Donald Trump

1…23932394239623982399…2954

Comments

  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,409
    edited September 2020
    static111 said:
    cutz said:
    Not sure this is protesting, but is this legal? 


    Laws don’t apply to trump supporters
    Nope
    If the rule of law doesn't apply to herr drumpf why should it apply to his followers?
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,853
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    good question. All it takes is a new law from congress. But the Dems need to unseat 4 senate republicans because they are likely to lose one of theirs, and Biden must win.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.

    Then the Dems could pass a law allowing for more SCJs. The limit is not set in the constitution.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    good question. All it takes is a new law from congress. But the Dems need to unseat 4 senate republicans because they are likely to lose one of theirs, and Biden must win.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.

    Then the Dems could pass a law allowing for more SCJs. The limit is not set in the constitution.
    Have to eliminate the filibuster first, to allow the law expanding the SCOTUS to pass.  
  • jerparker20
    jerparker20 St. Paul, MN Posts: 2,529
    edited September 2020
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.
    Actually, you can thank Harry Reid and the Democrats for enacting the “nuclear option” and changing the requirement of 60 votes to 51 for appointing judges. Not sticking up for McConnell and the ghouls, but’s facts are facts.
    Post edited by jerparker20 on
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,371
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    good question. All it takes is a new law from congress. But the Dems need to unseat 4 senate republicans because they are likely to lose one of theirs, and Biden must win.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.

    Then the Dems could pass a law allowing for more SCJs. The limit is not set in the constitution.

    still need 60 in the senate to pass legislation....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,371
    jerparker20 said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.
    Actually, you can thank Harry Reid and the Democrats for enacting the “nuclear option” and changing the requirement of 60 votes to 51 for appointing judges. Not sticking up for McConnell and the ghouls, but’s facts are facts.

    lower courts had the rule changed fpr simple majority leaving scotus nominees to 60. McConnell changed that to include scotus in simple majority when Gorsuch was appointed.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    mickeyrat said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    good question. All it takes is a new law from congress. But the Dems need to unseat 4 senate republicans because they are likely to lose one of theirs, and Biden must win.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.

    Then the Dems could pass a law allowing for more SCJs. The limit is not set in the constitution.

    still need 60 in the senate to pass legislation....
    That's why eliminating the filibuster is the first step.  You only need a simple majority to do that
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,371
    edited September 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    good question. All it takes is a new law from congress. But the Dems need to unseat 4 senate republicans because they are likely to lose one of theirs, and Biden must win.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.

    Then the Dems could pass a law allowing for more SCJs. The limit is not set in the constitution.

    still need 60 in the senate to pass legislation....
    That's why eliminating the filibuster is the first step.  You only need a simple majority to do that

    lets just blow it all up and start over. this experiment of ours seemed to not consider just how selfish human beings are.
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,255
    I now have finally realized why aliens don’t make contact with the earth.  It isn’t like we are trying to spend time with slugs and rodents.  Humanity is an embarrassment.
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,853
    Jjerparker20 said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.
    Actually, you can thank Harry Reid and the Democrats for enacting the “nuclear option” and changing the requirement of 60 votes to 51 for appointing judges. Not sticking up for McConnell and the ghouls, but’s facts are facts.


    We are talking about the final say on the law. Harry Reid did not do a thing about that. Mitch McConnell did. To equate a circuit court with the USSC is not reasonable. 
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,371
    static111 said:
    cutz said:
    Not sure this is protesting, but is this legal? 


    Laws don’t apply to trump supporters

    Trump Supporters Disrupt Early Voting in Virginia https://nyti.ms/3kyagxb

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,853
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    good question. All it takes is a new law from congress. But the Dems need to unseat 4 senate republicans because they are likely to lose one of theirs, and Biden must win.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.

    Then the Dems could pass a law allowing for more SCJs. The limit is not set in the constitution.

    still need 60 in the senate to pass legislation....
    That's why eliminating the filibuster is the first step.  You only need a simple majority to do that

    Don’t need to eliminate filibuster, only need to expand the McConnell rule exemption (confirmation at 51 votes instead of 60) to all matters concerning the high court. (“For all matters concerning the USSC the Senate may  invoke cloture with a simple majority”). Which the Dems can easily do if they win the majority. Filibuster and number of SCJs are not restricted by the constitution.

