California GOP setting up fake ballot drop-off boxes:

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/10/...ions-officials/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


Once again, the GOP screaming about voter fraud (which is almost non-existent) while at the same time they commit election fraud in order to swing elections their way.

 

Figures....

 

To be fair, not everyone protesting is starting a fire or destroying anything. Those are the actions of a few just as I’m sure the majority of “drunken partisans” aren’t burning Biden displays.
It does go to show however, that vandalism occurs on both sides.
I agree that most “drunken partisans” most likely can’t get out of their lazy boys, lol.

 

That’s no doubt because the man in question was a Pinkerton Security Guard working for the local TV station 9 NBC News crew, not a participant per se with any “group”.

 

Some of them are even protesting and discussing issues that have nothing to do with her appointment or her history as a judge and how she's ruled on cases.

Senators are choosing not to confirm her on the basis of this phony "we're in the middle of an election" nonsense. They cry out that we should wait until the will of the people has been established.

I argue that the will of the people was established on November 8th, 2016, and the 'will of the people' should lawfully be in effect from January 20th, 2017 to January 20th, 2021.

IF "we the people" decide to elect Sleepy Joe, then he's got the reigns to do things like this from January 20th, 2021 until he croaks via old age and/or poison from Kamala, whichever comes first. lol. Just sayin'.

 

Then you agree Gorsuch was seated illegally by Mitch McConnell, who refused to even have a hearing on Obama's supreme court pick for almost an entire year before the 2016 election?

February 13, 2016: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement released after Scalia’s death. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

How do you feel about McConnell refusing to seat any federal judges during Obama's last term and then seating every unqualified hack (according to the Bar association) they could find so long as they agreed to vote yes to every Republican whim?

It's funny how the right is so indignant about Democrats objecting to seating a supreme court justice after voting already started, but were totally cool with those same things used against Democratic judgeships. It really gets to the heart of why I find your entire premise to be worthless.

 

If Dems had control of the Senate when Obama was President, then all of this would be a non-issue. That's how it works.

Also, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from making degrading comments about me or my opinions. I'm just expressing my opinions like everyone else here. We're not doing that kind of thing around here anymore, we are trying to discuss the issues without making it personal or taking it personal. Thanks for your understanding.

 

Exactly. It's not a matter of people on the right being hypocrites, cherry-picking principles or being indignant. These comparisons are not "apples to apples".

An "apples to apples" comparison would be if there were a situation where the tables were turned and it was Senate Democrats "rushing through" an appointment of a judge before a Democrat President's term was up. If that scenario played out, then I would absolutely accept that for what it is.

Because the President has the authority to appoint who they want for 4 years, not 3.5 years. If the Senate majority is of the same political party, then they too have 4 FULL years to confirm these appointments. That's how it works regardless of which party is in power.

 

Let’s get an historical overlook at presidents nominating someone for the Supreme Court when the senate was controlled by the opposite party.

https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/presidents-vs-opposing-senates-in-supreme-court-nominations

 

I thought that was obvious but apparently not. I was sitting in the car while reading the arguments for and against nominating a supreme court judge when the senate is of the opposing party. It made me wonder if this was a new obstacle or had there been past precedents. I didn't have time to follow up then and I couldn't remember from history. The article was a bit dated (2016) but I thought it gave a good overview of how things have worked in the past. Maybe I'm the only one who gives a good GD, lol, but I thought it was interesting. The article states right in the beginning....

In recent years, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter were nominated by Republican Presidents and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. But to find a Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President, approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, you need to go back to 1895.

Hmmmmmm........intractable devils,

Of the 30 successful confirmations since 1945, 13 of the votes, or about 43 percent, came when the President’s party didn’t control the Senate. This was especially true when the Democrats ran the Senate for long periods during the 1960s and 1970s.

In fact, all 13 of the Supreme Court nominations since 1945 that were eventually approved by an opposing party in the Senate were made by Republican Presidents. Familiar names such as Earl Warren, William Brennan and Potter Stewart were Eisenhower nominees approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate.

however.....

In recent years, though, Presidents have made it a point to put up Supreme Court nominees when their party controlled the votes in the Senate. Since the Thomas nomination in 1991, the past six Supreme Court Justices won confirmation when the President’s party also controlled the Senate.

Alright then. Looks like the ACB confirmation is most likely gonna happen. Maybe we do have to live with it. Doesn't mean we have to like it.

However IF Biden is elected and IF Senate seats can be turned in the upcoming election adding additional supreme court justices could become a reality. Not saying he's in favor of this but the number of justices is NOT fixed by the constitution but set by congress. The number has changed throughout history.

"Since 1789, Congress changed the maximum number of Justices on the Court several times. In 1801, President John Adams and a lame-duck Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the Court to five Justices in an attempt to limit incoming President Thomas Jefferson’s appointments to the high bench. Jefferson and his Republicans soon repealed that act, putting the Court back to six Justices. And in 1807, Jefferson and Congress added a seventh Justice when it added a seventh federal court circuit.
In early 1837, President Andrew Jackson was able to add two additional Justices after Congress again expanded the number of federal circuit court districts. Under different circumstances, Congress created a 10th circuit in 1863 during the Civil War, and it briefly had a 10th Supreme Court Justice. However, Congress after the war passed legislation in 1866 to reduce the Court to seven Justices. That only lasted until 1869, when a new Judiciary Act sponsored by Senator Lyman Trumbull set the number back to nine Justices, with six Justices required at a sitting to form a quorum. President Ulysses S. Grant eventually signed that legislation and nominated William Strong and Joseph Bradley to the newly restored seats."
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices

Hypothetically, it could work to add seats more favorable to Biden's policies if Democrats hold the House and gain seats in the Senate. OTOH it didn't work for Roosevelt who tried to add more justices favorable to his New Deal policies.

Either way, no matter how excited eveyone gets, all of these goings on have happened before in our history at one time or another, and we will deal because as history shows, and you have stated, nothing stays the same forever.

*OH, with all this pearl clutching about "court packing" ........how 'bout a trip down memory lane with this old article......

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/03/5005...lock-potential-clinton-supreme-court-nominees

 

Why do I think this woman is going to make a whole lot of American citizens lives hell?



we won't even get into her comments on sexual "preference".