Current Events Thread

[sheepdogs1]

Pelosi entertains impeachment to tie up the senate as an approach to avoid a confirmation of a new justice.

 

[thebigabd]

Pelosi entertains impeachment to tie up the senate as an approach to avoid a confirmation of a new justice.

Saw that.... didn't see on what grounds. But sounds completely absurd.

 

[mict085]

I hope the SCOTUS nominee is Amy Coney Barrett. She’s the most qualified and the best candidate in my opinion. She appears to be exceptional and would be a great pick.

 

[sheepdogs1]

I hope the SCOTUS nominee is Amy Coney Barrett. She’s the most qualified and the best candidate in my opinion. She appears to be exceptional and would be a great pick.

It would show us what democrats are made of for they might ,yet again, roll their sleeves up and get dirty and drag a woman through the mud at all costs and show people what lies behind their facades.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I hope the SCOTUS nominee is Amy Coney Barrett. She’s the most qualified and the best candidate in my opinion. She appears to be exceptional and would be a great pick.

Agree...the dogma lives loudly in her. It would be a great pick and one that should have been done instead of kavanaugh

 

[thebigabd]

I hope the SCOTUS nominee is Amy Coney Barrett. She’s the most qualified and the best candidate in my opinion. She appears to be exceptional and would be a great pick.

The only other name I am hearing is Barbara Lagoa... Do identity politics play a role here? Does this help Trump in Florida, or with hispanics, etc during the election? Or is that completely irrelevant in a SCOTUS nomination?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

The only other name I am hearing is Barbara Lagoa... Do identity politics play a role here? Does this help Trump in Florida, or with hispanics, etc during the election? Or is that completely irrelevant in a SCOTUS nomination?

I would hope that republicans would look more long term than short term for a SC nominee. There is a good chance democrats take over this November. They need a nominee that will judge fairly and stand true to the constitution when things keep going downhill in this country

 

[thebigabd]

I read an article in Forbes this morning about Amy Barrett.... basically saying that she's no Brett Kavanaugh, and that's a problem for Democrats. Meaning she won't have any skeletons, no drama, you can't question the qualifications. She's a "textualist" and "originalist", believing in interpreting law the way it was originally written and meant for... She also believes in the concept of "stare decisis", which is a legal principle of ruling in favor of settled precedent.

The article in Forbes concluded with.... the ONLY issue Democrats can have with Barrett is the process... That they got screwed out of Merrick Garland and that the process for replacing RBG is BS.

The other problem Democrats will have is that she is only 48 years old. So she could be on the bench for several decades. So they will believe they got screwed on Merrick Garland, and then get screwed on this one.

On an unrelated point... Amy Klobuchar was on CNN last night and basically admitted there is pretty much nothing they can do to stop this. Only appealing to Republicans sense of decency can stop this from happening. That is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to happen. There is no recourse here.

Which is why I believe my tactic is the only good one.... give up this seat to Barrett, approve her overwhelmingly, make it quiet, and win the White House. Don't give them something to run on.

 

[BCSooners]

I read an article in Forbes this morning about Amy Barrett.... basically saying that she's no Brett Kavanaugh, and that's a problem for Democrats. Meaning she won't have any skeletons, no drama, you can't question the qualifications. She's a "textualist" and "originalist", believing in interpreting law the way it was originally written and meant for... She also believes in the concept of "stare decisis", which is a legal principle of ruling in favor of settled precedent.

The article in Forbes concluded with.... the ONLY issue Democrats can have with Barrett is the process... That they got screwed out of Merrick Garland and that the process for replacing RBG is BS.

The other problem Democrats will have is that she is only 48 years old. So she could be on the bench for several decades. So they will believe they got screwed on Merrick Garland, and then get screwed on this one.

On an unrelated point... Amy Klobuchar was on CNN last night and basically admitted there is pretty much nothing they can do to stop this. Only appealing to Republicans sense of decency can stop this from happening. That is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to happen. There is no recourse here.

Which is why I believe my tactic is the only good one.... give up this seat to Barrett, approve her overwhelmingly, make it quiet, and win the White House. Don't give them something to run on.

Absolutely. The only thing I would say is be sure to remind & hammer home to the people of how the republicans were wrong in the way they handled things & that the democrats made the integrity move their way.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Absolutely. The only thing I would say is be sure to remind & hammer home to the people of how the republicans were wrong in the way they handled things & that the democrats made the integrity move their way.

I will be very impressed with the Dems if they let this go through. I will give them credit where it is due.

I don't think that will happen but we will see

If they let it go through without a fight, it will be because they will make increasing the size of the court if Biden wins their main objective. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I don't think I like that because their only reason for doing it will be to get more liberal leaning judges on the bench. If there was already a liberal majority they wouldn't be trying to expand it. So that means it isn't a good reason imo

 

[BCSooners]

I will be very impressed with the Dems if they let this go through. I will give them credit where it is due.

I don't think that will happen but we will see

If they let it go through without a fight, it will be because they will make increasing the size of the court if Biden wins their main objective. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I don't think I like that because their only reason for doing it will be to get more liberal leaning judges on the bench. If there was already a liberal majority they wouldn't be trying to expand it. So that means it isn't a good reason imo

I don't think they'll let it go either.

