Supreme Court Pick

Postby drawscore » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:01 pm

As everyone who has not been living in a cave knows, Obama selected the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

An internet article reported an idea put forth by Rush Limbaugh. He suggested that the senate confirm Obama's pick, in return for Obama ordering the Justice Department to indict Hillary Clinton.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, but if it was my choice, I would hold out for indictments of IRS Commissioner Koskienen (sp), and IRS official Lois Lerner, as well. And a written agreement that none of them would be pardoned on January 19th.

Drawscore

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby misterg792000 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:44 pm

Yes, let's have indictments for "charges" that have already been exhaustively investigated multiple times and found to be completely without merit.

Here's a better idea: the man-children in the senate do their jobs for a change instead of taking the advice of a smack-addicted pedophile on the radio who admits to rejecting reality when it doesn't fit with what he wants to believe.

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:44 am

The idea of keeping the Supreme Court in a compromised condition for at least a year based on some nonsensical and recent political belief the framers of the Constitution could not possibly have had in mind strikes me as totally absurd.
Yes, Biden suggested the same thing some years ago, and it was a stupid thing to say - but he didn't get his way then, now did he? So why should McConnell get his and hold the Supreme Court hostage? Obama made the best choice he could have, but the Senate continues to play its obstructionist political games and ensuring nothing gets done in this country. Do we have four or eight more years of this to look forward to if Bernie or even Hilliary wins the election? If so, then the Senate should admit (as it is already abundantly obvious to anyone with any sense of observation) that they do not and never have cared about the will of the American people.
And if it were McCain or Romney in office, you can bet this idea would have never gotten started - at least on the GOP side. And yes if the Dems brought it up it would still be a terrible idea, okay?! It's a terrible idea not because of who wants it but because it is based on a faulty premise and sheer hypocrisy; that the American people should decide. Since when has that ever been a consideration?! And even if you go by that logic, the American people made their choice back in 2012. That choice should stand up to the very day a new president is actually elected and waiting to be sworn in. The current president's choices should matter right up to then, and not stop before.
And now the GOP is revealing more hypocrisy with talking about a brokered convention. Hey, I detest Trump myself (in fact I think he'd be downright dangerous if elected president) but if the GOP goes through with a brokered convention and nominates some other mook conservative then everyone with any sense will know how much the GOP cares about what the American people want... namely, they don't care at all. Instead they will choose Ted Cruz or some other bozo who has as much chance against either Hilliary or Bernie as I do in a fistfight with a T-800 from the Terminator series.
In both cases, it's all hot air, smoke and mirrors, and complete and utter hypocrisy.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby misterg792000 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:29 am

Jason Toddman wrote:The idea of keeping the Supreme Court in a compromised condition for at least a year based on some nonsensical and recent political belief the framers of the Constitution could not possibly have had in mind strikes me as totally absurd.
Yes, Biden suggested the same thing some years ago, and it was a stupid thing to say


No he didn't, you're referring a Chuck Schumer quote that the echo chamber uses to compare apples and oranges. Schumer's objections were not on the basis of timing, but on the nominees themselves thus far (given how little info they got on Roberts and Alito prior to confirmation). Don't fall for "the truth is in the middle" fallacy.

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:57 pm

misterg792000 wrote: No he didn't, you're referring a Chuck Schumer quote that the echo chamber uses to compare apples and oranges. Schumer's objections were not on the basis of timing, but on the nominees themselves thus far (given how little info they got on Roberts and Alito prior to confirmation). Don't fall for "the truth is in the middle" fallacy.

Hmmm... I don't know who the heck Chuck Schumer is but you're correct that I misspoke; I should have researched more carefully in this case as i thought I'd heard a more moderate version of this story somewhere.
For example:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/n ... tion-years
What's most annoying is that I've heard this before but had forgotten. It's been such a weird and crazy fricking election year it's hard to keep all the facts straight; let alone separate fact from fiction (or friction).
Difference between a liberal and a conservative: a liberal is usually right but is willing to admit it when he's wrong, while a conservative is usually wrong but never admits it at all.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby drawscore » Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:59 pm

Chuck Schumer is a US Senator from New York.

