Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Feb 2017, 3:21 pm

Fate
Rickyp, lawsuits filed are not a meaningful thing
.

Lawsuits that are ruled on in the courts, are....
And which is why you say
As for the law, we shall see.


With Yates gone, the DOJ is now going to defend those law suits. If they can't successfully defend the EO, she was right.
Galstons opinion piece comes out on the side of

Fate
And, AGAIN, Yates did not say it was "unconstitutional." She didn't like it. She objected to it as immoral. That is not a legal standard.

She said it was indefensible. That it could not stand up to legal scrutiny. That the department would not, under her leadership, attempt to defend them.

That could mean; unconstitutional, illegal and immoral. If its adjudged any of these and the suits attacking it are lost by the administration ....despite the DOJ defending them, then she was right.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Feb 2017, 3:34 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Rickyp, lawsuits filed are not a meaningful thing
.

Lawsuits that are ruled on in the courts, are....
And which is why you say
As for the law, we shall see.


With Yates gone, the DOJ is now going to defend those law suits. If they can't successfully defend the EO, she was right.
Galstons opinion piece comes out on the side of

Fate
And, AGAIN, Yates did not say it was "unconstitutional." She didn't like it. She objected to it as immoral. That is not a legal standard.

She said it was indefensible. That it could not stand up to legal scrutiny. That the department would not, under her leadership, attempt to defend them.

That could mean; unconstitutional, illegal and immoral. If its adjudged any of these and the suits attacking it are lost by the administration ....despite the DOJ defending them, then she was right.

If she thought it was illegal, she should have resigned. Instead, she grandstanded and acted like a hack.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 02 Feb 2017, 8:02 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:On the SCOTUS thing, the filibuster part is not the issue, so much as that Republicans - and leadership Republicans - were on record saying they would block whoever Obama nominated, before Garland was named, and refused to convene the nominations hearings when he was.


Actually, it is the issue. If you want it to be a political issue, the GOP stalling on Garland was on the ballot in November. They won.
There was more to it than just stalling on Garland:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520 ... inton-wins?

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," he declared.

McCain said that's why it is so important that Republicans retain control of the Senate.


Sure, that was also part of the political gamble, but it is a clear statement of not just blocking nominees from the President in their last year, but blocking any nominee from one with a new mandate.

Basically, if Hillary had won, you would be seeing Republicans saying what the Democrats are now, basically, and if the Republicans had also lost the majority in the Senate they would likely be talking filibuster too.

The effect was the same as if a minority had filibustered - saying (before anyone is even nominated) that whoever is put forward will be blocked through the means they had at their disposal. Both parties have now done that. Neither can claim to be angels on it. I am sure people will claim that there is some difference which makes their side fine to declare a total block but not the other, but frankly that is just partisan bull.

Whatever happens with the filibuster, the divide is opening up.


Yeah, one of my liberal friends said we're two nations. All I can say is I pity the pacifist who declares war.[/quote]Don't assume that liberals are pacifists.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 02 Feb 2017, 9:17 am

Danivon,
I think you are right. Either side would have griped about a nominee. Even a nominee that was unanimously approved back in 2010.

Because either side would be complaining, it makes the Dems argument just as moot. Personally I am sick of both sides griping.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Feb 2017, 9:24 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:On the SCOTUS thing, the filibuster part is not the issue, so much as that Republicans - and leadership Republicans - were on record saying they would block whoever Obama nominated, before Garland was named, and refused to convene the nominations hearings when he was.


Actually, it is the issue. If you want it to be a political issue, the GOP stalling on Garland was on the ballot in November. They won.
There was more to it than just stalling on Garland:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520 ... inton-wins?

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," he declared.

McCain said that's why it is so important that Republicans retain control of the Senate.


Interesting. I'd like to see the broader context. However, the issue remains: it was on the ballot. Voters who were interested in the Supreme Court voted for Trump.

Sure, that was also part of the political gamble, but it is a clear statement of not just blocking nominees from the President in their last year, but blocking any nominee from one with a new mandate.


That just doesn't sound like McCain. His "son," Graham, said "elections have consequences" as he merrily voted for Obama's nominees. So, I'm not convinced by one sentence uttered by McCain. Sorry.

Basically, if Hillary had won, you would be seeing Republicans saying what the Democrats are now, basically, and if the Republicans had also lost the majority in the Senate they would likely be talking filibuster too.


