Ginsburg
- Thread starter nashhorn
- Start date
Of course Dems like Schumer and the usual suspects will wring their hands and gnash teeth saying exactly the opposite of their previously held positions on the appointment of a Justice in an election year, and the media will give them cover for it.
Anyone expect anything different?
Anyone expect anything different?
WillUSAF
500+ Posts
Right or wrong, not only can you tell someone not to:
be drunk, take illegal drugs, be a hooker, or walk around without a mask,
you can actually take away their freedom if they do so.
Not you as an individual can you take their freedom away. If someone wants to get drunk or high in their own time more power to them. Who cares!? Now if they get behind a wheel of a car or a motorcycle and hurt someone else that is a different story.
Think about this and your argument concerning assault:
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.
be drunk, take illegal drugs, be a hooker, or walk around without a mask,
you can actually take away their freedom if they do so.
Not you as an individual can you take their freedom away. If someone wants to get drunk or high in their own time more power to them. Who cares!? Now if they get behind a wheel of a car or a motorcycle and hurt someone else that is a different story.
Think about this and your argument concerning assault:
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.
Last edited:
WillUSAF
500+ Posts
NOPE! its retaliation from Scalia that is all that this is. Although I did read that Pelosi mentioned impeachment of Trump or Barr to stop this.....Washington just keeps getting uglier and uglier. Pelosi, Schumer and McConnell need replaced (in that order)
Last edited:
NOPE! Dems go against their statements from years past when it suits them. How is it retaliation? Different Congress now. Come on.
Last edited:
A lot of people use a voice app to write there posts. Its okay!
Those voice apps need better grammar and diction programming. SCOTUS should rule on this...just to keep in touch with the topic at hand.
Will
You sincerely think Trump will nominate and McConnell will bring to a vote a Supreme because of the Scalia? I repeat
Because there is no other reason
There is no contentious election looming
Or that it IS the responsibilty of the POTUS
How did Ginsberg hesrelf put it?
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016 said “nothing in the Constitution” prevents a president from nominating to fill a court seat.
What do 2016 and 2020 have in common?
Will you might have had more credibility if you had said Trump is just trying to improve his image
You sincerely think Trump will nominate and McConnell will bring to a vote a Supreme because of the Scalia? I repeat
Because there is no other reason
There is no contentious election looming
Or that it IS the responsibilty of the POTUS
How did Ginsberg hesrelf put it?
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016 said “nothing in the Constitution” prevents a president from nominating to fill a court seat.
What do 2016 and 2020 have in common?
Will you might have had more credibility if you had said Trump is just trying to improve his image
When Shillary and others said it was the Constitutional duty of the POTUS to fill SCOTUS seats, it suited them. Now, they just flatly go against that and get no challenge from the media on it. If any "journalist" does ask, he just accepts whatever ******** answer is given and moves on.Will
You sincerely think Trump will nominate and McConnell will bring to a vote a Supreme because of the Scalia? I repeat
Because there is no other reason
There is no contentious election looming
Or that it IS the responsibilty of the POTUS
How did Ginsberg hesrelf put it?
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016 said “nothing in the Constitution” prevents a president from nominating to fill a court seat.
What do 2016 and 2020 have in common?
Will you might have had more credibility if you had said Trump is just trying to improve his image
Trump will do what he wants to do, and what he believes he should do, without any consideration about precedent, history, or the disingenuous balcony coming from the usual suspects. And Frankly, that’s exactly what any Democrat would and has done when in the same position.
He will make a great choice. BTW, it seems like Barbara Lagos is gaining steam but I like ACB. Hard to crucify a good Catholic woman with seven children, two adopted. But the Left will, and CNN (and the devil, AKA Kamala Harris, and Feinstein) will tell us that her religious beliefs are dangerous. Just wait.
My only concern is timing, and that he times his announcement — and McConnell plans his strategy—
to optimize the results on 11/3. And why not? That’s what the party in power does.
Trump holds the trump card. It’s going to be fascinating to watch this play out.