Drawscore

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby 31acujoker » Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:52 pm

Do you Yanks have nothing better to do than argue about the same political bullshit every day?
"A thing is not beautiful because it lasts"
- The Vision

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby wataru14 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:11 pm

I'm sorry if the future well-being of our society bores you.

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:09 pm

31acujoker wrote:Do you Yanks have nothing better to do than argue about the same political bullshit every day?

No. We don't. Not when we have to worry about people like Cruz, Trump, or Hillary becoming the next president... any of these possibilities being something that should be of grave concern to anyone who lives anywhere on the same freaking planet if they have an ounce of sense! No one cares who runs Britain (sorry xtc), France, Spain, Holland (sorry Chris12), Canada, or Australia outside of their own respective countries, because say the PM of Great Britain isn't likely to flush the entire world down the damned toilet or even be able to even if they wanted. The President of the US can and if it's one of the three people I just listed (especially Cruz or Trump) most likely will... because the foreign policy of the USA is as retarded and as self-serving as our bloated military is powerful.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby 31acujoker » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:43 am

Righto, 'cause arguing about this on a bondage forum will make a huge difference ;)
"A thing is not beautiful because it lasts"
- The Vision

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:01 am

31acujoker wrote:Righto, 'cause arguing about this on a bondage forum will make a huge difference ;)

That's why we have a forum like this where we can talk about matters other than TUGs. Because, you know, some of us are intelligent, well-rounded individuals with interests and beliefs outside of our mutual interest in bondage.
You want this forum to be more relevant for you? Okay. Just imagine you're a sub all tied up with nowhere to go and your captors are ranting on and on about things you have no interest in... perhaps while loudly playing music you hate (that last is a trick that used to get pulled on me once upon a time). Maybe that will make this forum appeal to you more!
Just be glad we can't gag you in the interval! :lol:
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby 31acujoker » Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:11 am

Makes no difference to me mate, I'm merely pointing out that everywhere I go on the internet there seems to be Americans calling each other the worst names imaginable and insulting each other over their political beliefs, which all seems rather stupid and pointless to me...

Hell, the second I pointed that out you started being hostile towards me, attacking my intelligence and claiming I have no interests outside bondage, now if you ask me, that's not exactly a nice way to go about life when there's so much good stuff to enjoy ;)
"A thing is not beautiful because it lasts"
- The Vision

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:42 am

31acujoker wrote:Makes no difference to me mate, I'm merely pointing out that everywhere I go on the internet there seems to be Americans calling each other the worst names imaginable and insulting each other over their political beliefs, which all seems rather stupid and pointless to me...

Hell, the second I pointed that out you started being hostile towards me, attacking my intelligence and claiming I have no interests outside bondage, now if you ask me, that's not exactly a nice way to go about life when there's so much good stuff to enjoy ;)

Now now, that's not what I said. You're attributing to me a sense of subtlety I assure you I most definitely do not possess. I was not saying that you are stupid so much as i was saying that not all Americans are stupid (despite all the evidence to the contrary we seem to be freely providing to the rest of the world). It was intended as (admittedly dark) humor rather than as a straight-up insult. If you were offended I apologize; the way you seemed to have taken it was not what i was (consciously at least) intending.
By the way I agree with you that my fellow Americans' penchant for insulting those who have different political is stupid and pointless... and also rather disturbing. If we wind up remaining gridlocked like this much longer we're going to find ourselves getting passed by compared to the rest of the world. But at the same time I consider this perhaps the most important issue to discuss with fellow Americans and this is one of the few forums where I can do so without (I thought at least) getting into an argument about it. Especially since I'm not even the one who started the discussion... and the way it was started was a viewpoint I consider provocative at best).
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby 31acujoker » Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:55 am

Haha all good Jason, it'd take more than that to offend me lol. By all means talk about your politics, that's what it's there for, but like you said I find it really pathetic when I can;t go anywhere on the internet without a bunch of yanks saying "liberal retard!" "conservative asshole!" "You believe in free healthcare?! You must be a communist!" "You believe in national security?! You must be a nazi!"

