Democrats have a sacred duty to not approve any conservative supreme court judge...

[JohnnyNight]

Payback is paramount and most important..

Trump should do the honorable thing and nominate Obamas pick Merrick Garland as this is the morally right thing to do..!!

[directfiesta]

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by JohnnyNight

Payback is paramount and most important..

Trump should do the honorable thing and nominate Obamas pick Merrick Garland as this is the morally right thing to do..!!

Yeah that would help mend fences but Trump only cares about his base, which will be his undoing as they are 42 million out of 320 million population

[kane]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Yeah that would help mend fences but Trump only cares about his base, which will be his undoing as they are 42 million out of 320 million population

I don't know that his base is that big. I think he has a strong base, but I think there were also a good number of people who voted for him simply because they hated Clinton and others voted for him simply because they liked his message. If he doesn't follow through on that message and do a good job, many of those people may abandon him.

[MaDalton]

do they need any democrats?

[kane]

Originally Posted by StefanG

do they need any democrats?

Kind of.

they only need 51 votes to approve a nominee so as long as all the Republicans vote for the nominee they don't need any Democrats. However, if the Democrats filibuster a nominee it takes 60 votes to overcome the filibuster so they would need Democrats for that. There is another option, which the Democrats used when the Republicans filibustered every Obama nominee, which is known as the "nuclear option." This would allow them to basically bypass the filibuster with just 51 votes. The good side of it is that you can overcome obstructionist. The bad side is that it will likely anger the opposition and eventually that opposition may come to power and then use it against you.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Yeah that would help mend fences but Trump only cares about his base, which will be his undoing as they are 42 million out of 320 million population

And Clinton's base was 45 million out of 320.

Just to clear things out on your nice spin on numbers (under the radar implying that 278 million would be for the other side. So it is 45, not 278 if anyone is wondering).

[mineistaken]

And why liberal judge is the "right" thing to do while conservative judge is the "wrong" thing to do. Just because Obama thought of his nominee first? First is not necessary the better.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Only 11 days in and it's a muckety muck battle that will only get worse.
Welcome to Washington DC; Mr. Big Shot Billionaire Cry Baby

[Rochard]

The Republican party refused to accept Obama's nomination because he was a lame duck President. In this case, the Democrats can say they consider Trump to be a lame duck president because they expect him to be impeached shortly.

[kane]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

And why liberal judge is the "right" thing to do while conservative judge is the "wrong" thing to do. Just because Obama thought of his nominee first? First is not necessary the better.

Obama didn't "think" of his nominee first. It wasn't a race. Obama was president and had 11 months left in his presidency. The Republicans refused to even hold a hearing on his nominee until after the election.

Is a liberal judge better than a conservative judge? That could be left open to discussion, but the "right" thing to do would have been to hold hearings and vote on the nominee instead of playing politics.

[MaDalton]

btw - the fact alone that judges are considered liberal or conservative - and not neutral - isn't that worrying anybody?

[kane]

Originally Posted by StefanG

btw - the fact alone that judges are considered liberal or conservative - and not neutral - isn't that worrying anybody?

Of course, it is but many of our laws are open to interpretation so when a judge has to make one of those interpretations they are going to be influenced by their belief system. It's hard to find someone who is truly neutral.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by kane

Of course, it is but many of our laws are open to interpretation so when a judge has to make one of those interpretations they are going to be influenced by their belief system. It's hard to find someone who is truly neutral.

funny - same could be said about the bible, the quran, ...

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

And why liberal judge is the "right" thing to do while conservative judge is the "wrong" thing to do. Just because Obama thought of his nominee first? First is not necessary the better.

This is why you shouldn't speak about foreign politics until you know the basics not to ask such a stupid question.

1) American liberals are conservative compared to European liberals which are far far left from us.

2) Conservative judges want to take away rights, liberals want to preserve them.

What is your legal system in Slovakia where you live? Do you vote for judges who want to take away human rights and let big business RIP apart your country?

Again, you should should learn the basics of a foreign political system before opening your mouth judging citizens of other countries and saying I'm not patriotic because I'm a Democrat (as you did in a previous thread).

You just make yourself look stupid and open to being judged negatively yourself.

[kane]

Originally Posted by StefanG

funny - same could be said about the bible, the quran, ...

I agree 100%. One of the biggest problems with religion is that you can interpret it to mean just about anything you want.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

And Clinton's base was 45 million out of 320.

Just to clear things out on your nice spin on numbers (under the radar implying that 278 million would be for the other side. So it is 45, not 278 if anyone is wondering).

