Democratic Party Senators voted 47 - 0 against confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett: Had 3 more Democrats won seats in 2018, Barrett would not be a Supre

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeInVA said:
Shared by a lot of realistic democrats too, from their response to ACBs nomination and now appointment.
Click to expand...
So what? It is still just some people. Roe is either supported or viewed indifferently by the majority of the people.
 
RhodesianSon said:
Does support by the majority make something right?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But it can make it legal. Whether Roe is a good law, or a bad law is only in the eyes of the beholder. But, for the time being it is the “Law of the Land”
1cthlctrth said:
Powers of the President:
Click to expand...
I did not dispute or even mentioned any of that.

I was simply pointing out that the powers of McConnell - namely torpedoing Obama’s nomination on the pretext that the election is only 9 months away, and we can’t hurry the process and MUST allow the people to voice their (name removed by moderator)ut, and then fast tracking Trump’s nomination - even though there a pandemic raging and people desperately need the help from Washington, and the election is merely a week away! - well that kind of hypocrisy is unconscionable.

But, it is “legal”, so we must accept that “might makes right”. And those powers are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. But, what the heck… “might makes right”?

My other point is as soon as the Democrats WILL get the power, and they will expand the Supreme Court, and put there a few “freedom loving” (aka liberal) judges, then you had better not complain about that change either. After all MIGHT makes RIGHT - for both sides…

It is a crying shame that the beautiful word “freedom” or “liberty” became a cuss word.
 
Last edited:
It used to be that these sorts of confirmations were more bipartisan and just a matter of whether the nominated person was qualifed to fill the position. With the Democrats making the bench political and almost legislative in their function this has caused yet more poisonong of the American democratic process. The Demicrats do not have any deep seated commitment to American democratic process and this is a deeply destructive and unAmerican movement.
 
Zake said:
Well, not really. The Constitution says nothing about having ONE person with the power to allow or disallow even the debate and deliberation of an SC nominee. Just like it is silent about the number of SC justices. 🙂
Click to expand...
Had the majority of Republicans in 2016 demanded a vote on Garland, it would have happened.
I guess thousands of justices is possible.
Hey, let’s go full majoritarian and make everyone a Supreme Court justice? Of course, majoritarianism eliminates the need for a constitution.
Zake said:
But I am curious, what will you say if (and hopefully when) the Democrats will get into the position to extend the Court with freedom loving , aka liberal justices
Click to expand...
Oh, that they would put up liberal judges. Jonathan Turley would be excellent. No, they will put up anti-constitutional leftists.
Zake said:
who will re-establish the concept of a woman having dominion over the her own body.
Click to expand...
I agree. The females in the womb should have exactly the same right. So should the males.
Zake said:
I am most disappointed that freedom, aka. liberty became almost cuss-words.
Click to expand...
On the left, they always have been.
 
1cthlctrth said:
the next time the media tries to portray a Democratic Party Senatorial candidate as a “moderate”, we can keep in mind votes like 47 - 0 against confirming Amy Coney Barrett.
Click to expand...
Or those on this forum who think this (pick your dem) will go against the Democratic agenda on (pick your issue)
Zake said:
freedom loving , aka liberal
Click to expand...
You need to look around at the liberal cancel culture if you think liberals align with freedom. The only freedoms that understand are their own policies. A person is not free to disagree
Zake said:
who will re-establish the concept of a woman having dominion over the her own body.
Click to expand...
You mean the ability to put her baby down legally?
 
upant said:
You need to look around at the liberal cancel culture if you think liberals align with freedom. The only freedoms that understand are their own policies. A person is not free to disagree
Click to expand...
Please don’t help them conflate liberalism with progressivism. The cancel culture is not liberal. It is far more like fascism/ leftism
 
Last edited:
upant said:
You need to look around at the liberal cancel culture if you think liberals align with freedom. The only freedoms that understand are their own policies. A person is not free to disagree
Click to expand...
What the heck is a “liberal cancel culture”?
upant said:
You mean the ability to put her baby down legally?
Click to expand...
No one advocates to kill a baby.
 
Zake said:
What the heck is a “liberal cancel culture”?
Click to expand...
Ask those who have lost their jobs for speaking the truth. Even JK Rowling is being canceled due to her transgender remarks, fortunately she can afford it, many can’t
Zake said:
No one advocates to kill a baby .
Click to expand...
Unfortunately they do, Biden will codify it into law and make us pay for it

Look at your pro-abortion lobby
 
Zake said:
You are welcome to present the names of those who advocate killing infants .
Click to expand...
You changed the word baby to infant, but to play along…
The governor of Virginia has stated this.

What about the Democrats who did not sign the born alive bill?
Zake said:
Because I have absolutely no idea what this “liberal cancel culture” might be.
Click to expand...
Do you know how to google? Plenty available explanations
 
Zake said:
You are welcome to present the names of those who advocate killing infants .
Click to expand...
I find it interesting (and very sad) that you seem to have more of an issue with killing a mosquito than you do with murdering an innocent child in the womb.
 
MikeInVA said:
I find it interesting (and very sad) that you seem to have more of an issue with killing a mosquito than you do with murdering an innocent child in the womb.
Click to expand...
I asked upant for specifics. He never answered. Everything else you might have surmised from my post is just a figment of your imagination.

It might lead to an interesting and mutually beneficial conversation, if you guys would
  1. refrain from emotional arguments
  2. use the proper terminology to describe the actions and their legal status
  3. would use the proper distinction between zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and child.
I would be glad to participate, so we all can learn from each other. But that would have to be in a different thread.
 
Zake said:
fast tracking Trump’s nomination
Click to expand...
Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed 33 days after nomination. Ginsburg was confirmed 42 days after nomination. Several in FDR’s Administration were confirmed even more quickly.

“There’s a big difference in the Senate, with whether the Senate is of the same party of the president or a different party than the president” explained Cruz. “If the parties are the same, the Senate confirms the nominee” he added. Of the 29 nominations, 19 were made by a President of the same political party of the Senate. 17 of those 19 were confirmed.

There you have it, Democrats. All of your presidents took their respective opportunities to put their own justice on the court. They were held up at the Senate. Because the White House and the Senate majority are both held by the Republican party, a Trump confirmation is historically justified.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top