Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options

The scariest thing...

124

Comments

  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,231
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Houhusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    dnc said:

    Swaye said:

    ...isn't Biden beating Trump, it's that the Dems look likely to win the Senate as well. Can you imagine what is about to happen with unified socialist government? Court packing, massive tax hikes, energy dependence again, millions of job losses, National Firearms Database...the list goes on and on...

    Scary tim for sure. Help us ACB, you're our only hope...

    Also gonna need the Conservative Supremes to all stay alive for the next 4 years. Lose one and it's back to a lib court because that fag Roberts votes with the libs on everything. Bush fucked that appointment up beyond belief.
    They're going to pack the court so their lives will be irrelevant.
    I tend to not believe that. The Dems are dumb, but doing that loses them at least one chamber of Congress in 2022, and probably the Presidency in 2024. That policy is wildly unpopular with voters.
    I agree, for now. You really think sentiment won’t start changing if 20 million people lose health care coverage?
    How about when 180 million people lose their health insurance when we go to medicare for all?
    Count Gasbag in favor of unelected judges throwing out popular pieces of legislation.
    Good point the constitution does say if legislation is popular enough it’s automatically constitutional.
    The John Roberts rule
  • Options
    DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 60,485
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Founders Club
    This is a solid thread. Various viewpoints.
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,231
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam

    This is a solid thread. Various viewpoints.

    Fuck off















    Don't gulag me!
  • Options
    DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 60,485
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Founders Club

    This is a solid thread. Various viewpoints.

    Fuck off















    Don't gulag me!

  • Options
    SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,087
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Founders Club

    This is a solid thread. Various viewpoints.

    I am known in some circles for starting solid threads. I am known for that.
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,351
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
  • Options
    GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,481
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:


    Some have termed regarding the concerns of others with whom one does not share circumstances, enlightened.
  • Options
    GoduckiesGoduckies Member Posts: 5,515
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    HHusky said:


    Yet he said he would get rid of the tax costs he didn't say replace getting rid is a tax raise on everyone
  • Options
    RedRocketRedRocket Member Posts: 1,526
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    If Garland never happened and the dems held the Senate now does anyone think they'd approve a Trump nomination?

    Of course not

    We don't deal in hypotheticals but that's kind of my point. I don't like that the nomination process can be held hostage by either party. The judiciary was not designed to be part of the political theatre. Right now it is.
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,231
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,231
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    RedRocket said:

    If Garland never happened and the dems held the Senate now does anyone think they'd approve a Trump nomination?

    Of course not

    We don't deal in hypotheticals but that's kind of my point. I don't like that the nomination process can be held hostage by either party. The judiciary was not designed to be part of the political theatre. Right now it is.
    Has been forever friend
  • Options
    RedRocketRedRocket Member Posts: 1,526
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    Houhusky said:

    RedRocket said:

    Houhusky said:

    RedRocket said:

    RedRocket said:

    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    Swaye said:

    ...isn't Biden beating Trump, it's that the Dems look likely to win the Senate as well. Can you imagine what is about to happen with unified socialist government? Court packing, massive tax hikes, energy dependence again, millions of job losses, National Firearms Database...the list goes on and on...

    Scary tim for sure. Help us ACB, you're our only hope...

    Also gonna need the Conservative Supremes to all stay alive for the next 4 years. Lose one and it's back to a lib court because that fag Roberts votes with the libs on everything. Bush fucked that appointment up beyond belief.
    They're going to pack the court so their lives will be irrelevant.
    I tend to not believe that. The Dems are dumb, but doing that loses them at least one chamber of Congress in 2022, and probably the Presidency in 2024. That policy is wildly unpopular with voters.
    I don't think the Dems GAF what is popular with voters.

    They're out for blood.
    The GOP played dirty to get ACB in there. Winners win but yeah DNC is going to retaliate for that move. Im not a fan of the current DNC talking points to pack the courts which is basically just adding justices carte blanche.

