Current Events Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
SoonerBounce13 said:
I don’t really want to hear republicans complain when the Nominee is stalled.
Click to expand...

Its distinguishable bc repubs own the senate too.. i thought the same thing at first. But theres no precedent to NOT confirm a new justice actually
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
I don’t really want to hear republicans complain when the Nominee is stalled.
Click to expand...

Push it through. We're at war, unfortunately. I call it retaliation for all the nonsense the left has put Trump through the last 4 years (fake Russia, etc).

RBG had a chance to retire under Obama, but was too proud to do it. Not sure if she thought she was going to live forever, or if she was just so sure Hillary was going to win. Not to sound rude, but she gambled and she lost.
 
As long as Trump nominates a judge qualified for SCOTUS, that is all that matters to me. Some on his list were partisans and leaders of the GOP like Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, etc. I would fight that nomination.

The names I am hearing are Amy Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. In my brief research into these two, I think it would be difficult to question their qualifications for the bench.

Barrett is basically as good as it gets, in terms of qualifications. She was the best student in her high school, graduated with the highest honors in undergrad, went to Notre Dame law school and graduated first in her class, was the editor of the Notre Dame law review, and earned all the highest honors Notre Dame can give to a law student. She's been a law professor for a long time, clerked on the SCOTUS, etc.

In other words, she is exceptional.

It's not the job of the senate to contest her on philosophical grounds. They are supposed to be judging if she is qualified to be a justice on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Just like the appointments of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, they are exceptional legal minds. They are not partisans.

If he appoints Barrett, which I suspect he will do, it would mean he chose 3 exceptional legal minds for the bench.

Lagoa seems impressive as well, but probably not as qualified as Barrett.

Am I wrong in my mindset on this?
 
I’m just glad to see this discussion from both sides not toting party lines actually
 
thebigabd said:
As long as Trump nominates a judge qualified for SCOTUS, that is all that matters to me. Some on his list were partisans and leaders of the GOP like Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, etc. I would fight that nomination.

The names I am hearing are Amy Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. In my brief research into these two, I think it would be difficult to question their qualifications for the bench.

Barrett is basically as good as it gets, in terms of qualifications. She was the best student in her high school, graduated with the highest honors in undergrad, went to Notre Dame law school and graduated first in her class, was the editor of the Notre Dame law review, and earned all the highest honors Notre Dame can give to a law student. She's been a law professor for a long time, clerked on the SCOTUS, etc.

In other words, she is exceptional.

It's not the job of the senate to contest her on philosophical grounds. They are supposed to be judging if she is qualified to be a justice on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Just like the appointments of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, they are exceptional legal minds. They are not partisans.

If he appoints Barrett, which I suspect he will do, it would mean he chose 3 exceptional legal minds for the bench.

Lagoa seems impressive as well, but probably not as qualified as Barrett.

Am I wrong in my mindset on this?
Click to expand...

For those chanting "burn it to the ground" they will have no problem finding exceptions to your logic.
 
thebigabd said:
As long as Trump nominates a judge qualified for SCOTUS, that is all that matters to me. Some on his list were partisans and leaders of the GOP like Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, etc. I would fight that nomination.

The names I am hearing are Amy Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. In my brief research into these two, I think it would be difficult to question their qualifications for the bench.

Barrett is basically as good as it gets, in terms of qualifications. She was the best student in her high school, graduated with the highest honors in undergrad, went to Notre Dame law school and graduated first in her class, was the editor of the Notre Dame law review, and earned all the highest honors Notre Dame can give to a law student. She's been a law professor for a long time, clerked on the SCOTUS, etc.

In other words, she is exceptional.

It's not the job of the senate to contest her on philosophical grounds. They are supposed to be judging if she is qualified to be a justice on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Just like the appointments of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, they are exceptional legal minds. They are not partisans.

If he appoints Barrett, which I suspect he will do, it would mean he chose 3 exceptional legal minds for the bench.

Lagoa seems impressive as well, but probably not as qualified as Barrett.

Am I wrong in my mindset on this?
Click to expand...

Nope, I think you nailed it.
 
Eielson said:
Other than 4 years ago?
Click to expand...

That was a dem president and a republican senate. Big difference. Every single time there has been an opening on SCOTUS during an election year, the president made a nomination. It’s happened 29 times in our history. When the president and the senate are different parties, politics come into play. When they’re from the same party, the nominee gets confirmed.

I don’t believe conservative or liberal should apply to a SCOTUS judge. They should interpret the laws of the land and perform their duty guided by the constitution, not politics. One of the biggest failures in our government is allowing our SCOTUS to be conservative or liberal. The SCOTUS should be the Embodiment of the constitution and it’s neither liberal or conservative.
 
And, in case anyone is interested, I don't really care about the Merrick Garland situation as it relates to the 2020 situation... It was a slimy move, but they controlled the Senate. It is what it is.

Politically speaking, I am not sure it helps Democrats to fight this. If he puts someone super qualified up like Amy Barrett, they should just let it go with as little resistance as possible. Let it be the quietest SCOTUS deal as possible.

Polls look great... Biden is winning. Don't hand Trump a winning issue to charge his base. What you don't want is people who maybe don't like Trump coming out to vote just to fill a SCOTUS seat. They may not like Trump and were going to vote for Biden or not vote at all, but now they may come out and vote for Trump just to get a SCOTUS they like.

Many will disagree with that stance, but I think the better Democratic strategy is to just let this go and not give them the fight.