Why are you still worried about Clinton?

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

And Clinton's base was 45 million out of 320.

Just to clear things out on your nice spin on numbers (under the radar implying that 278 million would be for the other side. So it is 45, not 278 if anyone is wondering).

You don't make any sense and as usual try to twist actual facts to support Trump.

Let me explain American politics to you again:

62 million voted Trump, that's Trumps BASE

There are 72 million registered Democrats in America.

There are 55 million registered Republicans in America.

How many Democrats are registered in Slovakia? Are Democrats the majority?

[kane]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You don't make any sense and as usual try to twist actual facts to support Trump.

Let me explain American politics to you again:

42 million voted Trump, that's Trumps BASE

There are 72 million registered Democrats in America.

There are 55 million registered Republicans in America.

How many Democrats are registered in Slovakia? Are Democrats the majority?

I'm curious where the 42 million number comes from.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by kane

I'm curious where the 42 million number comes from.

62 million my bad

[kane]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

62 million my bad

Makes sense.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by kane

Makes sense.

My guess is he'd get 20 million less votes if the election was held today

[kane]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

My guess is he'd get 20 million less votes if the election was held today

May very well be true. Even if he got the same amount of votes, I think Clinton might win if the election were held today because I think a lot of the Democrats who didn't vote or voted 3rd party might turn out to support her. But, I guess, we will never know for sure.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Gorsuch is seen as a less bombastic version of Scalia; he also believes in an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution and would seem destined to be a solidly conservative vote on the ideologically split court. But friends and supporters describe Gorsuch as being more interested in persuasion than Scalia, who was just as likely to go it alone as to compromise.

Senate Democrats have promised a vigorous battle, believing that Republican colleagues “stole” the court opening by refusing to hold even a hearing on former president Barack Obama’s nominee for Scalia’s seat, Judge Merrick Garland. His nomination withered.

Some Democrats have pledged to try to block a vote on Trump’s nominee. “I won’t be complicit in this theft,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote in an email to supporters. “There is only one person in America who is a legitimate selection: Judge Merrick Garland.”

Other Democrats aren’t likely to take such a bold move. But there were already signs that things won’t be particularly cozy: Trump invited senior Democratic senators to the White House for a reception to meet his Supreme Court pick, but they declined the invitation, according to senior aides.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...32c_story.html
Trump picks Colo. appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

Bork Nomination Reloaded
Endless comedy assured

There are two ideologies in the Supreme Court.

Strict constructionist and modernist in Constitutional interpretation.

1. Is the constitutional meaning of laws to be seen in an originalist interpretation -- a more literal reading as the intent was when the words where written, or;
2. seen as a guiding document that is adaptive to the need of the present day.

This is not conservafart and libertard. These are the rules of law we have to live by.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by StefanG

btw - the fact alone that judges are considered liberal or conservative - and not neutral - isn't that worrying anybody?

sure is ... but to non-americans

[Barry-xlovecam]

The Constitution is like the Bible in America.
Do we behave like we did in 1000 BC or adapt to a more modern meaning of concept?
Like the Magna Carta and English Common Law vs American constitutional law with encoded statutes and precedental law.

Trump the Chump misspelled that 'presidential' in a Tweet or maybe it was just a Freudian slip?

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

The democrats lost. They have lost all the arguments and all they have left is name calling...they repubs have the house, senate and president...they have no power

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by StefanG

btw - the fact alone that judges are considered liberal or conservative - and not neutral - isn't that worrying anybody?

You are right that it should. Justices are supposed to impartially interpret constitutional law, not do gymnastics to present a particular political bias.

Then again, this thread was started by someone who unironically used the word sacred to describe something where separation of church and state is a cornerstone value.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

You are right that it should. Justices are supposed to impartially interpret constitutional law, not do gymnastics to present a particular political bias.

Then again, this thread was started by someone who unironically used the word sacred to describe something where separation of church and state is a cornerstone value.

How do you feel that every justice picked by the Republicans is picked on how they will vote on Row vs Wade?

Sorry, but Republicans have politicalized everything and I sure didn't see you complaining when it was Republicans blocking Obama's pick.. I never once saw you or any of the other gfy Republicans complain about how the right's entire manta was to gridlock Washington the entire 8 years Obama was potus.

You really have zero room to complain, if you didn't speek out then.. Complaining now that everything is politicized is a bit late and pretty double standard thinking.

[VikingMan]

Originally Posted by StefanG

do they need any democrats?

Good question! They need only 9 communists/democrats.

