Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent
-
wrote on 26 Oct 2020, 18:24 last edited by
Start watching at 1:30 where he talks about precedent.
Link to video -
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:20 last edited by
Precedent is noted when it works for your side. As I have say before, what is happening with Judge Barrett seems okay to me. I have more problem with what was done previously
-
Precedent is noted when it works for your side. As I have say before, what is happening with Judge Barrett seems okay to me. I have more problem with what was done previously
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:23 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
Precedent is noted when it works for your side.
What did Mitch say that was false?
Either you have precedent, or you don't.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:29 last edited by
Plenty of precedent for adjusting the size of the court.
Even temporary adjustments.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:31 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
Plenty of precedent for adjusting the size of the court.
In the last 150 years?
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:34 last edited by
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
Even FDR couldn't pack the court. Now, Joe may have known FDR, but he ain't no FDR. What's the over/under on him being able to pack the court?
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:37 last edited by
The solution isn't to pack the court. The solution is to find a way to de-politicize the selection process. I don't have much faith in either party to even try to do this, because they can't see more than 6 inches in front of their own stupid faces.
I've never lived in a country where the supreme court was such a partisan event as it is here. The members become minor celebrities, they get a position for life, and they hang on until the absolute bitter end. There's got to be a better way than this.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:42 last edited by
Plenty of precedent for adding states.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:46 last edited by
When states are being added purely to gain political advantage by a political party thats as guilty of sedition and as pure evil as the democrat party is, it isn't precedent that matters, it's defeating an enemy of the People.
-
The solution isn't to pack the court. The solution is to find a way to de-politicize the selection process. I don't have much faith in either party to even try to do this, because they can't see more than 6 inches in front of their own stupid faces.
I've never lived in a country where the supreme court was such a partisan event as it is here. The members become minor celebrities, they get a position for life, and they hang on until the absolute bitter end. There's got to be a better way than this.
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:52 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
The members become minor celebrities, they get a position for life, and they hang on until the absolute bitter end. There's got to be a better way than this.
Are you talking about TNCR?
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:53 last edited by
Yes, they have abandoned any desire to serve.
The best they can do is tone it down a little so it won't hurt them next Tuesday.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:54 last edited by Axtremus
@Larry said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
When statehood are being denied purely to retain political advantage by a political party thats as guilty of sedition and as pure evil as the Republican party is, it isn't precedent that matters, it's defeating an enemy of the People.
FYIY.
So what if granting Washington DC and Puerto Rico statehoods may give the Democratic party an edge in the short run? The Republican Party can compete for votes in Washington DC and Puerto Rico just fine.
The citizens in Washington DC and Puerto Rico pay taxes like you, they deserve Congressional representations like you. Whether their getting statehood gives this party or that party some temporary advantage is beside the point. Over the long haul, any party can compete for the votes of the citizens in Washington DC and Puerto Rico.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 01:55 last edited by
Go take a fucking civics class, you ass clown.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 02:03 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
Plenty of precedent for adding states.
Jefferson?
-
@taiwan_girl said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
Precedent is noted when it works for your side.
What did Mitch say that was false?
Either you have precedent, or you don't.
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 02:07 last edited by@George-K said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
@taiwan_girl said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
Precedent is noted when it works for your side.
What did Mitch say that was false?
Either you have precedent, or you don't.
I could say the following precedents:
There is precedent that there has never been a confirmation this close to election.
There is precedent that every time a President was born in New York, no Supreme Court judges were confirmed during an election year
There is precedent that when the majority party Senator (from either party) is from Kentucky, there has never been a supreme court judge confirmed in an election year, regardless of which party is president and which party controls the Senate
See?
Yes, of course I am being somewhat goofy, but my point is that a person picks and chooses which precedent fits their story.
-
@George-K said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
@taiwan_girl said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
Precedent is noted when it works for your side.
What did Mitch say that was false?
Either you have precedent, or you don't.
I could say the following precedents:
There is precedent that there has never been a confirmation this close to election.
There is precedent that every time a President was born in New York, no Supreme Court judges were confirmed during an election year
There is precedent that when the majority party Senator (from either party) is from Kentucky, there has never been a supreme court judge confirmed in an election year, regardless of which party is president and which party controls the Senate
See?
Yes, of course I am being somewhat goofy, but my point is that a person picks and chooses which precedent fits their story.
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 02:12 last edited by George K@taiwan_girl said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
There is precedent that there has never been a confirmation this close to election.
Watch O'Connell's speech. That's not true.
The rest of your comments, even if true, are silly, and not relevant.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 02:13 last edited by
Puerto Rico? I don’t mind... DC? Hell no. If you do, then pull the capital from the city...
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 02:14 last edited by
The problem with PR is they’ve rejected statehood in several plebecites.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 02:15 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mitch talks about ACB's nomination and precedent:
The problem with PR is they’ve rejected statehood in several plebecites.
So, "fuck democracy," eh?
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 02:19 last edited by
I’m pretty sure that the last time they had a referendum over 70% boycotted.
