Do the voters deserve to know?

[induced_drag]

I doubt that the topic would have come up at all if not for the dishonesty of the Republican leadership over the Merrick Garland nomination. As L. Graham said in 2016, "Use my words against me."

Ok, people like to say "actions have consequences." If one party is going to abuse the system, it will eventually come back to bite them.

These are the funniest statements that I ever hear mostly coming from idiots. This notion that that republicians are dishonest and somehow dems are so virtuous is moronic. But given how "smart" you are this does not surprise me coming from you. Kind of like how you claimed you never called me 'racist', only that you said I might have bias. You are as full of sh!t as any person can be. (you have never owned up to that by the way even after I posted your exact comments...again, not surprising)

You are forgetting the 'dishonesty' of the Dems and the fact that they exercised the 'nuclear option' in 2013 first w/ Harry Reid under Obama to get their federal judges confirmed. Removing the need for 60 votes and only requiring simple majority. The repubs followed suit and used this for Supreme Court nomination following the Dems rule change.

And 'dishonesty', how about the whole Affordable care act passage. Passage behind closed doors using 'special rules' locking out republicians. The dems promised open debate and literally locked the doors and passed with no republicans. Holy crap, you cant even be serious....

[Jtbny]

These are the funniest statements that I ever hear mostly coming from idiots. This notion that that republicians are dishonest and somehow dems are so virtuous is moronic. But given how "smart" you are this does not surprise me coming from you. Kind of like how you claimed you never called me 'racist', only that you said I might have bias. You are as full of sh!t as any person can be. (you have never owned up to that by the way even after I posted your exact comments...again, not surprising)

You are forgetting the 'dishonesty' of the Dems and the fact that they exercised the 'nuclear option' in 2013 first w/ Harry Reid under Obama to get their federal judges confirmed. Removing the need for 60 votes and only requiring simple majority. The repubs followed suit and used this for Supreme Court nomination following the Dems rule change.

And 'dishonesty', how about the whole Affordable care act passage. Passage behind closed doors using 'special rules' locking out republicians. The dems promised open debate and literally locked the doors and passed with no republicans. Holy crap, you cant even be serious....

What happened in 2016 was fine as what is happening now on the SC is fine. The POTUS nominated and the Senate can/cannot take it up - its simple, IMO. The hypocrisy comes from individuals like Graham who said they wouldn't.

And Agree 100% about how the left handled the ACA. Utter BS.

[induced_drag]

What happened in 2016 was fine as what is happening now on the SC is fine. The POTUS nominated and the Senate can/cannot take it up - its simple, IMO. The hypocrisy comes from individuals like Graham who said they wouldn't.

And Agree 100% about how the left handled the ACA. Utter BS.

Pretty much why I am against career politician of BOTH sides. I FULLY support term limits as I think that is one of the biggest problems with washington.



Funny thing about items important as this that an overwhelming percentage of americans support. 31% of sitting republican senators support term limits and have pledged to vote yes in support. 0% of democrats pledge their support.

www.termlimits.com/ Also give a list of where politicians stand on this issue. Of the 2020 candidates for Pres, as much as many hate Trump, his is in favor. On the opposition, Biden, Sanders, Warren.

[NorwichGrad]

I disagree it can and is both.

A “living and breathing” Constitution actually is a dead Constitution in its fundamental purposes.

The protection of the original meaning of the Constitution is the only way to make it truly “living.”

America wouldn't be in this mess had politicians on BOTH sides honored the Document when they were sworn in.

[7Seconds]

A “living and breathing” Constitution actually is a dead Constitution in its fundamental purposes.

The protection of the original meaning of the Constitution is the only way to make it truly “living.”

America wouldn't be in this mess had politicians on BOTH sides honored the Document when they were sworn in.

Originalism is just opinion.

There is no difference between an orginalist judge and a non-originalist.

The real issue is the SC is way beyond the scope of what it is supposed to be. It is not meant to be a way to get EOs passed, or to arbiter partisan issues. It should be done via the house, which is why the judicial is losing its legitimacy.

[Plateauplower]

Originalism is just opinion.

There is no difference between an orginalist judge and a non-originalist.

The real issue is the SC is way beyond the scope of what it is supposed to be. It is not meant to be a way to get EOs passed, or to arbiter partisan issues. It should be done via the house, which is why the judicial is losing its legitimacy.

That is what case law is...Laws are complicated enough as it is, it is not possible to consider all possible impacts and circumstances, so we have the court system. A law is created, and possibly challenged on its intent or scope, perhaps that law was written in a way that is contrary to the constitution. The law then goes through the court system for an interpretation and ruling which can be appealed up to the supreme court level. Just how the system works. The reason that it becomes partisan, is because people on either side either agree or disagree with the law in the first place.

On another note I just scored about 100lbs of pork loin roast and chicken tenders half-off. So as I shelter in place and watch the clown-show continue, I will be getting my proteinz in.

[Jtbny]

A “living and breathing” Constitution actually is a dead Constitution in its fundamental purposes.

The protection of the original meaning of the Constitution is the only way to make it truly “living.”

America wouldn't be in this mess had politicians on BOTH sides honored the Document when they were sworn in.

Sorry, I don't want to be constrained to laws that were written in the 1700s. That's silly. Dudes were writing shti w/a feather while wearing powdered wigs. We evolve and so should the laws and our foundation of those laws.

[supramax]

Sorry, I don't want to be constrained to laws that were written in the 1700s. That's silly. Dudes were writing shti w/a feather while wearing powdered wigs. We evolve and so should the laws and our foundation of those laws.

Yes and the British are not coming!

[Plateauplower]

Sorry, I don't want to be constrained to laws that were written in the 1700s. That's silly. Dudes were writing shti w/a feather while wearing powdered wigs. We evolve and so should the laws and our foundation of those laws.

Powdered wigs are making a comeback. Probably not feathers though PETA

[7Seconds]

That is what case law is...Laws are complicated enough as it is, it is not possible to consider all possible impacts and circumstances, so we have the court system. A law is created, and possibly challenged on its intent or scope, perhaps that law was written in a way that is contrary to the constitution. The law then goes through the court system for an interpretation and ruling which can be appealed up to the supreme court level. Just how the system works. The reason that it becomes partisan, is because people on either side either agree or disagree with the law in the first place.

On another note I just scored about 100lbs of pork loin roast and chicken tenders half-off. So as I shelter in place and watch the clown-show continue, I will be getting my proteinz in.

The problem is that the Court has become so willing to change settled law that people now don’t even bother with the idea of passing legislation or an amendment to the Constitution because they believe it is easier to achieve their policy goals through the courts.

[LWW]

Sorry, I don't want to be constrained to laws that were written in the 1700s. That's silly. Dudes were writing shti w/a feather while wearing powdered wigs. We evolve and so should the laws and our foundation of those laws.

Your not thinking, people today have no clue what those dudes experienced and WHY they wrote those laws, unfortunately your thinking means history repeats itself and we learn for ourselves, it won’t be a good experience eithier, you’ll be saying, I should have listened to those guys, because well they lived it and learned the hard way.

[NorwichGrad]

Your not thinking, people today have no clue what those dudes experienced and WHY they wrote those laws, unfortunately your thinking means history repeats itself and we learn for ourselves, it won’t be a good experience eithier, you’ll be saying, I should have listened to those guys, because well they lived it and learned the hard way.

Exactly.

History repeats itself because human behavior is predictable.

[LWW]

Exactly.

History repeats itself because human behavior is predictable.

Yeah Norwich, and those dudes back also wrote that all men where created equal. Whether they meant slaves or not? But those words where used to fight against and defeat slavery.