[nico-t]

Obama, the continuation of the corrupt war mongering establishment of Bush and the Clintons, in the same sentence as "morally right thing to do"... I'm sorry but that was hilarious. Are you being sarcastic?

[Rochard]

What the Republican party did with Obama's Supreme Court Justice pick was horrible and illegal. The Democratic party now has the chance to do the same.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by nico-t

Obama, the continuation of the corrupt war mongering establishment of Bush and the Clintons, in the same sentence as "morally right thing to do"... I'm sorry but that was hilarious. Are you being sarcastic?

STFU already. Jesus, there is really no excuse that someone from another country could be so obsessed with US politics other than if you are a paid Russian troll. Even a crazy person would of found something new to whine about by now..

[Joshua G]

Hey crockett...amelia is a smart lib...your a dumb one, calling her gop

[VikingMan]

Originally Posted by crockett

STFU already. Jesus, there is really no excuse that someone from another country could be so obsessed with US politics other than if you are a paid Russian troll. Even a crazy person would of found something new to whine about by now..

The elitist globalist fleabags who are destroying western civilization work together don't they? Fleabag Zuckerberg works with fleabag Merkel to spread propaganda and to stamp out free speech so Germans cannot even have a voice to save their country. Nationalists need to work together as well to counter the fleabags. Nico might not be in a high position but he is doing what he can and that is to LAY A DAILY BITCH SLAP ON COMMUNIST/GLOBALIST PROGRAMMED TURDS. Got it? Good.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by VikingMan

The elitist globalist fleabags who are destroying western civilization work together don't they? Fleabag Zuckerberg works with fleabag Merkel to spread propaganda and to stamp out free speech so Germans cannot even have a voice to save their country. Nationalists need to work together as well to counter the fleabags. Nico might not be in a high position but he is doing what he can and that is to LAY A DAILY BITCH SLAP ON COMMUNIST/GLOBALIST PROGRAMMED TURDS. Got it? Good.

Doing what he can.. lol If he wanted to "DO SOMETHING" he would leave his house and go protest his leaders or call/write his representatives not complain about US politics all day while living in the Netherlands. He would be doing something in his "own" country...

He is doing about as much as "praying for rain"..

[HowlingWulf]

Since when does morality figure into politics?
Dems won't be able to unite to stop nomination anyway.

[VikingMan]

Originally Posted by crockett

Doing what he can.. lol If he wanted to "DO SOMETHING" he would leave his house and go protest his leaders or call/write his representatives not complain about US politics all day while living in the Netherlands..

He is doing about as much as "praying for rain"..

The more voices the better in order to counter the controlled media. Most liberals are actually really good people and are well intended but they have been been absorbing globalist programming since childhood. Some are waking up with the help of independent media and people like Nico who continually post are helping to save western civilization.

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by kane

Kind of.

they only need 51 votes to approve a nominee so as long as all the Republicans vote for the nominee they don't need any Democrats. However, if the Democrats filibuster a nominee it takes 60 votes to overcome the filibuster so they would need Democrats for that. There is another option, which the Democrats used when the Republicans filibustered every Obama nominee, which is known as the "nuclear option." This would allow them to basically bypass the filibuster with just 51 votes. The good side of it is that you can overcome obstructionist. The bad side is that it will likely anger the opposition and eventually that opposition may come to power and then use it against you.

The bad side is the part that smart people like McConnell doesn't want to mess with - no matter what Trump says. He knows that eventually this could be used in reverse, and pretty much knows that the Democrats' base has already threatened sitting senators with their reelections... I would imagine that the Democrats will eventually give this guy a hearing like they did with Bork... and then force the nuclear option. This will hurt the Republican party a lot and McConnell knows it.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Linkster

The bad side is the part that smart people like McConnell doesn't want to mess with - no matter what Trump says. He knows that eventually this could be used in reverse, and pretty much knows that the Democrats' base has already threatened sitting senators with their reelections... I would imagine that the Democrats will eventually give this guy a hearing like they did with Bork... and then force the nuclear option. This will hurt the Republican party a lot and McConnell knows it.

I was watching the news last night and there is talk that the Democrats might ask some tough questions and make some noise, but will eventually vote for the guy and approve him. The theory is that he is a conservative judge replacing a conservative judge so it won't switch the balance of the court anymore than it was before Scalia's death. The dems might save the filibuster and their big guns for a potential later fight in the event a liberal judge needs to be replaced by Trump.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Abortion is not mentioned in the body of the US Constitution.
Slavery wasn't either but was outlawed by constitutional amendment.
Ergo, there is no basic law on the matter -- the states own abortion 'rights' of the people.