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

Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Nov 25, 2020 - 6:47am
 
2020 Elections - miamizsun - Nov 25, 2020 - 6:46am
 
COVID-19 - miamizsun - Nov 25, 2020 - 5:47am
 
Things You Thought Today - Coaxial - Nov 25, 2020 - 5:30am
 
Next life I'm going to be a black girl backup singer - miamizsun - Nov 25, 2020 - 5:06am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - sirdroseph - Nov 25, 2020 - 5:02am
 
2001; A SPACE ODYSSEY - R_P - Nov 24, 2020 - 10:26pm
 
Democratic Party - kurtster - Nov 24, 2020 - 10:05pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Nov 24, 2020 - 5:01pm
 
Trump - R_P - Nov 24, 2020 - 4:40pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Nov 24, 2020 - 4:05pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Nov 24, 2020 - 3:18pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Manbird - Nov 24, 2020 - 3:11pm
 
want to donate but only use the native internet currency ... - westslope - Nov 24, 2020 - 2:56pm
 
Canada - westslope - Nov 24, 2020 - 2:52pm
 
Donating with Bitcoin - why not? - BillG - Nov 24, 2020 - 2:32pm
 
New Music - chris13 - Nov 24, 2020 - 1:56pm
 
Need A Thread Killed? - oldviolin - Nov 24, 2020 - 9:17am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - perruca - Nov 24, 2020 - 6:14am
 
Zappa - miamizsun - Nov 24, 2020 - 5:46am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Nov 24, 2020 - 4:58am
 
Florida - miamizsun - Nov 24, 2020 - 4:53am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - miamizsun - Nov 24, 2020 - 4:40am
 
Blues Rock - Ohmsen - Nov 24, 2020 - 3:00am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Nov 23, 2020 - 6:41pm
 
In My Room - buddy - Nov 23, 2020 - 5:57pm
 
Oops! - Red_Dragon - Nov 23, 2020 - 3:58pm
 
Republican Party - R_P - Nov 23, 2020 - 2:27pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - miamizsun - Nov 23, 2020 - 2:15pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Nov 23, 2020 - 1:44pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - haresfur - Nov 23, 2020 - 1:27pm
 
Name My Disease! - buddy - Nov 23, 2020 - 12:58pm
 
songs that ROCK! - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 23, 2020 - 11:49am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 23, 2020 - 11:49am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 23, 2020 - 9:36am
 
No Points for Trying - miamizsun - Nov 23, 2020 - 6:56am
 
Amazing animals! - Coaxial - Nov 23, 2020 - 6:08am
 
Joe Biden - Steely_D - Nov 22, 2020 - 4:37pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Nov 22, 2020 - 2:40pm
 
Always great listening... - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 22, 2020 - 2:10pm
 
What makes you smile? - Ohmsen - Nov 22, 2020 - 12:53pm
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - Ohmsen - Nov 22, 2020 - 12:14pm
 
russian mystery - Ohmsen - Nov 22, 2020 - 11:12am
 
Health Care - Steely_D - Nov 22, 2020 - 10:24am
 
You might be getting old if...... - Antigone - Nov 22, 2020 - 9:31am
 
Back to the 70's - Ohmsen - Nov 22, 2020 - 8:51am
 
Outstanding Covers - sirdroseph - Nov 22, 2020 - 5:52am
 
Capital Punishment - R_P - Nov 21, 2020 - 4:11pm
 
THE SMITHS (THE BAND GOOD) - MORRISSEY (BAD) Discuss - sirdroseph - Nov 21, 2020 - 12:29pm
 
Play the Blues - sirdroseph - Nov 21, 2020 - 12:22pm
 
Republican Lies, Deceit and Hypocrisy - buddy - Nov 21, 2020 - 11:23am
 
Trump Lies - buddy - Nov 21, 2020 - 10:30am
 
Electronic Pest Control Devices - Do They Work? - miamizsun - Nov 21, 2020 - 10:01am
 
Great guitar faces - Red_Dragon - Nov 21, 2020 - 9:30am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - miamizsun - Nov 21, 2020 - 9:08am
 
A motivational quote - rhahl - Nov 21, 2020 - 7:54am
 
Dissociative Identity Disorder? - Ohmsen - Nov 21, 2020 - 4:52am
 
Amazing music to include - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 20, 2020 - 5:48pm
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 20, 2020 - 5:45pm
 
donation other than online? - BillG - Nov 20, 2020 - 12:50pm
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - Nov 20, 2020 - 11:07am
 
Guns - westslope - Nov 20, 2020 - 9:47am
 
Fado - Gs95045 - Nov 20, 2020 - 8:48am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - haresfur - Nov 20, 2020 - 1:45am
 
KarmaKarma Sweepstakes - kcar - Nov 19, 2020 - 9:25pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Nov 19, 2020 - 2:56pm
 
manbird's shoe size and earwax content - oldviolin - Nov 19, 2020 - 2:44pm
 
"Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a (Republican) Virt... - buddy - Nov 19, 2020 - 1:23pm
 
Maarjamaa - oldviolin - Nov 19, 2020 - 12:24pm
 
Astronomy! - Red_Dragon - Nov 19, 2020 - 10:02am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 19, 2020 - 9:17am
 
For anybody who's always wanted a Humpback Whale Skeleton - oldviolin - Nov 19, 2020 - 8:27am
 
The war on funk is over! - Ohmsen - Nov 19, 2020 - 7:44am
 
Environment - oldviolin - Nov 19, 2020 - 7:33am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Ohmsen - Nov 19, 2020 - 7:25am
 
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