    Republicans are also talking about using the VP to break ties which is unprecedented so they always push the envelop. So forget about getting 4 republicans to vote against the next nominee. This is happening, a 6-3 conservative court. The senate confirmation process is supposed to be a check on executive branch power and here goes trump sending over pence to be the deciding vote on a lifetime appointment. If they are willing to change centuries old precedent yet again, its  time to show the Rs that the Ds are willing to operate in the same manner, perhaps this will broker a negotiation to pass a constitutional amendment for term limits, because quite frankly the current partisan situation in unsustainable.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    If they seat a justice, the court has to be expanded.  No way around that.  But taking the Senate is the uphill part of this. 
    mace1229 said:
    Can’t be that easy to just expand the bench can it? Otherwise any president who didn’t have a majority of justices would have done it.

    good question. All it takes is a new law from congress. But the Dems need to unseat 4 senate republicans because they are likely to lose one of theirs, and Biden must win.

    Then the senate Dems pass a new rule with the majority allowing any Supreme Court vote to come to the floor. This is exactly what McConnell did for the confirmation votes. Before McConnell they needed 60 votes, now it’s 51.

    Then the Dems could pass a law allowing for more SCJs. The limit is not set in the constitution.

    still need 60 in the senate to pass legislation....
    That's why eliminating the filibuster is the first step.  You only need a simple majority to do that

    Don’t need to eliminate filibuster, only need to expand the McConnell rule exemption (confirmation at 51 votes instead of 60) to all matters concerning the high court. (“For all matters concerning the USSC the Senate may  invoke cloture with a simple majority”). Which the Dems can easily do if they win the majority. Filibuster and number of SCJs are not restricted by the constitution.

    Republicans are also talking about using the VP to break ties which is unprecedented so they always push the envelop. So forget about getting 4 republicans to vote against the next nominee. This is happening, a 6-3 conservative court. The senate confirmation process is supposed to be a check on executive branch power and here goes trump sending over pence to be the deciding vote on a lifetime appointment. If they are willing to change centuries old precedent yet again, its  time to show the Rs that the Ds are willing to operate in the same manner, perhaps this will broker a negotiation to pass a constitutional amendment for term limits, because quite frankly the current partisan situation in unsustainable.
    I’m not sure that’s right.  Wouldn’t this be a new federal law that goes through both chambers and to the POTUS.  I thought all laws besides budget reconciliation are subject to filibuster.

    Regarding the VP vote, I would think the parliamentarian would make the rule on that, no?
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,473
    trump is an absolute failure:

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/09/18/white-house-coronavirus-mail-masks-washington-post-gupta-newday-vpx.cnn
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,473
    a canadian (or someone in canada at the time) tried to murder the president:

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/20/politics/poison-ricin-addressed-trump-arrest/index.html
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,825
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    a canadian (or someone in canada at the time) tried to murder the president:

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/20/politics/poison-ricin-addressed-trump-arrest/index.html
    Ricin? Must have been Walter White.
  • ikiT
    ikiT USA Posts: 11,059
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    This is about Gorsuch..three years ago.
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    mrussel1 said:
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    This is about Gorsuch..three years ago.
    OP mentioned that at the top.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    dignin said:
    mrussel1 said:
    ikiT said:
    Discussing Gorsuch...

    Trump tells Republicans to use 'nuclear option' to confirm supreme court pick

    On Wednesday, Trump explicitly backed Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell if he decides to use this “nuclear option” maneuver. “Yes, if we end up with the same gridlock we’ve had in Washington for longer than eight years, in all fairness to President Obama, a lot longer than eight years,” he said in the White House.

    “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear.’ Because that would would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I would say, ‘Go for it.’”


    POS


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-donald-trump-congress-nuclear-option
    This is about Gorsuch..three years ago.
    OP mentioned that at the top.
    Ok.  Confused on relevance.  POSness isn't new information,  but all good. 
This discussion has been closed.

Categories