- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 12,533
- Reaction score
- 3,364
Governator, not President(ator?).
Law Justice Kennedy Retires!!! New SCOTUS justice to be announced 9PM Monday, July 9th
- Thread starter PHATV
- Start date
Governator, not President(ator?).
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,995
- Reaction score
- 0
Damn' isn't that the truth...
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 8,758
- Reaction score
- 5
How do your lower courts work. Are they appointed for life? Is Trump and right wig just lucky. Like were there many openings for wjoever one president in 2016.
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
hola Seaside,
appointed for life, yes.
and as for Mr. Trump? he's appointing new judges at a brisk pace. in a two year period, he's eclipsed the numbers put up by Mr. Obama, Clinton, and W Bush.
i think its the right strategy, alot of Mr. Trump's edicts have been (and are going to be) challenged in courts. for him to have truly lasting change, change that's impregnable at the judicial level, he should be appointing judges who share his worldview.
so, that's what he's doing.
his footprint will endure for decades to come.
- IGIT
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
hola Joe,
the "lame duck" thing was just smoke, Joe. the fact is, the Democrats didn't control the Senate - so Mr. McConnell was able to block any hearings on Mr. Obama's nominee.
if the Democrats had control of the Senate, then it wouldn't have mattered if it was the last hour of the final day of Mr. Obama's tenure as POTUS; Garland would have been appointed to the SCOTUS.
- IGIT
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 60,933
- Reaction score
- 127,484
<Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo>
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 60,933
- Reaction score
- 127,484
Oh, here's another tweet that has aged well...
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,620
If it's all gloves off all the time, then no bitching about anything, no matter how underhanded. You'll have to "own" that. You sure you want to commit to that? I'll be happy to remind you.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 60,933
- Reaction score
- 127,484
Oh please, the left has turned bitching into an art form.
Taking old tweets and reposting them at ironic times is fun when Trump was criticizing Obama and then did the same thing when he became President, right?
We're just using your exact same tactics for mockery and using them against you and you're getting offended by it? Grow a spine.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 57,516
- Reaction score
- 25,167
Lol? The Dems in the Senate have had the gloves off since the mid eighties. Bork, Clarence Thomas, the nuclear option. Playing victim is just silly point scoring. The reality is that this has been no holds barred for a very long time now. I think overall the Dems have gotten the better of the GOP in the nomination wars, but they lost this last round fairly badly, unless Trump makes a shaky pick. But the list he released has a lot of solid originalists on it, so I think he'll do fine.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,620
Table this, and come back to me in a few years when your recent History isn't a mess. I don't have the hours to correct you and give you perspective.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,620
You're implicitly supporting the position of Trump here, which is that if the Democrats did a bad thing, then the Republicans should not only do a bad thing too, but greatly escalate it. That's what you seem to endorse, though you can correct me on that. If you do endorse that, you lose the right to complain.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 57,516
- Reaction score
- 25,167
Why even respond if you are going to be non-responsive?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 60,933
- Reaction score
- 127,484
I endorce hitting back twice as hard using the same hardball tactics.
The Republicans didn't break the rules, the Democrats did, probably thinking they'd get all the benefits of passing whoever judges they want into the judiciary system and whenever the Republicans got back the Senate they'd kindly put the filibister rules back in place.
Right?
And Republicans got back the Senate, didn't out the filibuster rules back in place, did they?
In fact, they've put one Supreme Court Justice in, filled a shitload of other vacancies with conservative judges, are about to put another Supreme Court Justice in, and probably another two more by Trump's second term is finished.
So maybe Harry Reid shouldn't have played hardball by breaking the rules, and maybe that should be a valuable lesson to the left that rules (and laws) have a reason and purpose for being in place.
I expect that if the Democrats have learned their lesson, whenever they eventually win back the Senate, they'll immediately reimpliment the fulibuster rules to show they've learned their lesson.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 9,384
- Reaction score
- 0
Escalated? After bork, they almost got clarance Thomas by trotting out some lady at the 11th hour right before the confirmation. They tried hard to block alito. His wife cried. Republican have never been that hard on liberal appointees in the confirmation process.
Dems began the nuclear option. That's a staple now. Poor planning.
Blocking candidates because you have senate majority is different than trying to block candidates when you are senate minority because ok America elections matter and majority rules
What was the original democratic move and what is this escalation as well?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,620
Then no complaining. Not sure why you didn't just agree with me from the outset. I hit the bullseye.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 60,933
- Reaction score
- 127,484
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,620
So mark this, and then we'll come back to it when you complain about something dirty the Democrats do. Remember, your position is that it's all no-holds-barred all the time. No decency or compromise, just political war. Something tells me your ass can't cash it.Who's complaining? Oh wait, you are.
I'm <Lmaoo><45>.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
I will only respond to the jurisdictional issue. There is plenty to discuss regarding the Missouri Compromise, but unless you specify otherwise I’ll assume that wasn’t the point of your inquiry.
The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the constitution...
Here, Taney relies on the Diversity Clause in his approach to the jurisdiction issue. Under the Diversity Clause, I allow Taney’s premise that the Court had jurisdiction only if Scott and Sanford were citizens of different states.
Taney immediately disregards the 10th Amendment by asserting that the term “citizen” in the US Constitution is to be defined as “a member of the political community brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States.” Nowhere in the US Constitution is the term “citizen” defined, nor is Congress empowered in Article I to define citizenship. The power to define citizenship was thereby to be reserved to the states in lieu of constitutional amendment.
The preceding paragraph invalidates Taney’s argument.
Also important to note: to my knowledge, “citizen” had not been defined in English common law in the late 18th century. For example, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England distinguishes between “aliens” and “natural born subjects”, but never “citizens”. Therefore, “citizen” and related terms needed to be defined anew in the US context.
Here is where my divergence from Taney becomes most apparent:
In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confirmed to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States...
It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the constitution of the United States.
It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the constitution of the United States.
Taney implies that the Diversity Clause’s “citizens” refers to citizens of the United States, and distinguishes this from citizenship of a particular state. I find this wrong on two counts. First, the Diversity Clause is most naturally interpreted as referring to citizenship as granted by a particular state. To read the Diversity Clause as applying only to full “citizens of the United States” would require the substantial presentation of supporting evidence. Second, no such distinction appears in the US Constitution or, to my knowledge, in any of the relevant founding-era documents (see Ex Parte Knowles, for example).
In summary, the fatal flaw in Taney’s opinion was his unjustifiable usurpation of the states’ authority to define “citizen”, which was previously undefined at the federal level.
Last edited:
