Jump to content

Should the Senate vote on a new Supreme Court Justice before the inauguration?


Supreme Court Pole  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Senate vote on a new Supreme Court Justice before the inauguration?

  2. 2. Will they?

    • Yes, the Republicans are the Houston Astros of politics.
    • No, there is an ounce of decency left.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You poll is gay AF. 

I have my own shitty takes, ok.

I will pull two quasi-related events out of my ass and use them as a lame excuse to break my word because I am a giant douche 

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

I completely disagree with this. If it's against the law it would stop many law abiding citizens from getting one. Will there be underground abortions from corrupt doctors? Of course, but if you stopped 50-75% of abortions that's hundreds of thousands of lives saved every year. 

This is a tough issue for me. But if we outlaw without empowering mothers to properly care for their kids, we'll get a lot more f'ed up people in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, calscuf said:

You guys know that most of those aborted babies aren’t white?  If you want to guarantee your car broken into in 20 years, be my guest, overturn Roe v. Wade.

https://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
 

I haven’t read Freakinomics I just remember yk mentioning this years ago. I’m sure other studies refute it but your calscufism reminded me of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spin Rate said:

This is a tough issue for me. But if we outlaw without empowering mothers to properly care for their kids, we'll get a lot more f'ed up people in the world.

You don’t seem confused at all to me. You have made a decision that fewer black people makes the world a safer place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone could think it's ok for the government to control what women do with their bodies. That's so backwards and ridiculous.

do not like or support abortions. I hate them. But I also support women's rights (fuck you cals). 

A woman who has been raped and impregnated against her will, should NOT be forced to carry that baby to term.

A woman who does not have the means to take care of the child, should not be forced to carry that baby to term. Yes, wear a fucking condom. Hindsight and all that.

A woman who simply doesn't want a child, well fuck her for getting pregnant in the first place, but to bring a child into a world that doesn't want it is far more cruel than aborting it.

A woman who has serious complications which could result in her and/or the baby's death, should not be forced to bring that child to term.

Why does the life of a fetus matter more than the life of a full grown adult woman? You say it's because "the fetus never had a choice", well overturn Roe v Wade and now neither the fetus nor the mother has a choice.

A lot of this is based on religious beliefs. I won't touch that subject but all I will say is we do not live in a theocracy. Separation of church and state.

That's my opinion and it isn't changing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like KC said, while socially unacceptable to admit, a world with fewer minorities makes us all safer.  

And what if you knock up a drunk bang?  You want to be paying for that the rest of your life or pay $400 and breathe a huge sigh of relief?

I love abortion.  You guys can admit you do too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I don't know how anyone could think it's ok for the government to control what women do with their bodies. That's so backwards and ridiculous.

do not like or support abortions. I hate them. But I also support women's rights (fuck you cals). 

A woman who has been raped and impregnated against her will, should NOT be forced to carry that baby to term.

A woman who does not have the means to take care of the child, should not be forced to carry that baby to term. Yes, wear a fucking condom. Hindsight and all that.

A woman who simply doesn't want a child, well fuck her for getting pregnant in the first place, but to bring a child into a world that doesn't want it is far more cruel than aborting it.

A woman who has serious complications which could result in her and/or the baby's death, should not be forced to bring that child to term.

Why does the life of a fetus matter more than the life of a full grown adult woman? You say it's because "the fetus never had a choice", well overturn Roe v Wade and now neither the fetus nor the mother has a choice.

A lot of this is based on religious beliefs. I won't touch that subject but all I will say is we do not live in a theocracy. Separation of church and state.

That's my opinion and it isn't changing.

 

Your opinion seems to contrast your views on corona lockdowns and vaccinations. A mother can take the babies life but I can’t go to Costco without a mask because I might infect you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, angelinkc said:

Your opinion seems to contrast your views on corona lockdowns and vaccinations. A mother can take the babies life but I can’t go to Costco without a mask because I might infect you. 

Correct. You're a full grown adult and you might infect another full grown adult.

Also that is by far the biggest reach I have ever seen. You're amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I want the vacancy on the Supreme Court filled before the next Presidential Inauguration (regardless of who wins), No not really.