He will make a great choice. BTW, it seems like Barbara Lagos is gaining steam but I like ACB. Hard to crucify a good Catholic woman with seven children, two adopted. But the Left will, and CNN (and the devil, AKA Kamala Harris, and Feinstein) will tell us that her religious beliefs are dangerous. Just wait.
My only concern is timing, and that he times his announcement — and McConnell plans his strategy—
to optimize the results on 11/3. And why not? That’s what the party in power does.
Trump holds the trump card. It’s going to be fascinating to watch this play out.
I like the fact that doesn't hail from an east coast school. It is time we break the stranglehold those north east schools have had on the SCOTUS.
She has lost it. Of course, with regard to integrity, consistency and reasonableness, she never had it.
Her throwing that SF salon owner under the bus recently should oppose her true nature to even the most fervent zealots. But then again, they may not even know because the story was squelched by the MSM.
Her throwing that SF salon owner under the bus recently should oppose her true nature to even the most fervent zealots. But then again, they may not even know because the story was squelched by the MSM.
JF, just speculating, I believe that the Left’s strategy will be all three:Get read y for the next round
1- She’s not competent.
2- She’s a dangerous religious zealot.
3- Trump has no right to nominate her now.
BTW, I wouldn’t put it past them to find a few men, crawling out from under their rocks, to accuse her of sexual harassment, or a woman to complain about abusive behavior. Hey, you heard it here first.
There is one thing I can say about the Left and the Democrats: They are consistent.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
They have already trotted out #2 today
I saw it in Spanish, which is odd since a large part of the Spanish-language voter base is Catholic, same as Barrett
Maybe she knew Mitch would block that one too
If the roles were reversed, Schumer and Biden would push through an ultra liberal judge. Elections have consequences and McConnell will push one for a vote. It will depend upon whether Republicans show a spine. Romney, Murkowski and Collins will be the RINOs we know they are. Who else lets conservatives down?
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
This election will likely go to the Supremes. On that alone, I want to see a Justice seated ASAP. I don't trust Roberts' decisions, Left or Right leaning
OTOH, the dems were looking for some kind of spark since Biden arouses no one. Now they have it. To liberals it's no longer about Biden v Trump, it's about (hyperbolic) stealing the USSC, stealing the election, doing away w/ Roe v Wade. That part of it concerns me a lot. The rhetoric is about to go off the charts in the next few weeks
OTOH, the dems were looking for some kind of spark since Biden arouses no one. Now they have it. To liberals it's no longer about Biden v Trump, it's about (hyperbolic) stealing the USSC, stealing the election, doing away w/ Roe v Wade. That part of it concerns me a lot. The rhetoric is about to go off the charts in the next few weeks
Last edited:
RBG is seen as a literal God. I dont get it but the blue hairs are going to lose their minds.
If a nominee is qualified and up to the work then they should be okayed. I had one friend complaining that the favorite was a devout catholic. I pointed out that there were not supposed to be religious disqualifications And at least none of the favorites are ivy leaguers
And some of you think I never approve of anything Trump does!!
And some of you think I never approve of anything Trump does!!
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
I agree & great point. The 'suburban housewife vote' >> I always thought was overblown since I know a lot of said group. Most are conservative, moreso than me. But RBG likely strikes a chord w/ that group given her achievements in life. It could tip many of them Blue if the MSM plays this as a 'dirty trick'
But, as you say, if the nominee comes across as likeable, competent and fair, it could be the game changer
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
Just watched Meet the Press. Klobuchar was talking about the importance of the selection in regards to Obamacare... In the 14th minute Klobuchar warned that "hundreds of millions with pre existing conditions" are at risk over the selection
Amy, stop hanging around Joe Biden
Amy, stop hanging around Joe Biden
You guys realize that everyone in this equation is being hypocritical, right? Nobody is standing by their previous positions, and if the roles were reversed, they'd be saying the opposite things. It's like the filibuster. When you're in the majority, it's "obstructionism." When you're in the minority, it's an important principle of consensus and minority rights.
An elegant solution.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