Speculation. Yup, just as I suspected:

John McCain made the case for a GOP Senate majority – and offered Republicans an opportunity to walk away from Donald Trump – when he told a Philadelphia radio station he would work to block any Supreme Court nominee put forward by a President Hillary Clinton.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," the Arizona Republican told 1210 WPHT-AM Philadelphia on Monday morning, in an appearance arguing in favor of re-electing Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

A spokeswoman later walked back his comments, promising the senator would consider each nominee individually.

"Sen. McCain believes you can only judge people by their record and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees,” McCain spokeswoman Rachael Dean said in a statement. “That being said, Sen. McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career."


Liberal groups, like thinkprogress, have a habit of yanking things out of context--or providing no clarification. The goal of leftist groups right now is to keep their base on the edge of rioting, or, better yet, burning a thing or two to the ground.

Doctor Fate wrote:
Yeah, one of my liberal friends said we're two nations. All I can say is I pity the pacifist who declares war.
Don't assume that liberals are pacifists.


Oh, liberals are vicious--against property, or against hopelessly outnumbered conservatives. However, if a civil war broke out it would be gun aficionados versus those who think guns are "icky." My money would be on the "icky" people to do the thumping.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Feb 2017, 9:25 am

Danivon responding to Fate:
All I can say is I pity the pacifist who declares war.
Don't assume that liberals are pacifists.


Let's chill and agree to follow the constitution on this one.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Feb 2017, 9:44 am

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon responding to Fate:
All I can say is I pity the pacifist who declares war.
Don't assume that liberals are pacifists.


Let's chill and agree to follow the constitution on this one.


I'm all for it. I didn't support or vote for Trump. I still don't like him. I'm a bit detached from all this.

I see liberals out of control. They are fighting over everything and even ditching committee meetings en masse to try and stop nominations from going forward. They are making sure Trump has fewer cabinet members in place than any President in 84 years. It's disgraceful and pointless.

I don't even think Trump's nominees are necessarily the best, but that's not the standard. Obama's were, from a conservative perspective, a nightmare. The GOP didn't play these games.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Feb 2017, 10:05 am

Dr Fate:
Oh, liberals are vicious--against property, or against hopelessly outnumbered conservatives. However, if a civil war broke out it would be gun aficionados versus those who think guns are "icky." My money would be on the "icky" people to do the thumping.


Without a doubt. Would appreciate your accepting refugees in that situation and texting your address to me.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Feb 2017, 12:08 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Dr Fate:
Oh, liberals are vicious--against property, or against hopelessly outnumbered conservatives. However, if a civil war broke out it would be gun aficionados versus those who think guns are "icky." My money would be on the "icky" people to do the thumping.


Without a doubt. Would appreciate your accepting refugees in that situation and texting your address to me.


Gladly.

I really don't want this to happen.

Sadly, we elected the wrong person. Then again, I think we would be in a much better place domestically (more unified) if someone like Romney had won in 2012. I'm not blaming Obama. I would say he didn't help matters. Trump is like kerosene on a raging inferno.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Feb 2017, 12:29 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon responding to Fate:
All I can say is I pity the pacifist who declares war.
Don't assume that liberals are pacifists.


Let's chill and agree to follow the constitution on this one.

The Constitution don't apply to me :grin:

Trump seems to have a problem with it, and where the judiciary sits.

But clearly there are people who are not Conservatives but are armed in the US. Not that I think anyone really wants to declare war quite yet, as bad as the partisan situation is.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Feb 2017, 12:38 pm

danivon wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:Danivon responding to Fate:
All I can say is I pity the pacifist who declares war.
Don't assume that liberals are pacifists.


Let's chill and agree to follow the constitution on this one.

The Constitution don't apply to me :grin:

Trump seems to have a problem with it, and where the judiciary sits.

But clearly there are people who are not Conservatives but are armed in the US. Not that I think anyone really wants to declare war quite yet, as bad as the partisan situation is.


The anarchists and communists would love it. The liberals? They'd be hiding in the corner until the smoke cleared.

I'm actually surrpised at how idiotic the Democrats have been. Get a message! Don't join in with the professional rioters! Win arguments. After all, your opponent is Donald Trump! If you can't win that argument?

If that's the case, you suck and we need a new party.