 

Do I think that the Senate and President are well within their rights to chose and confirm a new Supreme Court justice? Yes, they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Like KC said, while socially unacceptable to admit, a world with fewer minorities makes us all safer.  

And what if you knock up a drunk bang?  You want to be paying for that the rest of your life or pay $400 and breathe a huge sigh of relief?

I love abortion.  You guys can admit you do too.

This is true. I believe everyone deserves a chance even though the majority will be criminals after birth. I do get tired of libs pretending to support black lives when they prefer blacks not to reproduce

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Correct. You're a full grown adult and you might infect another full grown adult.

Also that is by far the biggest reach I have ever seen. You're amazing.

So s full grown adult life matters more than a baby’s life? At what she does the mother lode her right to kill the child ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Correct. You're a full grown adult and you might infect another full grown adult.

Also that is by far the biggest reach I have ever seen. You're amazing.

Your argument is my body my choice. Meaning the government had no right to dictate what I do with my body. However you make an exception to my right if I could potentially harm another human. Unless of course that human happens to be a baby. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will take a crack at trying to make this point make sense.

We all get there is spectrum of conservatism and liberalism.  That’s fine.  When Congress fights each their on legislation there are heavy hands pulling in opposite directions.  Again, this is fine.  A battle between conservatism and liberalism on purpose of legislation , what it tries to achieve or prevent, and how you pay for it is all perfectly OK in this arena.

My problem is this notion that there should also be some “balance” on the Supreme Court.

This is absolutely a crazy concept.

Legislators in Congress are supposed to be crafting laws that they believe are Constitutional.  Many are lawyers themselves.  They should be exercising some personal discipline to NOT create laws that are not Constitutional.

But they are human, some are too political or ideological to care, and some are just simply not Constitutional scholars.

So we have a Supreme Court to simply make sure that whatever legislation they come up with AT A BARE MINIMUM is Constitutional.

That is the only job of the Supreme Court.

So I completely reject the idea that we need “balance” on the Supreme Court between:

1). those committed to measuring laws against the Constitution (conservatives align with this), and

2). those that are perfectly fine NOT measuring the laws strictly against the Constitution because it feels like the right thing regardless of what the Constitution says (Liberals align with this)

My position is our society is free to pass whatever laws it wants through healthy debate In Congress, with all the ebbs and flows of swings in power between left and right.  And if we end up with 17,663 brand new very liberal laws, it is what it is and I can accept thats

But all the the laws, whether left leaning or eight leaning, must still be within the actual Constitution.

So I always cringe when I hear or read anything about the Supreme Court that suggests “balance” as something that is good, or talks about how one more Justice could “tip the power for decades” into the hands of Conservative judges.

The Supreme Court is the one place where there should be no “balance” between following the Constitution and feeling free to not do so.

We all want umpires the follow the rules.  Let the two teams play, and if we want a good game having “balance” between the two teams on the field is great for everyone.

But we don’t want the crew of umpires working a World Series to be a “balance” between guys that strictly follow the actual rule book and umpires that want to make a call based on what seems like the right thing to do (in their mind) at the time.

No.  So I am calling BS on the idea that “balance” should be an acceptable discussion at all on the Court.

Just let everyone do their jobs.

Isn’t it enough for liberals to have this fantastic system where they have a fair chance at passing any legislation they want, as long as it is is minimally just Constitutional??

Whether you are winning the game or losing the game, in first place or last place, keep fighting on the field for your team.  But at least have the honor, decency, and character to openly WANT umpires that will simply rule by the rule book and make honest calls based on the rule book.

The only way the Supreme Court is correctly “balanced” would be to have 9 justices fully committed to strictly measuring laws against the actual Constitution.  Having ANY “liberal” judges at all that not 100% committed to the Constitution regardless of how it makes them feel personally is the definition of being out of balance.

We need 9 Judges committed to the constitution.  Sadly, those that are committed to the Constitution are labeled as “conservatives” and those who are not are labeled “liberals” and we all being sold a bill of goods with the crazy idea that we should have a “balance” between these??