Seriously, I'm getting sick of seeing people (admittedly not just Yanks but like 9/10 are) just attacking other people for holding different beliefs, and doing nothing but bitch about how shitty their leaders are, I mean for God's sake, if you hate the bastards so much then don't elect them! It's not like they'll drag you out into the street and publicly execute you for saying the President's suit didn't look nice, which they would certainly do in other countries!
"A thing is not beautiful because it lasts"
- The Vision

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:13 pm

31acujoker wrote:Haha all good Jason, it'd take more than that to offend me lol. By all means talk about your politics, that's what it's there for, but like you said I find it really pathetic when I can;t go anywhere on the internet without a bunch of yanks saying "liberal retard!" "conservative asshole!" "You believe in free healthcare?! You must be a communist!" "You believe in national security?! You must be a nazi!"

Yes, I also lament the lack of civilized discourse in this country, though some people are worse than others on both sides of the political aisle. And Trump's own speaking habits only add fuel to the fire I think and has already incited people to violence. I just hope that whether he wins or loses people will learn from all of this.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby 31acujoker » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:14 pm

Yeah there I agree with you, Trump is definitely not fit to be a politician or a leader, for genuine reasons too numerous to count lol
"A thing is not beautiful because it lasts"
- The Vision

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:31 pm

31acujoker wrote:Yeah there I agree with you, Trump is definitely not fit to be a politician or a leader, for genuine reasons too numerous to count lol

I fully agree.
Meanwhile, back on topic, people like McConnell are still playing their political games with the nominee; disregarding the negative effects this will cause the smooth running of the Supreme Court. If McCain had been the president the last seven years they wouldn't be hesitating at all. And even if the democrats were protesting instead it still wouldn't make the delays right.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby drawscore » Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:56 pm

I marvel at the hypocracy on display. In 2008, then Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, railed against Bush making a Supreme Court appointment during the last year of his presidency, but eight years later, thinks it's perfectly fine if Obama does it.

Drawscore

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:55 pm

drawscore wrote:I marvel at the hypocracy on display. In 2008, then Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, railed against Bush making a Supreme Court appointment during the last year of his presidency, but eight years later, thinks it's perfectly fine if Obama does it.

Drawscore

Misterq and i already covered how that was taken out of context. And i know you must have read that post because you commented on it to tell me who this Shaumer fellow was.
For one thing, it was much later in the election cycle than we are currently are in this one. Second, his suggestion was NOT seriously acted on. The longest we have gone without nominating a new justice is something like five months; if McConnell gets his way this record will be more than doubled, and leaving the supreme court under-staffed that long is as far as i am concerned nothing more than a naked power grab and is a dis-service to us all.
And last I knew, more people than not agree that the nomination should at least be considered. So where's McConnell's supposed concern for the will of the American people then? Exposed for the self-serving BS that it actually is.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby misterg792000 » Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:04 pm

drawscore wrote:I marvel at the hypocracy on display. In 2008, then Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, railed against Bush making a Supreme Court appointment during the last year of his presidency, but eight years later, thinks it's perfectly fine if Obama does it.


You clarified who Schumer was, so you obviously saw the correction and clarification...but you repeat the same discredited talking point (complete with wrong year and wrong Senator, no less) anyway. Unbelievable.

Jason Toddman wrote:So where's McConnell's supposed concern for the will of the American people then? Exposed for the self-serving BS that it actually is.


He wants "the American people to have a voice" in the matter, as though they did not have a voice when they re-elected Barack Obama to the office of president until January 20, 2017.

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:19 pm

misterg792000 wrote: He wants "the American people to have a voice" in the matter, as though they did not have a voice when they re-elected Barack Obama to the office of president until January 20, 2017.

I know, right? Complete and utter hypocrisy; just like I said. I wonder how many people actually buy into that malarkey. And what do they think is going to happen if (God forbid!) Trump wins the GOP election? Or if and when he wins the nomination will they change their minds if they can't fix things to steal it away from him?
Anyone they select won't have a chance of winning anyway. Nobody but rabid evangelicals and Texans likes Cruz, Trump is so egotistical (and flip-flops worse than anyone I ever heard of in the shortest time frames imaginable; making me wonder if he's bi-polar) he likely won't play ball with them whether they nominate him or not, and anyone else they select won't have the chance of a snowball in Hades against either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (especially Sanders, whom I intend to vote for as long as there is any chance at all that he will win).
Frikking GOP has been a mess ever since Bush Junior anyway; now it's created Frankenstein's monster in the form of trump and is on the road to self-destruction. Unfortunately the Democrats have been leaning so far to the right lately that imo Hilliary as is conservative as Reagan ever was but less honest, and the only sane candidate (Sanders) is being insultingly under-represented in the main media! So much for Liberal Bias!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby drawscore » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:24 am

