[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

2020 Elections - kurtster - Oct 30, 2020 - 10:47pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Oct 30, 2020 - 8:59pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Manbird - Oct 30, 2020 - 7:48pm
 
Trump Lies - Manbird - Oct 30, 2020 - 7:45pm
 
COVID-19 - Manbird - Oct 30, 2020 - 6:57pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Manbird - Oct 30, 2020 - 6:47pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - R_P - Oct 30, 2020 - 6:46pm
 
Outstanding Covers - ptooey - Oct 30, 2020 - 5:40pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Oct 30, 2020 - 4:37pm
 
Joe Biden - R_P - Oct 30, 2020 - 3:32pm
 
Trump - Steely_D - Oct 30, 2020 - 2:55pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Oct 30, 2020 - 1:28pm
 
KarmaKarma Sweepstakes - kcar - Oct 30, 2020 - 1:27pm
 
Things that piss me off - Isabeau - Oct 30, 2020 - 12:47pm
 
Name My Band - Isabeau - Oct 30, 2020 - 12:45pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Oct 30, 2020 - 9:52am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Ohmsen - Oct 30, 2020 - 8:36am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Oct 30, 2020 - 7:28am
 
Happy Halloween Yall! - sirdroseph - Oct 30, 2020 - 7:21am
 
codec - Ohmsen - Oct 30, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - sirdroseph - Oct 30, 2020 - 5:39am
 
Message To Lucky - miamizsun - Oct 30, 2020 - 4:30am
 
The Dragon's Roots - miamizsun - Oct 30, 2020 - 4:24am
 
Media Bias - miamizsun - Oct 30, 2020 - 3:56am
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Oct 29, 2020 - 9:10pm
 
Have you planned your Halloween costume yet?? - miamizsun - Oct 29, 2020 - 6:34pm
 
Canada - haresfur - Oct 29, 2020 - 3:41pm
 
Two questions. That's it. I promise. - kcar - Oct 29, 2020 - 3:39pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - R_P - Oct 29, 2020 - 3:05pm
 
Questions. - pigtail - Oct 29, 2020 - 10:49am
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - Antigone - Oct 29, 2020 - 6:05am
 
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK! - miamizsun - Oct 29, 2020 - 4:20am
 
Can't sleep - westslope - Oct 28, 2020 - 10:07pm
 
The Obituary Page - ScottN - Oct 28, 2020 - 9:49pm
 
Add a "Modern mix" - darrio - Oct 28, 2020 - 6:59pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Oct 28, 2020 - 6:10pm
 
Today in History - miamizsun - Oct 28, 2020 - 4:27pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Oct 28, 2020 - 8:53am
 
TWO WORDS - rgio - Oct 28, 2020 - 6:57am
 
Baseball, anyone? - miamizsun - Oct 28, 2020 - 4:31am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Oct 27, 2020 - 7:21pm
 
how do you feel right now? - kurtster - Oct 27, 2020 - 6:23pm
 
VTuner drop Radio Paradise’s main mix? - BillG - Oct 27, 2020 - 3:56pm
 
Environment - Ohmsen - Oct 27, 2020 - 2:39pm
 
Recommended documentaries - Ohmsen - Oct 27, 2020 - 2:33pm
 
Republican Party - Steely_D - Oct 27, 2020 - 1:28pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Oct 27, 2020 - 11:45am
 
Great guitar faces - GINRUSH - Oct 27, 2020 - 11:27am
 
david bromberg - Antigone - Oct 27, 2020 - 6:09am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Oct 26, 2020 - 7:27pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Oct 26, 2020 - 4:59pm
 
::odd but intriguing:: - miamizsun - Oct 26, 2020 - 4:42pm
 
New Zealand - R_P - Oct 26, 2020 - 3:09pm
 
Favorite Quotes - westslope - Oct 26, 2020 - 2:04pm
 
Films you're excited about. - oldviolin - Oct 25, 2020 - 7:06pm
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - KurtfromLaQuinta - Oct 25, 2020 - 6:29pm
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - oldviolin - Oct 25, 2020 - 3:02pm
 
Quick! I need a chicken... - oldviolin - Oct 25, 2020 - 2:54pm
 
How's the weather? - haresfur - Oct 25, 2020 - 2:25pm
 
What's that smell? - Antigone - Oct 25, 2020 - 9:49am
 
De onde você ouve a Radio Paradise? Cidade/Local no Brasil - crishtiane - Oct 24, 2020 - 10:33pm
 
RPeeps I miss. - KurtfromLaQuinta - Oct 24, 2020 - 9:51pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Oct 24, 2020 - 5:01pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - Red_Dragon - Oct 24, 2020 - 3:53pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - Ohmsen - Oct 24, 2020 - 10:22am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Oct 24, 2020 - 10:17am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Oct 24, 2020 - 10:10am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Oct 24, 2020 - 10:09am
 
Music Videos - Ohmsen - Oct 24, 2020 - 9:50am
 
Ambient Music - Ohmsen - Oct 24, 2020 - 9:41am
 
Live Music - Ohmsen - Oct 24, 2020 - 9:11am
 
The 1960s - Ohmsen - Oct 24, 2020 - 9:03am
 
The war on funk is over! - Ohmsen - Oct 24, 2020 - 8:57am
 
Play the Blues - Ohmsen - Oct 24, 2020 - 8:56am
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - Ohmsen - Oct 24, 2020 - 7:40am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Supreme Court: Who's Next? Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 36, 37, 38  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 29, 2020 - 3:05pm

A Court of One’s Own
This is not a sign of strength—it is a sign of weakness. Trump’s Republicans have gotten a reliable majority on the Supreme Court—for now—but they have delegitimized the Senate and the Supreme Court. It is the desperate act of a party that is so far out of favor with the American people it has given up winning elections fairly and is resorting to the tactics of strongmen. That McConnell pushed this confirmation through right before the election, rather than holding the seat open to fire up evangelicals as he did in 2016, suggests he thinks that even evangelicals cannot save the White House this time around.

