Town Hall Meetings What's your choice? (Page 5/9)
blackrams OCT 16, 04:47 PM

quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

I am not a leftist. I am a person who disagrees with your political view on Trump. He is a hate-filled, spiteful lying sack of **** , and if you vote for one aspect of his "character", you are endorsing the entire character.



I'll take your word on that but still note that you are definitely a Trump Hater.
Would voting for the lessor of evils be applicable?

If, the two top dogs where out of this race, would you, could you support either VP Pence or Senator Harris for the top job?
VP Pence is 180 out from Senator Harris on most things. Do you support a VP Pelosi?
I'm sure such a ticket would not only drive me to drink but, I doubt there's a 12 step program to bring me back from alcoholism should that happen.

SO, by not supporting President Trump, would mean you support just about anyone else? I felt that way about HRC.


Reference the current SCOTUS nomination, by no definition (other than Leftist Democrats) can filling an empty seat by a legally elected President be considered "Packing".
It's just the way things happened to come out. Blame RBG for dying and opening up that seat. Had she survived a few more months, the next President would have filled that seat. What the "Leftist" are wanting to do is add seats to the court and appoint "Leftist" or politically left leaning jurists. That, is packing the courts.

Very "Unqualified"? I guess that again depends on your perspective. There are those that don't like her decisions or positions from the past, but to my knowledge, no one has questioned her qualifications. She was obviously the brightest bulb in that conference room. Those questioning her didn't even challenge her qualifications.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-16-2020).]

Synthesis OCT 16, 04:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by LitebulbwithaFiero:


We the people should havd a problem with a President changing statutes in order to sway the bias in there favor.




What statute? The number of Supreme Court Justices has always been fluid and can be changed by Congress. Is it packing if the existing system is used to adjust the number to better reflect modern society's needs?
Synthesis OCT 16, 04:58 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Reference the current SCOTUS nomination, by no definition (other than Leftist Democrats) can filling an empty seat by a legally elected President be considered "Packing".
It's just the way things happened to come out. Blame RBG for dying and opening up that seat. Had she survived a few more months, the next President would have filled that seat. What the "Leftist" are wanting to do is add seats to the court and appoint "Leftist" or politically left leaning jurists. That, is packing the courts.

Rams




Why not nominate me? I am equally qualified according to all requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. The difference here is the hypocrisy between when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and when Trump nominated ACB... Is this purely a "Might makes right" scenario? Do you support the hypocrisy of the Republican party because it gets you what you want or do you support the hypocrisy because it hurts the right people?
blackrams OCT 16, 05:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


Why not nominate me? I am equally qualified according to all requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. The difference here is the hypocrisy between when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and when Trump nominated ACB... Is this purely a "Might makes right" scenario? Do you support the hypocrisy of the Republican party because it gets you what you want or do you support the hypocrisy because it hurts the right people?



Well, I don't personally believe you're qualified to be nominated based on education and experience but, I don't know if you graduated from college, law school, clerked of another SCOTUS jurist or much else about you. Please enlighten us as to your qualifications, maybe you and Boonie can both get on there. Reference Might is Right, whether I like the rules of the game or not, it's the way things work in Congress. IMHO, Garland should have gotten a hearing and then been voted down by the majority. But, that's just me. Supports the hypocrisy because it hurts the right people? Give me a freaking break, I'm all for equal opportunity and equal rights. I am not for favored anybody.
I even support you and Boonie to be all you can be.



quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


What statute? The number of Supreme Court Justices has always been fluid and can be changed by Congress. Is it packing if the existing system is used to adjust the number to better reflect modern society's needs?



Needs? The court has leaned left for quite a while, the Republicans lived with it even though they didn't like it. Now the pendulum has swung back to the right, live with it. It will swing back at some point. To start that crap would be another mistake, just like eliminating the filibuster. Keep that in mind. It would come back to haunt you and all your leftist friends. Of that, I am very confident.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-16-2020).]

Synthesis OCT 16, 05:06 PM
Interesting. I just saw an argument here on the forum that the court has leaned right for a while. Which is it? Left or right?

The statement was that the court leans right already, and if rights for LGBTQ haven't been taken away yet, ACB wouldn't make it any worse...

olejoedad OCT 16, 05:12 PM
The needs of our society, relative to SCOTUS, is to live under Constitutional laws.

Activist judges of any type are not good for the balance of power delineated in the Constitution.

Judges must put aside whatever personal beliefs they have when interpreting the law, and the legality of legislation presented to them by Congress for consent.

I do believe that the current President has appointed non-activist judges to the SCOTUS, perhaps the best group of appointees of any President in a century.
blackrams OCT 16, 05:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

The needs of our society, relative to SCOTUS, is to live under Constitutional laws.

Activist judges of any type are not good for the balance of power delineated in the Constitution.

Judges must put aside whatever personal beliefs they have when interpreting the law, and the legality of legislation presented to them by Congress for consent.

I do believe that the current President has appointed non-activist judges to the SCOTUS, perhaps the best group of appointees of any President in a century.



What he said......


quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:

Interesting. I just saw an argument here on the forum that the court has leaned right for a while. Which is it? Left or right?

The statement was that the court leans right already, and if rights for LGBTQ haven't been taken away yet, ACB wouldn't make it any worse...



I'd say that is an opinion type question. I'd agree that Kavanaugh joining SCOTUS did swing the court to the more right constitutionalist balance but, that's a very recent swing.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-17-2020).]

Synthesis OCT 16, 05:15 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


I'd say that is an opinion type question. I'd agree that Kavanaugh joining SCOTUS did swing the court to the right but, that's a very recent swing.

Rams



And ACB is even harder right than Kavanaugh... The Handmaid's Tale wasn't meant to be guidance for the Republicans to set the court, but here we are.
blackrams OCT 16, 05:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


And ACB is even harder right than Kavanaugh... The Handmaid's Tale wasn't meant to be guidance for the Republicans to set the court, but here we are.



That sir would be an opinion. I and quite a few others don't see it that way.

My guess is, no one has changed their minds.......... But, I do feel better getting that off my chest.
Things to do, gotta go. Be safe.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-16-2020).]

olejoedad OCT 16, 06:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:


And ACB is even harder right than Kavanaugh... The Handmaid's Tale wasn't meant to be guidance for the Republicans to set the court, but here we are.



I would say that ACB is neither right or left - she is neutral, and exactly the type of person who should sit on SCOTUS.