Let us look at this another way, in this case, WH and senate are same party, the democrats are asking Trump and republicans to give up about 8% of their term. Between now and inauguration there are approximately 15 weeks that Trump is president and they are saying that this should be left to another term. Why should any president give up such a significant part of their term, no matter the party? They are duly elected to fulfill the entire term, not 92% of it...
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
2020 SCOTUS Nomination...
- Thread starter bwframe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yep. It really is as simple as that. Any president in the big chair has the right to execute their duties while in office.
That isn't giving up part of his term.
But it is akin to calling for a time out during a fist fight, that you started, when you start to lose.
Like I listen to you for grownup stuff. LOL
I already stated my position.
This is just another analysis/paralysis thread at this point.
Jamil has a lock on that genre. You guys just don't know when to quit.
I believe RGB agreed with this at one point despite her supposed death bed wishes. She also said that the Senate has an obligation to do their job. I believe this was all referenced during the time when Obama nominated Garland.
terrehautian
Master
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/...an-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html
link with that exact quote.
She would be a good pick. Hispanic female from Florida. Will check a lot of boxes for the upcoming election. I believe she is not keen on revisiting Roe v Wade as well. May help get some cooperation from some Democrats....maybe, but she is a Christian, so sure that will rile up the Demoncrats.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I on this subject can weigh in. It turns out that there is currently law (Judiciary Act of 1869) that sets the the supreme court at 9 members. There were two additional Judiciary Acts passes later, but neither changed this.
Understanding that a law is easier to change than something in the Constitution, how do Democrats think they will pack the SC as they've been threatening to due for years now? Just ignore the law? For that matter, how did FDR think that he could get away with it?
Understanding that a law is easier to change than something in the Constitution, how do Democrats think they will pack the SC as they've been threatening to due for years now? Just ignore the law? For that matter, how did FDR think that he could get away with it?
Absolutely understood. That's why I mentioned it in my post. It would require control of both branches of congress and the presidency. Also, it would require getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. However, I have yet to see any Democrat mention changing a law. Do they recognize that one exists? or care?
The filibuster is itself just an agreement of the senate as to rules of conduct of business. That rule can be changed by a simple majority vote of the senate alone, just as Harry Reid did it change the approval of judges, then McConnell furthered to SCOTUS appointments.
I believe they do, because they generally mention after they win the presidency. They are arrogantly assuming they will win the senate which I do not think they will, and I further believe that the presidential winner will carry the house as well...
The smears start: https://t.co/ix2njR38kY?amp=1
"Amy Coney Barrett, a leading contender for the Supreme Court seat held by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote an influential appellate decision last year that made it easier for students accused of sexual assault to challenge universities’ handling of their cases.
Barrett led a three-woman panel of judges that said Purdue University may have discriminated against a male student accused of sexual assault when it suspended him for a year, a punishment that cost him his spot in the Navy ROTC program.
“It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man,” Barrett wrote in the case, in which the accuser was identified as Jane Doe and the accused as John Doe."
"Amy Coney Barrett, a leading contender for the Supreme Court seat held by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote an influential appellate decision last year that made it easier for students accused of sexual assault to challenge universities’ handling of their cases.
Barrett led a three-woman panel of judges that said Purdue University may have discriminated against a male student accused of sexual assault when it suspended him for a year, a punishment that cost him his spot in the Navy ROTC program.
“It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man,” Barrett wrote in the case, in which the accuser was identified as Jane Doe and the accused as John Doe."
The smears start: https://t.co/ix2njR38kY?amp=1
"Amy Coney Barrett, a leading contender for the Supreme Court seat held by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote an influential appellate decision last year that made it easier for students accused of sexual assault to challenge universities’ handling of their cases.
Barrett led a three-woman panel of judges that said Purdue University may have discriminated against a male student accused of sexual assault when it suspended him for a year, a punishment that cost him his spot in the Navy ROTC program.
“It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man,” Barrett wrote in the case, in which the accuser was identified as Jane Doe and the accused as John Doe."
It took a day...
With the lefts propensity for eating their own...
I wonder how long it will be before we get the first "hate" article on RBG for allowing Trump this victory?
"RBG should have stepped down during obama's term etc."
"RBG gave this to Trump on a silver platter out of her own selfishness."
All of which are true, but still...
I wonder how long it will be before we get the first "hate" article on RBG for allowing Trump this victory?
"RBG should have stepped down during obama's term etc."
"RBG gave this to Trump on a silver platter out of her own selfishness."
All of which are true, but still...