Jason Toddman wrote:
drawscore wrote:I marvel at the hypocracy on display. In 2008, then Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, railed against Bush making a Supreme Court appointment during the last year of his presidency, but eight years later, thinks it's perfectly fine if Obama does it.

Drawscore

Misterq and i already covered how that was taken out of context. And i know you must have read that post because you commented on it to tell me who this Shaumer fellow was.
For one thing, it was much later in the election cycle than we are currently are in this one. Second, his suggestion was NOT seriously acted on. The longest we have gone without nominating a new justice is something like five months; if McConnell gets his way this record will be more than doubled, and leaving the supreme court under-staffed that long is as far as i am concerned nothing more than a naked power grab and is a dis-service to us all.
And last I knew, more people than not agree that the nomination should at least be considered. So where's McConnell's supposed concern for the will of the American people then? Exposed for the self-serving BS that it actually is.



Harry Reid said essentially the same thing, and it was not taken out of context. The plain and simple fact, is that appointing a Supreme Court justice in the last year of a presidency, has been railed against by both Democrats and Republicans.

Drawscore

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:40 am

drawscore wrote: Harry Reid said essentially the same thing, and it was not taken out of context. The plain and simple fact, is that appointing a Supreme Court justice in the last year of a presidency, has been railed against by both Democrats and Republicans.

Drawscore

I'll have to research the Harry Reid incident before I comment further but I can say two things for sure:
1. He didn't seem to be referring to no selections at all. the only relevant bit I can discover from the time in question is this: I think the court would be better if we didn't have all these appellate judges continually come to the Supreme Court. I think we need people who are either trial judges, trial lawyers, people who have seen the light of day recently. That doesn't sound at all like Mitch McConnell's position.
2. It is still a bad idea regardless of which side says it. Right now it's the Republicans' turn to make the decision. What if in another few years or decades it's the Democrats controlling Congress and the president is a Republican, and someone like Thomas or Alito dies? Will you really want this incident now to be a precedent? And unless we never have Republicans in the White house again (which wouldn't bother me one bit), this will happen on the flip side sooner or later because you can bet the Republicans won't control Congress forever.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby misterg792000 » Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:38 am

drawscore wrote:Harry Reid said essentially the same thing, and it was not taken out of context.


hahaha, citation frickin' needed. You don't get to play the "I was wrong, so let's move the goalposts" game.


drawscore wrote:The plain and simple fact, is that appointing a Supreme Court justice in the last year of a presidency, has been railed against by both Democrats and Republicans.


No it hasn't, by either, until now. Grow up.

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby drawscore » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:49 pm

Reid.jpg

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby misterg792000 » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:02 pm

Ignoring for the moment that memes are not citations, I did the hard work for you (again), to look up the full quote rather than the cherry-picked line. Not only was he not talking about the Supreme Court, the following sentence, "It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote” is quite a bit different than what you're claiming he's saying. I would tell you to "try again", but you'll just do what you always do and dig around your Facebook feed or Drudge to find another easily-discredited talking point, rinse, lather, repeat.

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Kyle » Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:43 pm

Do people really want us to go 10 more months before we even think of appointing another Supreme Court justice?

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Chris12 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:05 am

Blocking Obama's choice is a right that congress apparently has but I'm confused over their logic in doing so. Does it matter that its Obama's last year? Last time I checked he was voted a mandate for two terms and not two terms minus one year.

Re: Supreme Court Pick

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:39 am

Chris12 wrote:Blocking Obama's choice is a right that congress apparently has but I'm confused over their logic in doing so. Does it matter that its Obama's last year? Last time I checked he was voted a mandate for two terms and not two terms minus one year.

Asking about the logic of a conservative politician like McConnell is like asking about the logic behind a road-runner cartoon.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...