[Jtbny]

Your not thinking, people today have no clue what those dudes experienced and WHY they wrote those laws, unfortunately your thinking means history repeats itself and we learn for ourselves, it won’t be a good experience eithier, you’ll be saying, I should have listened to those guys, because well they lived it and learned the hard way.

Nonsense.

Anyway - Anyone watching the conformation stuff? I listed to a good part of it today and I like ACB and think she'll be a good choice provided she lives up to some of her answers. Will be hard for the left to argue against her except for the conflict Trump has put her in.

[7Seconds]

Nonsense.

Anyway - Anyone watching the conformation stuff? I listed to a good part of it today and I like ACB and think she'll be a good choice provided she lives up to some of her answers. Will be hard for the left to argue against her except for the conflict Trump has put her in.

Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings in a nut shell

* 90% Politicians rambling about their own political agenda
* 5% Politicians trying to guilt Amy Coney Barrett into voting a certain way in the future
* 4% Asking Amy Coney Barrett questions she would have absolutely no way of knowing to further push their political agenda
* 1% Asking relevant Judicially related questions


ACB is immensely qualified. I don’t think I agree with some of her views of the law but that's not the issue. Her qualifications are clear. If this were being handled at a normal point in time, her confirmation would be a sure thing. She'd likely even get some Dem defections at that point.

[Fishman15]

Funny thing about items important as this that an overwhelming percentage of americans support. 31% of sitting republican senators support term limits and have pledged to vote yes in support. 0% of democrats pledge their support.

That's very interesting. I did not know that. I am also in favor of term limits. It is way overdue for both sides...

[KeepItMoving]

A reporter asked Biden about a poll that says 56% of Americans say they are better of now than they were under O-Biden at the same time 4 years ago. Biden responded by saying that those people shouldn't vote for him.

Methinks Biden forgot to do the math on that one.

[Mark1T]

A reporter asked Biden about a poll that says 56% of Americans say they are better of now than they were under O-Biden at the same time 4 years ago. Biden responded by saying that those people shouldn't vote for him.

Methinks Biden forgot to do the math on that one.

Hilarious.

[LWW]

It doesn't look like they're gonna find any dirt on her which makes for boring TV, unless we get a Dem who has a bad day and becomes terribly indignant

Harris was her usual bitch self whenever questioning someone who is not in her camp, she even looked awful today.

[Corbi]

Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings in a nut shell


* 5% Politicians trying to guilt Amy Coney Barrett into voting a certain way in the future

So much this and she wouldn't play their game, she was literally the smartest person in the room and they all knew it. Hirono, Booker & Bluementhal looked like buffoons with their grandstanding and trying to pigeonhole her.

[KeepItMoving]

So much this and she wouldn't play their game, she was literally the smartest person in the room and they all knew it. Hirono, Booker & Bluementhal looked like buffoons with their grandstanding and trying to pigeonhole her.

Armed with a blank notepad, she was amazing.

[ElrondHubbard]

These are the funniest statements that I ever hear mostly coming from idiots. This notion that that republicians are dishonest and somehow dems are so virtuous is moronic. But given how "smart" you are this does not surprise me coming from you. Kind of like how you claimed you never called me 'racist', only that you said I might have bias. You are as full of sh!t as any person can be. (you have never owned up to that by the way even after I posted your exact comments...again, not surprising)

You are forgetting the 'dishonesty' of the Dems and the fact that they exercised the 'nuclear option' in 2013 first w/ Harry Reid under Obama to get their federal judges confirmed. Removing the need for 60 votes and only requiring simple majority. The repubs followed suit and used this for Supreme Court nomination following the Dems rule change.

And 'dishonesty', how about the whole Affordable care act passage. Passage behind closed doors using 'special rules' locking out republicians. The dems promised open debate and literally locked the doors and passed with no republicans. Holy crap, you cant even be serious....

A few points may be in order.