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 28, 2020 - 2:59pm

See, see, it's not really so bad...
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 27, 2020 - 5:20am

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 26, 2020 - 5:03am

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 islander wrote:

Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it. 

Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade. 

It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future. 
 
Still buying lottery tickets so that we can immigrate to Canadia... no idea why you haven't yet.
 

he's sea-steading on a budget

and yes i'm jealous
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:58pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:


 islander wrote:

Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it. 

Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade. 

It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future. 
 


Still buying lottery tickets so that we can immigrate to Canadia... no idea why you haven't yet.
 

I don't have a lot of confidence in our immediate future. But I haven't given up on our long term yet. 
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:56pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
Red_Dragon wrote:

"Elections have consequences."
—Barack Obama

But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.

You're welcome.
 
It's a bit counter-intuitive, but apparently correct (and specific). I suppose the confusion comes from/with "court-stacking." And of course both major parties have used the misnomer when expedient.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:52pm



 islander wrote:

Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it. 

Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade. 

It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future. 
 


Still buying lottery tickets so that we can immigrate to Canadia... no idea why you haven't yet.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:49pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
Red_Dragon wrote:

"Elections have consequences."
—Barack Obama

But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.

You're welcome.
 
Sure, let's play the semantics game. Since the Republicans have used every available procedure available to stifle their opposition, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Dems do the same thing back. Court packing isn't illegal, and they may find themselves with the votes and the will to do it. 

Personally, I don't think they should (unless they add one seat specifically for Merick Garland), but I also don't think I'll be able to give much credence to their sudden outrage at the oppositions use of the same tactics they have been running amok with for the last decade. 

It's pretty clear to me that we need reform in a dozen areas from healthcare, to the selection process for our leaders. It's also clear to me that the nation is not in a place to make the compromises that would be required for that kind of work. So we'll have more of the same for the foreseeable future. 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 25, 2020 - 1:14pm

Red_Dragon wrote:

"Elections have consequences."
—Barack Obama

But to answer the question: nobody. Nobody is currently packing the courts, because filling vacancies is not court packing. Court packing means expanding the court to create more seats to create a majority of friendly judges.

You're welcome.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Oct 24, 2020 - 9:13pm

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 4:39pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



 
Your onto us now. 

 

Clever me! 

You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby. 

 
Posting to this webpage pays well.

 

You've said that before, but at this point I have to assume you're joking. BillG pointed out that less than 1% of all RP members post here. And many who do post here don't discuss politics. Who would pay to have someone stir up a teacup? 

My hunch is that you're one particular longtime participant in this forum (using a different username) with too much time on his hands. Have you grown as much broccoli this year? How's your dog? 

I really hope you'll disappear after Trump loses but like a bad case of hemorrhoids I doubt you will. 
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:49pm



 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



 
Your onto us now. 

 

Clever me! 

You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby. 

 
Posting to this webpage pays well.

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:45pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



 
Your onto us now. 

 

Clever me! 

You have zero credibility here. You should start fresh on another forum or just find another job/hobby. 

KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:35pm



 kcar wrote:


 KarmaKarma wrote:


 rgio wrote:


 pigtail wrote:

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
 
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned.  That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans? 

Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment.  If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?

 
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause".  This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President.  Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?

 

It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



 
Your onto us now. 

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:35pm



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 rgio wrote:


 pigtail wrote:

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
 
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned.  That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans? 

Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment.  If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?

 
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause".  This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President.  Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?

 

It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username? 



R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 3:18pm

 rgio wrote:
 If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
 
There would be a lot of frothing from the usual suspects. It's mostly hypothetical (because it's unlikely to happen any time soon).

And while not directly related to the US Constitution, it's easy to point to bigotry in several State constitutions (which are not as shy and in some cases spell out the elephant) e.g.:

Arkansas Art. 19, § 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 12:47pm



 rgio wrote:


 pigtail wrote:

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
 
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned.  That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans? 

Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment.  If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?

 
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause".  This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.

The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President.  Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 12:24pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:
ANY organized, politicized religion is a problem for me, because it's all bullshit.
 

That is too bad because all social organizations are political in nature  and many organized religions house a lot of really decent, caring people.
rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 11:44am



 pigtail wrote:

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
 
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned.  That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans? 

Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment.  If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?

pigtail

pigtail Avatar

Location: Southern California
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 20, 2020 - 11:34am



 KarmaKarma wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:
ANY organized, politicized religion is a problem for me, because it's all bullshit.
 
Have you heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution?
No?  Too many words ?

So you're intolerant of others who have beliefs that don't align with your own.

Totalitarian much?  Consider retiring to North Korea.  You'll fit right in.
 

One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 36, 37, 38  Next