Steve/BCS.... tell me why I am wrong.
 
mict085 said:
That was a dem president and a republican senate. Big difference. Every single time there has been an opening on SCOTUS during an election year, the president made a nomination. It’s happened 29 times in our history. When the president and the senate are different parties, politics come into play. When they’re from the same party, the nominee gets confirmed.

I don’t believe conservative or liberal should apply to a SCOTUS judge. They should interpret the laws of the land and perform their duty guided by the constitution, not politics. One of the biggest failures in our government is allowing our SCOTUS to be conservative or liberal. The SCOTUS should be the Embodiment of the constitution and it’s neither liberal or conservative.
Click to expand...

Your second paragraph is exactly right.... and most of the time, that proves to be true. If the law sucks, change the law. I saw an interesting interview with Gorsuch where he basically said "do you really want me and the SCOTUS running the country?".... There should be no expectation for that.

And once they get on the bench, with a few exceptions, they largely operate independent of politics. There are certainly decisions they make that I don't like, but I would turn around and change the law. I know that's hard to do, but if you change the law the court will have to interpret the ruling differently.
 
thebigabd said:
And, in case anyone is interested, I don't really care about the Merrick Garland situation as it relates to the 2020 situation... It was a slimy move, but they controlled the Senate. It is what it is.

Politically speaking, I am not sure it helps Democrats to fight this. If he puts someone super qualified up like Amy Barrett, they should just let it go with as little resistance as possible. Let it be the quietest SCOTUS deal as possible.

Polls look great... Biden is winning. Don't hand Trump a winning issue to charge his base. What you don't want is people who maybe don't like Trump coming out to vote just to fill a SCOTUS seat. They may not like Trump and were going to vote for Biden or not vote at all, but now they may come out and vote for Trump just to get a SCOTUS they like.

Many will disagree with that stance, but I think the better Democratic strategy is to just let this go and not give them the fight.

Steve/BCS.... tell me why I am wrong.
Click to expand...

As long as they are qualified & not hard leaning either way I agree with you.
 
What McConnell did to Merrick Garland was unforgiveable in my book. That sleaze turned me into a card-carrying Independent. Do your job: conduct the hearings and, if he's not up to snuff, get your house in order and turn him down for the position.

But to just sit there and do NOTHING? I can not and would not abide by that. McConnell is scum.

I'm pretty confident in Trump nominating a really good candidate. I feel bad for that candidate, because the ringer they'll be put through could be worse than any Justice has ever seen. By a LONG shot.
 
Sooner04 said:
What McConnell did to Merrick Garland was unforgiveable in my book. That sleaze turned me into a card-carrying Independent. Do your job: conduct the hearings and, if he's not up to snuff, get your house in order and turn him down for the position.

But to just sit there and do NOTHING? I can not and would not abide by that. McConnell is scum.

I'm pretty confident in Trump nominating a really good candidate. I feel bad for that candidate, because the ringer they'll be put through could be worse than any Justice has ever seen. By a LONG shot.
Click to expand...


Worse than Cavanaugh? If Barrett were to be the nominee are you suggesting the democrats will put her, a female, through "the ringer" even more so?
 
sheepdogs1 said:
Worse than Cavanaugh? If Barrett were to be the nominee are you suggesting the democrats will put her, a female, through "the ringer" even more so?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, no. She is exceptionally qualified. The Democrats should not fight this if its Barrett. You can't contest the qualifications, she isn't some partisan hack like Cruz or Cotton, etc.

Doing a Kavanaugh thing on this pick would only help Trump win the election. Keep it quiet. Approve it with as little coverage as possible, and don't let it become a campaign issue.
 
I think this confirmation hearing is going to be the worst we've ever seen for the Judiciary. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's going to be terrible regardless of the nominee. I bet the Democrats make their stand right here.

And I think you can blame the BS moves McConnell pulled with Merrick Garland for it. McConnell deserves every bit of crap that floats downstream to him. He's the WORST.
 
Sooner04 said:
I think this confirmation hearing is going to be the worst we've ever seen for the Judiciary. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's going to be terrible regardless of the nominee. I bet the Democrats make their stand right here.

And I think you can blame the BS moves McConnell pulled with Merrick Garland for it. McConnell deserves every bit of crap that floats downstream to him. He's the WORST.
Click to expand...

McConnell is like a movie character.... someone from House of Cards, Game of Thrones, etc that plays a scummy politician. I agree with you there. He has no principles or integrity.

That being said, I still think if the Democrats do what you think they will do, it won't be good for them.
 
Sooner04 said:
What McConnell did to Merrick Garland was unforgiveable in my book. That sleaze turned me into a card-carrying Independent. Do your job: conduct the hearings and, if he's not up to snuff, get your house in order and turn him down for the position.

But to just sit there and do NOTHING? I can not and would not abide by that. McConnell is scum.

I'm pretty confident in Trump nominating a really good candidate. I feel bad for that candidate, because the ringer they'll be put through could be worse than any Justice has ever seen. By a LONG shot.
Click to expand...

Take it up with biden.. it was his rule originally
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
A theory on what’s causing a late year slump & maybe fewer wins this year
Replies
1
Views
2K
Soonerinkc
Soonerinkc
B
Moving forward
Replies
2
Views
2K
Oliver Hardy
Oliver Hardy
B
Pioneer to progress
Replies
2
Views
2K
womenssports
W
Sooner04
Board Observations From Afar
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
TINY
T
B
Washington helps propel NHS girls past Edmond North
Replies
1
Views
1K
mikeareese
M
Back
Top