Supreme Court Justice kennedy retires - Page 2 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Jim in CT · 06-28-2018, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdmso

So will you support waiting for the mid terms to be finished before starting the Conformation process on Trumps Pick ... My guess is NO

you have no regard with process what did they steal?? now your just playing dumb.. Turtle boy drag his feet for 11 months but now he wants it done by September ... the GOP cant claim innocents

No, it would be asinine to wait until after the midterms. Obama got elana Kagan confirmed in 2010, a midterm year. And in 2016 when the gop prevented obama from getting anyone confirmed, they were able to do so, because the American people gave the senate to the gop. The democrats do not control the senate. Elections have consequences, pretty sure I heard that a lot from 2009 - 2016.

I have great regard for process, and I want my side to follow the same process as the other side, I don’t want my side to self impose a higher hurdle, that’s stupid.

The gop controls the senate. With that, come the same exact perks the dems enjoyed when they last controlled the senate. If the American people don’t like it, they can make a change in 2010, but the gop will be more likely to gain senate seats than lose them. Several democrats up from state’s trump won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT · 06-28-2018, 01:11 PM

Obama got Elena Kagan confirmed in a midterm year, and there were republicans who voted for her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS · 06-28-2018, 01:24 PM

When Justice Thomas was confirmed, the Dems. controlled the Senate 57-43.

Jim in CT · 06-28-2018, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

When Justice Thomas was confirmed, the Dems. controlled the Senate 57-43.

There was a time when it was bipartisan. That changed with Bork. Do you remember which side broke withbtradition that time?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS · 06-28-2018, 02:06 PM

He was not confirmed bc of his role in the Sat. night massacre where he fired Archibald Cox after 2 folks refused and the firing was found by a judge to be improper.

There were other issues including his views of the division of power bt the pres and congress. He also believed that Constituion did not provide any privacy protection to individuals.

Jim in CT · 06-28-2018, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

He was not confirmed bc of his role in the Sat. night massacre where he fired Archibald Cox after 2 folks refused and the firing was found by a judge to be improper.

There were other issues including his views of the division of power bt the pres and congress. He also believed that Constituion did not provide any privacy protection to individuals.

No, he was not confirmed because of partisan politics. A new phrase came out of that, called getting “borked”, it means to be denied something that you are obviously qualified for.

You want to say that Clarence Thomas was guilty, and Bork was unqualified. Fine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS · 06-28-2018, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, he was not confirmed because of partisan politics. A new phrase came out of that, called getting “borked”, it means to be denied something that you are obviously qualified for.

You want to say that Clarence Thomas was guilty, and Bork was unqualified. Fine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stop making things up - show me where I said either.

I asked previously for you to show me where the Dems. played the race card and that they "claiming that a black man was not to be trusted around women" when there were Dems who voted for Thomas and Repubs who voted against him. Biden was skewered for his questioning of Hill. In fact, Thomas was criticized for playing the race card and calling it a "high tech lynching" in his opening remarks. This seemed to scare many of the Dems.

You really don't remember, do you?

Pete F. · 06-28-2018, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, he was not confirmed because of partisan politics. A new phrase came out of that, called getting “borked”, it means to be denied something that you are obviously qualified for.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know where you found that definition, it's closer to the last one of these. And that's also why his confirmation was opposed.

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was possibly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[37] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?"[38] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history.

In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[39]

There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to "get borked" was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[40]

Jim in CT · 06-28-2018, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don't know where you found that definition, it's closer to the last one of these. And that's also why his confirmation was opposed.

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was possibly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[37] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?"[38] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history.

In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[39]

There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to "get borked" was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[40]

I found links that defined it as getting attacked politically, especially in the media.

How many times did borks decisions get overturned by higher courts, how many times did Sotomayor?

The gop is likely to get who they want, and god willing, it will transform the court for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence · 06-28-2018, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The gop is likely to get who they want, and god willing, it will transform the court for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most SCOTUS votes are 9-0 or close to that. On close votes the court has been pretty conservative as of late. The Chief Justice has said Roe is settled law.

What's the radical change you're looking for?

Jim in CT · 06-28-2018, 06:13 PM

Spence, you need to tell this guy that nothing meaningful will change.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32449...ign=benshapiro
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. · 06-28-2018, 10:59 PM

Jim you could tell this guy nothing meaningful will change
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.med...-explains/amp/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT · 06-29-2018, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim you could tell this guy nothing meaningful will change
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.med...-explains/amp/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See, I’m actually correct when I tell Spence that the left is worried about trump replacing Kennedy. It’s obviously true.

When I point out an obvious truth related to SCOTUS, you respond with a tale about a republican acting horribly. If true, it’s yet another in a long list of republicans acting immorally. Not sure what that has to do with this, other than showing that you are unable to concede that I was right when I said the left is worried, as I would be if I were a democrat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. · 06-29-2018, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See, I’m actually correct when I tell Spence that the left is worried about trump replacing Kennedy. It’s obviously true.

When I point out an obvious truth related to SCOTUS, you respond with a tale about a republican acting horribly. If true, it’s yet another in a long list of republicans acting immorally. Not sure what that has to do with this, other than showing that you are unable to concede that I was right when I said the left is worried, as I would be if I were a democrat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What obvious truth was in the article you linked?
A quote from the article you linked:
No Wonder Jeff Toobin Wants Abortion So Badly, He Once Allegedly Gave His Mistress Money To Have One
A quote from the one i linked:
The prospect of Trump having had a political ally pay off a mistress to have an abortion would be extremely scandalous, even for him. But what we didn’t know, until now, is that there appears to be legitimate evidence to suggest that this affair and pregnancy happened while Trump was the president of the United States!

Jim in CT · 06-29-2018, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What obvious truth was in the article you linked?
A quote from the article you linked:
No Wonder Jeff Toobin Wants Abortion So Badly, He Once Allegedly Gave His Mistress Money To Have One
A quote from the one i linked:
The prospect of Trump having had a political ally pay off a mistress to have an abortion would be extremely scandalous, even for him. But what we didn’t know, until now, is that there appears to be legitimate evidence to suggest that this affair and pregnancy happened while Trump was the president of the United States!

The obvious truth, is that the left is horrified that trump has the potential to shift the court to the right for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence · 06-29-2018, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The obvious truth, is that the left is horrified that trump has the potential to shift the court to the right for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, he doesn't really. Maybe two years.

Pete F. · 06-29-2018, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The obvious truth, is that the left is horrified that trump has the potential to shift the court to the right for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would hope that this country can withstand whatever Trump does.
Regardless of what you think, he has no magical powers.
Gaslighting does not qualify you as a superhero.
Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device