Kansas Crimson

I dunno, has she?

I was just trying to make a mask joke.

You know, my body my choice, and all

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:24 am I dunno, has she?

I was just trying to make a mask joke.

You know, my body my choice, and all

I added to my last comment about your (i mean "beav's) mask "joke".

Ted Cruz shockingly making many good points.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:23 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:12 am Beav: “Barrett’s wearing a mask...kinda surprising Republicans would confirm someone with such disregard for personal rights”

Hasn't she already contracted and recovered from covid19?

Also: we know "beav" doesn't exist....but i will play along...it is a personal right to wear a mask, just like it is a personal right not to....but it is also a business owners personal right to not allow people in their establishment without a mask. And people who don't like that have the personal right now to frequent that establishment.

You mean like how it’s a woman’s personal choice to decide the course of her medical care?

Amy Klobuchar should be a few months away from becoming our next president. We fucked that up. Now we get Biden.

....but i do think the dems are wrong about ACB. Cruz covered that every single time there was a chance for a president to nominate a supreme court justice in an election year that it has been done. Even Obama, his party simply didn't have control of the senate to get it done.....now, the GOP was gutless and rather than vote "no" for a person that they knew was qualified, they made up some nonsense about "tradition" and how they were "setting a precedent" which were straight up lies. So they deserve ALL the criticism for that.

This is going to be an interesting day for sure.

zsn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:38 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:23 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:12 am Beav: “Barrett’s wearing a mask...kinda surprising Republicans would confirm someone with such disregard for personal rights”

Hasn't she already contracted and recovered from covid19?

Also: we know "beav" doesn't exist....but i will play along...it is a personal right to wear a mask, just like it is a personal right not to....but it is also a business owners personal right to not allow people in their establishment without a mask. And people who don't like that have the personal right now to frequent that establishment.

You mean like how it’s a woman’s personal choice to decide the course of her medical care?

Yes.

that’s patently false, that every single time before this it’s been done

Did Cruz disclose the instances when potential justices were not "confirmed" when parties were split between the President and Senate where a nominee was not afforded a hearing and an up or down vote?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:47 am that’s patently false, that every single time before this it’s been done

Link?

When has a president chosen not to make a nomination when they could? Just Abraham Lincoln? When he knew he was getting reelected.


https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nomi ... resent.htm

Leawood wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:16 am Did Cruz disclose the instances when potential justices were not "confirmed" when parties were split between the President and Senate where a nominee was not afforded a hearing and an up or down vote?

Of course not....and we know exactly why.

Honest Abe

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:29 amHonest Abe

Yes, but he knew he was going to be releected. His pick was nominated and confirmed the exact same day.

Trump knows he is going to lose.

Obama knew he was out of time. If the Dems controlled the senate then Garland would have been confirmed.

yes, but nothing

you asked for an example and i gave you one

don’t move the goal posts

Fair enough. 1 time. And it was basically a technicality on the timing. The pick was nominated and confirmed on december 6th....so still before his 2nd term officially started.

Ok, name the times that a seat has been left open for over a year with the Senate refusing to even hear the nominee out. And in those situations, what was the reason given?

I feel like it would be good to codify how all of this works.

One aspect that seems like a layup is that an appointment is effective as of the beginning of the next term of the court. That way, you're not literally having the Senate decide issues then pending before the court.

I am glad Sen Chris Coons called out the GOP for their own forms of "court packing" over the last 4 years. If they are going to fear monger about the Dems adding about the number of justices if they win back the senate, then they should also be held accountable for their own actions of court packing.

All in all, i think ACB is probably a very deserving pick for the supreme court....but from stuff I have read there have been numerous picks for the lower courts that have been questionable at best.

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:52 pm Ok, name the times that a seat has been left open for over a year with the Senate refusing to even hear the nominee out. And in those situations, what was the reason given?

I am assuming Obama was the only time. I am not sure why you act like i haven't been critical of that move/the reason they gave? It doesn't change anything about the legitimacy of this pick and the process this time. Politicians lie all the time. It is laughable to think people believed the GOP excuse last time (everyone knew exactly what the were doing and exactly why they were doing it)...it is also laughable to think people actually think Dems would have followed that "precedent" in the future just becuase the GOP said so. They wouldn't and they shouldn't. It wasn't as if that "rule" that the GOP invented out of thin air was accepted by Dems....Dems weren't like "oh you know what Republicans, you guys are so right, this is the way it should be from now on, we agree totally with not voting on Obama's pick".

Like I said, the only chance Dems would have had is to say “yeah Mitch we love the idea of slamminn a Justice through, let’s just vote without even hearing from her, this is great!”

And maybe the reverse psychology would freak out the turtle.

Maybe the Dems should run better candidates and win more elections and then they wouldn't have to worry about whether Republican politicians stand by their word or not.