    Buttigieg had an interesting proposal to depoliticise the process which I guess could still fall under the umbrella of court packing given the current balance. GOP gets 5 justices. DNC gets 5 justices. This initial allotment does not change. Those initial 10 justices appoint 5 more. 15 justices in total. This was floated well before RBG/ACB.
    The GOP used existing rules to nominate and vote in favor of a Supreme Court Justice

    Nothing dirty about it at all

    Thanks to Harry Reid it was possible. Maybe the dems can change some more stuff that blows up in their face
    The playing dirty is setting a precedent that if you control congress you delay or expedite court appointments until you get your guy into the executive office. It's supposed to be an apolitical office.

    Playing dirty is not hearing an appointment for Garland on the grounds that it was an election year and then ramming through ACB a month before the election. I never said that it was against the rules but it was massively hypocritical.
    2016 Obama was a democrat, the Senate was controlled by republicans

    2020 Trump is a Republican, the senate was controlled by republicans

    This isn't complicated
    Mind blown...so whoever controls senate can just delay an appointment for how long?
    Your mind is blown that a branch of the legislature can exercise a check on the power of the executive making a life long appointment into the judicial??? Thats the entire fucking point.

    No wonder you are peddling Beto type ideas...

    JFC you are talking about breaking down judges by republican vs democrat (as if no other political party does/could exist) and then having its own body pick additional justices...

    Read a god damn book , Start with the federalist papers, maybe Hamilton's (that guy from the spoken word musical was actually a real guy!) No. 76.
    So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? It's not a check against the executive branch if the senate is just refusing to do its elected duty. The way things are going the controlling party is just going to just refuse to hear any appointments if the other party controls the executive and makes the nomination. Or worse continual court packing.

    The politicization of the judiciary is not a radical idea and most agree that it's a bad thing. I never said that I think Buttigieg's idea is the best approach or that I even support it. I do appreciate that he at least calls attention to the issue and puts an idea out there. Also you seem to not understand the proposal. It doesn't matter what the judge's political affiliation is. The judges are nominated by the GOP/DEM members of the senate. The GOP senate block could nominate a liberal judge and vice versa.

    Thanks for the list of books.
  • Options
    RedRocketRedRocket Member Posts: 1,526
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    RedRocket said:

    If Garland never happened and the dems held the Senate now does anyone think they'd approve a Trump nomination?

    Of course not

    We don't deal in hypotheticals but that's kind of my point. I don't like that the nomination process can be held hostage by either party. The judiciary was not designed to be part of the political theatre. Right now it is.
    Has been forever friend
    Well you were there when the Judiciary Act was established but I'm told that it used to not be unheard of for a Republican/Democratic president to nominate a liberal/conservative leaning justice.
  • Options
    WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 14,226
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment 5 Up Votes
    Standard Supporter
    So how long can the senate delay a judicial appointment? Forever, as both sides had done previously with judicial appointments. The Constitutional requirement is that the Senate has to affirmatively consent to the Presidential appointment. That's it. They can affirmatively consent or not affirmatively consent. There is no requirement for a vote or a hearing.

  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,231
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    RedRocket said:

    RedRocket said:

    If Garland never happened and the dems held the Senate now does anyone think they'd approve a Trump nomination?

    Of course not

    We don't deal in hypotheticals but that's kind of my point. I don't like that the nomination process can be held hostage by either party. The judiciary was not designed to be part of the political theatre. Right now it is.
    Has been forever friend
    Well you were there when the Judiciary Act was established but I'm told that it used to not be unheard of for a Republican/Democratic president to nominate a liberal/conservative leaning justice.
    Ike nominated the most liberal justice of our lifetime. Didn't want to but got Robertsed

    Not sure there is an equivalent
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,351
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    HHusky said:


    Some have termed regarding the concerns of others with whom one does not share circumstances, enlightened.
    Thank you for your concern.

    But I'll be fine.
  • Options
    LebamDawgLebamDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,562
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment
    Swaye's Wigwam
    On the statehood issue - for DC to become a state, I am pretty sure that a constitutional amendment is required. The District of Columbia is in the constitution.

    of course, I could be wrong
  • Options
    WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 14,226
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment 5 Up Votes
    Standard Supporter
    LebamDawg said:

    On the statehood issue - for DC to become a state, I am pretty sure that a constitutional amendment is required. The District of Columbia is in the constitution.

    of course, I could be wrong

    Dems would just carve out the Capitol area and White House, Supreme Court building. That would be the new DC. The rest would be the new state.
Sign In or Register to comment.