1. You aren't going to see me defending Harry Reid here nor anywhere else. He was my Nevada Senator for many years, and I ALWAYS voted for his Republican opponent. As low as my opinion of Mitch McConnell is, my opinion of Reid is lower. Were they running head to head in a Senate race, I'd vote for the turtle over Reid. I was able to see first-hand how he operates, and it was beyond ugly.

2. Consequently, your interpretation of my position of "Republicans dishonest and Democrats virtuous" is mistaken and misleading, and does not reflect either my words or my intent, only your assumptions.

3. Harry Reid is no longer in government, so it's irrelevant to do any whataboutism on his history, particularly since the context here is not Obamacare, but a Supreme Court position. McConnell and Graham specifically argued that, as a matter of principle, they would not consider a new Supreme Court Justice in the last year of a president's term. They are both still in office, so it's perfectly appropriate to use their own hypocrisy against them. LadyG specifically invited the world to do so, now he's getting his wish. I'm not going to pretend it's a higher moral cause, but it's still a consequence they knowingly and specifically invited. They didn't claim they were just pulling a political trick because they could, they claimed a moral principle. NOW they've tossed that aside as inconvenient. The law allows them to do it, and they will. The law also allows Congress to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. There's no great moral reason to do so, but there's no great moral reason not to, either. McConnell and Co. went back on their word for short term political expediency. If Democrats take the full Congress, then I'm not going to begrudge them the expedient option of adjusting the Court to their liking as well. It's no different in principle than what the Republicans would do in their place.

4. If you want to get back to Obamacare, I'll agree that the way it was done was a mess, as was the result. I don't blame the Republicans their opposition to it. They claimed they could do better. They ran on the promise of doing better. They won. They had their chance to replace it with something better. Turns out they had nothing in mind. Didn't even try. Now they've lost their chance, and have no one to blame but themselves. I'm sure they're still high fiving each other over that.

5. I agree with you about term limits, for what it's worth.

[ElrondHubbard]

Yeah Norwich, and those dudes back also wrote that all men where created equal. Whether they meant slaves or not? But those words where used to fight against and defeat slavery.

Every now and then, in spite of yourself, you post something thoughtful and deep and true.

[x-trainer ben]

A few points may be in order.

1. You aren't going to see me defending Harry Reid here nor anywhere else. He was my Nevada Senator for many years, and I ALWAYS voted for his Republican opponent. As low as my opinion of Mitch McConnell is, my opinion of Reid is lower. Were they running head to head in a Senate race, I'd vote for the turtle over Reid. I was able to see first-hand how he operates, and it was beyond ugly.

2. Consequently, your interpretation of my position of "Republicans dishonest and Democrats virtuous" is mistaken and misleading, and does not reflect either my words or my intent, only your assumptions.

3. Harry Reid is no longer in government, so it's irrelevant to do any whataboutism on his history, particularly since the context here is not Obamacare, but a Supreme Court position. McConnell and Graham specifically argued that, as a matter of principle, they would not consider a new Supreme Court Justice in the last year of a president's term. They are both still in office, so it's perfectly appropriate to use their own hypocrisy against them. LadyG specifically invited the world to do so, now he's getting his wish. I'm not going to pretend it's a higher moral cause, but it's still a consequence they knowingly and specifically invited. They didn't claim they were just pulling a political trick because they could, they claimed a moral principle. NOW they've tossed that aside as inconvenient. The law allows them to do it, and they will. The law also allows Congress to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. There's no great moral reason to do so, but there's no great moral reason not to, either. McConnell and Co. went back on their word for short term political expediency. If Democrats take the full Congress, then I'm not going to begrudge them the expedient option of adjusting the Court to their liking as well. It's no different in principle than what the Republicans would do in their place.

4. If you want to get back to Obamacare, I'll agree that the way it was done was a mess, as was the result. I don't blame the Republicans their opposition to it. They claimed they could do better. They ran on the promise of doing better. They won. They had their chance to replace it with something better. Turns out they had nothing in mind. Didn't even try. Now they've lost their chance, and have no one to blame but themselves. I'm sure they're still high fiving each other over that.