Sorry, but that’s just crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dtwncbad said:

I will take a crack at trying to make this point make sense.

We all get there is spectrum of conservatism and liberalism.  That’s fine.  When Congress fights each their on legislation there are heavy hands pulling in opposite directions.  Again, this is fine.  A battle between conservatism and liberalism on purpose of legislation , what it tries to achieve or prevent, and how you pay for it is all perfectly OK in this arena.

My problem is this notion that there should also be some “balance” on the Supreme Court.

This is absolutely a crazy concept.

Legislators in Congress are supposed to be crafting laws that they believe are Constitutional.  Many are lawyers themselves.  They should be exercising some personal discipline to NOT create laws that are not Constitutional.

But they are human, some are too political or ideological to care, and some are just simply not Constitutional scholars.

So we have a Supreme Court to simply make sure that whatever legislation they come up with AT A BARE MINIMUM is Constitutional.

That is the only job of the Supreme Court.

So I completely reject the idea that we need “balance” on the Supreme Court between:

1). those committed to measuring laws against the Constitution (conservatives align with this), and

2). those that are perfectly fine NOT measuring the laws strictly against the Constitution because it feels like the right thing regardless of what the Constitution says (Liberals align with this)

My position is our society is free to pass whatever laws it wants through healthy debate In Congress, with all the ebbs and flows of swings in power between left and right.  And if we end up with 17,663 brand new very liberal laws, it is what it is and I can accept thats

But all the the laws, whether left leaning or eight leaning, must still be within the actual Constitution.

So I always cringe when I hear or read anything about the Supreme Court that suggests “balance” as something that is good, or talks about how one more Justice could “tip the power for decades” into the hands of Conservative judges.

The Supreme Court is the one place where there should be no “balance” between following the Constitution and feeling free to not do so.

We all want umpires the follow the rules.  Let the two teams play, and if we want a good game having “balance” between the two teams on the field is great for everyone.

But we don’t want the crew of umpires working a World Series to be a “balance” between guys that strictly follow the actual rule book and umpires that want to make a call based on what seems like the right thing to do (in their mind) at the time.

No.  So I am calling BS on the idea that “balance” should be an acceptable discussion at all on the Court.

Just let everyone do their jobs.

Isn’t it enough for liberals to have this fantastic system where they have a fair chance at passing any legislation they want, as long as it is is minimally just Constitutional??

Whether you are winning the game or losing the game, in first place or last place, keep fighting on the field for your team.  But at least have the honor, decency, and character to openly WANT umpires that will simply rule by the rule book and make honest calls based on the rule book.

The only way the Supreme Court is correctly “balanced” would be to have 9 justices fully committed to strictly measuring laws against the actual Constitution.  Having ANY “liberal” judges at all that not 100% committed to the Constitution regardless of how it makes them feel personally is the definition of being out of balance.

We need 9 Judges committed to the constitution.  Sadly, those that are committed to the Constitution are labeled as “conservatives” and those who are not are labeled “liberals” and we all being sold a bill of goods with the crazy idea that we should have a “balance” between these??

Sorry, but that’s just crazy.

I’m sorry you took all that time to type that and then I have to be the one who tells you this, but you know exactly jack shit about Constitutional Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, angelinkc said:

Your argument is my body my choice. Meaning the government had no right to dictate what I do with my body. However you make an exception to my right if I could potentially harm another human. Unless of course that human happens to be a baby. 

What's that Daniel Tosh joke? Life begins at the erection?

You're trying to say that if the government can't control abortions then why can they control mask wearing? Well again, this comes down to you thinking the ejaculate oozing in the chick's gaping pussy is a baby. It's not. And wearing a mask is a minor convenience. Not even remotely comparable to abortion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, calscuf said:

I’m sorry you took all that time to type that and then I have to be the one who tells you this, but you know exactly jack shit about Constitutional Law.

Correct.  That’s why I shouldn’t be a Supreme Court Justice and they should only be those that follow the Constitution.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

McConnell blocked Obama's nominee but will fast track Trump's. The very definition of short term self interest.

It’s political games but if they nominate and confirm one this year then they are doing as designed. There’s nothing wrong with doing it the right way 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...