senate so the voters should decide but since its an R pres and senate for another month and a half it’s different this time. Your typical Mitch spin zone bull shit

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:24 pm**

Two republican Senators have already come out and said they think it should be put off till after election so the ole turtle can only afford one more defection for them to have a shot at confirmation.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:39 pm**

That’s what they always do though. A couple “brave“ ones go against the party it but it always somehow falls one short.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:18 pm**

Crowes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:24 pm Two republican Senators have already come out and said they think it should be put off till after election so the ole turtle can only afford one more defection for them to have a shot at confirmation.

Those two senators will most likely end up toeing the line when it comes down to it. They all love their jobs and it could cost them their job when they are up for reelection if they vote no if it hits the floor.

I do love how immature you are and resort to name calling everyone every single time. Grow up

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:19 pm**

wdoupis wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:39 pm That’s what they always do though. A couple “brave“ ones go against the party it but it always somehow falls one short.

Read my post above. Just don't see them voting no

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:49 pm**

Honest question as I dont know shit about all of this, were the Democrats trying to push a nominee through in 2016 and the Republicans were able to stall it?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:29 pm**

shel311 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:49 pm Honest question as I dont know shit about all of this, were the Democrats trying to push a nominee through in 2016 and the Republicans were able to stall it?

Not stall it, they held the majority in the Senate and they had to approve the nomination. The democrats screwed themselves under the Obama administration when they held a majority in the Senate and passed a law that just a simple majority was needed to pass any laws. Came back to bite them in the ass in 2016 and will come to bite them in the ass again here in 2020. And now they are talking about getting rid of filibusters if they take back the Senate and it will eventually bite them in the ass down the road. The filibuster is a good thing so people still have a voice even if their senators are in the minority

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:47 pm**

GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:29 pm
shel311 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:49 pm Honest question as I dont know shit about all of this, were the Democrats trying to push a nominee through in 2016 and the Republicans were able to stall it?
Not stall it, they held the majority in the Senate and they had to approve the nomination. The democrats screwed themselves under the Obama administration when they held a majority in the Senate and passed a law that just a simple majority was needed to pass any laws. Came back to bite them in the ass in 2016 and will come to bite them in the ass again here in 2020. And now they are talking about getting rid of filibusters if they take back the Senate and it will eventually bite them in the ass down the road. The filibuster is a good thing so people still have a voice even if their senators are in the minority

While that is correct that point is completely irrelevant to a supreme court appointment. The republicans changed the simple majority rules for supreme court confirmations back in 2017.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:50 pm**

shel311 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:49 pm Honest question as I dont know shit about all of this, were the Democrats trying to push a nominee through in 2016 and the Republicans were able to stall it?

Shorter answer is yes. In Obama’s last year (believe February or March) there was an opening. He nominated Merrill Garland and McConnell and the republicans refused to even hold hearings and said there should be no appointee until after the election

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:02 pm**

wdoupis wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:50 pm Shorter answer is yes

So we're not actually complaining about the actions of Republicans since democrats were doing the same exact thing in 2016 but were just complaining that the Republicans did it better, if you will?

I know that'll sound condescending or whatever but from the explanations that seems like exactly what's happening here. Democrats wanted to push it through in 2016 and stall it in 2020, so they're no better than the Republicans. Only difference being the Republicans got their way in 2016 and we'll see what happens in 2020.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:08 pm**

shel311 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:02 pm
wdoupis wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:50 pm Shorter answer is yes
So we're not actually complaining about the actions of Republicans since democrats were doing the same exact thing in 2016 but were just complaining that the Republicans did it better, if you will?

I know that'll sound condescending or whatever but from the explanations that seems like exactly what's happening here. Democrats wanted to push it through in 2016 and stall it in 2020, so they're no better than the Republicans. Only difference being the Republicans got their way in 2016 and we'll see what happens in 2020.

Time is on the democrats side as the voting trends in this country has Republicans with less then a handful of elections left to be in anyway relevant on a national scale. Here is what will likey happen since we are heading down the tit for tat mountain in government. They will get their appointment thru then when democrats win in November or whenever it happens they will expand the supreme court and pack it with liberal judges.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:17 pm**

Crowes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:47 pm
GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:29 pm
shel311 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:49 pm Honest question as I dont know shit about all of this, were the Democrats trying to push a nominee through in 2016 and the Republicans were able to stall it?
Not stall it, they held the majority in the Senate and they had to approve the nomination. The democrats screwed themselves under the Obama administration when they held a majority in the Senate and passed a law that just a simple majority was needed to pass any laws. Came back to bite them in the ass in 2016 and will come to bite them in the ass again here in 2020. And now they are talking about getting rid of filibusters if they take back the Senate and it will eventually bite them in the ass down the road. The filibuster is a good thing so people still have a voice even if their senators are in the minority
While that is correct that point is completely irrelevant to a supreme court appointment. The republicans changed the simple majority rules for supreme court confirmations back in 2017.

And it started with the Democrats changing passing laws to a simple majority. Can't cry when they set the rules first.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:31 pm**

Pelosi is saying she could potentially impeach Trump in order to block Trump's upcoming nominee to the Supreme Court.

What would be the basis for the impeachment?

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:52 pm**

They're in the game of making shit up now, so it could happen...

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:50 pm**

Can we have an online blind election, where you only vote on their policies (no names)... kind of like one of those isidewith sites?

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:13 pm**

Can someone tell me if this is correct?

So the president obviously has a constitutional duty to nominate a candidate, right?

And the precedent in the past is that when the Senate is a different party than the president, the nominee is blocked or whatever but more to the point, when the Senate majority is the same party as the president the precedent based on past history is that these nominees are pushed through?

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:36 pm**

shel311 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:13 pm Can someone tell me if this is correct?

So the president obviously has a constitutional duty to nominate a candidate, right?

And the precedent in the past is that when the Senate is a different party than the president, the nominee is blocked or whatever but more to the point, when the Senate majority is the same party as the president the precedent based on past history is that these nominees are pushed through?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/hist ... confirmed/

NDL Forum

Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff

Re: Politics and stuff