5. I agree with you about term limits, for what it's worth.

Number 4 is important, very!
Yesterday at the hearings i heard that 70 times Republicans have tried to undo the ACA and the promise for a replacement has never surfaced or if it has, the marketing has been terrible.
Remember that the president was asked on Fox news about his plan, and he said in 2 weeks, then when asked again, nothing.
I am beginning to think that some want to repeal and not replace......

[Jtbny]

Number 4 is important, very!
Yesterday at the hearings i heard that 70 times Republicans have tried to undo the ACA and the promise for a replacement has never surfaced or if it has, the marketing has been terrible.
Remember that the president was asked on Fox news about his plan, and he said in 2 weeks, then when asked again, nothing.
I am beginning to think that some want to repeal and not replace......

This IS the plan from the pull yourself up by the bootstraps party who gladly cashes those stimulus checks and hands out billions in corporate money in the name of JOBS while ignoring the mishandling of those funds while complaining someone receiving food stamps is buying a pack of cookies instead of carrots. /runon

[sy2502]

Sorry, I don't want to be constrained to laws that were written in the 1700s. That's silly. Dudes were writing shti w/a feather while wearing powdered wigs. We evolve and so should the laws and our foundation of those laws.

Unless you can find something wrong with those laws it doesn't matter if they were written in the 1700s or the 21st century. The content is what matters, not the year. Laws don't have expiration dates like milk. Heck there are laws from the phuking Hammurabi Code that look almost exactly like some laws we have today and that was yes from the 1700s, but 1700 BC. It includes oldies like "presumption of innocence" but hey, it's old stuff so we shouldn't have it in our modern laws...

[Jtbny]

Unless you can find something wrong with those laws it doesn't matter if they were written in the 1700s or the 21st century. The content is what matters, not the year. Laws don't have expiration dates like milk. Heck there are laws from the phuking Hammurabi Code that look almost exactly like some laws we have today and that was yes from the 1700s, but 1700 BC. It includes oldies like "presumption of innocence" but hey, it's old stuff so we shouldn't have it in our modern laws...

Great thanks for chipping in.

Oh and taking what I said out of context.

Ill clear up my position here;

Laws, IMO, need to change w/ the times. We do it ALL the time. Many laws can stand the test of time. Those that can't shouldn't remain because some dudes in wigs wrote them down w/a feather and we want to cling to our past.

Edit: In Florida, the penalty for horse theft is hanging. I'd say that's an example of expired milk. Laws expire when times change.

[ElrondHubbard]

Great thanks for chipping in.

Oh and taking what I said out of context.

Ill clear up my position here;

Laws, IMO, need to change w/ the times. We do it ALL the time. Many laws can stand the test of time. Those that can't shouldn't remain because some dudes in wigs wrote them down w/a feather and we want to cling to our past.

Edit: In Florida, the penalty for horse theft is hanging. I'd say that's an example of expired milk. Laws expire when times change.

I wonder how the founders would have interpreted the law about overcrowding of satellite orbital slots.

[LWW]

Every now and then, in spite of yourself, you post something thoughtful and deep and true.

LOL, so why did Cory Booker only ask if the next judge was against white supremacy?? He only mentioned white, which makes me question that Cory is most definitely a racist or he don’t believe other racist groups exist?

What ya think El? And don’t say whites are the greater threat, a racist group is a threat.

[LWW]

Edit: In Florida, the penalty for horse theft is hanging. I'd say that's an example of expired milk. Laws expire when times change.

You are still not thinking, for instance according to the scientists cars are bad for the environment, so in 20 years when AOC is running for president we are going back to horse and wagon.

The law worked, because well people didn’t want to be hanged plus its animal cruelty which our future PETA AOC would want a hanging for animal cruelty.

If you just let a horse thief out on bail reform, they gonna just steal another.

You done forgot we only have 12 more years, so we better get back to horses!

No joking here!