How do you know that if they let it go that your logic is their only reason for doing so?

 

[thebigabd]

I will be very impressed with the Dems if they let this go through. I will give them credit where it is due.

I don't think that will happen but we will see

If they let it go through without a fight, it will be because they will make increasing the size of the court if Biden wins their main objective. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I don't think I like that because their only reason for doing it will be to get more liberal leaning judges on the bench. If there was already a liberal majority they wouldn't be trying to expand it. So that means it isn't a good reason imo

If they increase the size of the court, and start doing things like that, GOP will only have themselves to blame. The Dems won't (and should not) sit by and allow dirty tactics.

In ANY situation or conflict, once one side has stacked the rules in their favor, or decided not to play by the rules, or just start making up new rules as you go along that are in your favor, you open the door to this sort of thing.

Lots of good lessons to learn with that in US - China relations as well, but that's another discussion for another day.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I don't think they'll let it go either.

How do you know that if they let it go that your logic is their only reason for doing so?

B/c their track record is that when they don't get something they want, the fight like hell to change it

 

[SoonerBounce13]

If they increase the size of the court, and start doing things like that, GOP will only have themselves to blame. The Dems won't (and should not) sit by and allow dirty tactics.

In ANY situation or conflict, once one side has stacked the rules in their favor, or decided not to play by the rules, or just start making up new rules as you go along that are in your favor, you open the door to this sort of thing.

Lots of good lessons to learn with that in US - China relations as well, but that's another discussion for another day.

What rules have the republicans not followed?

 

[BCSooners]

B/c their track record is that when they don't get something they want, the fight like hell to change it

So speculation.

If it did happen it’d be because the republicans opened this up from last time when they didn’t get what they wanted.

 

[thebigabd]

What rules have the republicans not followed?

Blocking a SCOTUS nominee for 11 months was a BS move... they made up some BS precedent for it to sell to the American people, but it was slimy.

Now, you have a situation where you are 40 days away from an election, and they are saying the situation is slightly different and therefore OK.

These aren't rules, or precedents, or trends, etc. They said "in 80 years we haven't nominated a SCOTUS bla bla bla"... so what? They didn't block the nomination for any of those reasons. They flat out just didn't want to fill it... As Mitch himself said, his proudest moment in government was telling Obama he wouldn't allow him to fill that SCOTUS seat.

There is no rule for it, no precedent, etc. They just blockaded the nomination, which was unprecedented in American history.

Then, in even more extreme circumstances, they are going to try and rush something through quicker than ever before done, perhaps even in a lame duck presidency. Again, without precedent.

If the Dems win they should absolutely expand the court.

If it did happen it’d be because the republicans opened this up from last time when they didn’t get what they wanted.

Yep... Mitch didn't get what he wanted, he did sleezy stuff, now he's trying to do more sleezy stuff in defiance of the sleezy stuff he did previously.... and when you start doing these things, the other side will respond.

The first shots were fired Mitch McConnell. Anything that happens after this is on him.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

So speculation.

If it did happen it’d be because the republicans opened this up from last time when they didn’t get what they wanted.

of course it is speculation...no one can see into the future.

I agree that the republicans opened this up...but they had the power to last time. the dems don't this time.

And there were plenty of dems last time that are eating their words now and vice versa

 

[thebigabd]

of course it is speculation...no one can see into the future.

I agree that the republicans opened this up...but they had the power to last time. the dems don't this time.

And there were plenty of dems last time that are eating their words now and vice versa

True, but when you do this you just have to prepare for what happens when you don't have power anymore. It will change hands, and because you did this you are probably going to get screwed ten fold.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Blocking a SCOTUS nominee for 11 months was a BS move... they made up some BS precedent for it to sell to the American people, but it was slimy.

Now, you have a situation where you are 40 days away from an election, and they are saying the situation is slightly different and therefore OK.

These aren't rules, or precedents, or trends, etc. They said "in 80 years we haven't nominated a SCOTUS bla bla bla"... so what? They didn't block the nomination for any of those reasons. They flat out just didn't want to fill it... As Mitch himself said, his proudest moment in government was telling Obama he wouldn't allow him to fill that SCOTUS seat.

There is no rule for it, no precedent, etc. They just blockaded the nomination, which was unprecedented in American history.

Then, in even more extreme circumstances, they are going to try and rush something through quicker than ever before done, perhaps even in a lame duck presidency. Again, without precedent.

and none of that is against the rules.
Maybe the rules should be changed to prevent it.
In my mind, the current president should get to nominate the SC justice.

If the Dems win they should absolutely expand the court.

I disagree. Why is it needed? What is the reasoning for expanding it?

Bending the rules is one thing. Making new rules simply because things didn't go your way (wanting to ban the electoral college) is another.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

The first shots were fired Mitch McConnell. Anything that happens after this is on him.

That's an immature way of looking at things.

Let's say Biden wins and they increase the number of judges by 3 and Biden and the senate get to name these new judges. Is that fair?
What would be stopping the republicans if they win in 2024 to increase it again in their favor? It would be madness