tytlyf
Not Religious
What principle is that? Post a link. Methinks you're just repeating RW gossip.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Honest to goodness, the man is an idiot
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
ya never know......
the old methods might return
as well as not knowing what ails you
or what to do about it
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Not qualified according to whom?
The American bar association?
Yes
Is that the "Christian" speaking? People who have different political sensibilities are suitable objects of a Christian's hatred and desire that they suffer?
Apparently, I didn't read the Bible carefully enough...
=
Wow, if that is true, I find it astonishing...a Republican majority senate voting to confirm to the court individuals whom they American Bar Association deemed, by a substantial majority or unanimously, to be unqualified for that office? Somebody really ought to find that at least frightening, and probably plain frickin' dumb, as well.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
54
LIVE EVENT
WH Coronavirus Task Force testifies
https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/fauci-warns-of-suffering-and-death-if-us-reopens-too-soon
Whose Rule Is It Anyway? Battle Over SCOTUS Nomination Centers Around Election Year
by Brian Mattix, ABC 30 News
Thursday, June 28th 2018
With Supreme Court Justice Kennedy's retirement, President Trump gets another pick to place on the nation's highest court, but will he have to wait until after the mid-term elections? And what's this 'Biden Rule'? (AP Composite)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Within hours of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement, speculation about who will replace him and when President Trump's pick should be made has kicked into high gear in the U.S. Senate.
Republican Senate leaders said they are ready to move forward now, and get President Trump's next pick for the nation's highest court through the nomination this Fall.
Democrats in the Senate, however, say they are going back on what they said in 2016, when Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died during President Barack Obama's final term.
Now, a fight over who really started the idea that one party should prevent a sitting president from nominating someone for an open seat on the Supreme Court during an election year has sprung up.
Was it then Senator Joe Biden in 1992? Was it Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2016? What about Senator Strom Thurmond and LBJ in 1968? Whose 'rule started this fight?
There are plenty of questions about all of this, so let's take a look back through 50 years of U.S. political history and see if we can figure out whose 'rule' might be responsible.
Is the 'McConnell Rule' responsible?
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February of 2016, Obama's final year in office. Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, who most experts say is a moderate/liberal. The political experts say it was a safe pick by Obama at the time to get enough Senate Republicans on board to get him confirmed.
However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell successfully managed to keep Garland's confirmation from ever happening, keeping any vote to confirm Obama's pick for the high court from happening through the end of the Congressional year on January 3, 2017.
Cory Booker
✔@CoryBooker
https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1012345530310119425
In Judiciary Hearing.
I will argue, among other things, that we should wait until after the election (McConnell rule) to hear and vote on a Supreme Court nominee.
12.6K
8:42 AM - Jun 28, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
2,554 people are talking about this
McConnell made the case to fellow Republicans in the Senate and the public that since it was the final year of Obama's presidency, the voters should decide who picks the next Supreme Court justice. McConnell's gambit survived political and public pressure, warnings from legal experts, and even a court challenge. In the end, it paid off handsomely for conservatives.
Trump won the election, and within two weeks of his inauguration he selected Conservative Judge Neal Gorsuch, who sailed through his confirmation, and now sits on the high court.
With Kennedy's retirement, Trump is now set to select someone conservative enough to hold a majority on the Supreme Court for decades.
So what about the 'Biden Rule'?
Now that Justice Kennedy has officially announced his retirement, Democrats say that what happened in 2016 should happen again with the 2018 mid-term elections nearly four months away. Hoping to win control of the Senate in November, the Democrats also want control of confirming Trump's pick.
Wednesday afternoon, on the Senate floor shortly after Kennedy made his announcement, Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016: Not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year.”
Is this the same situation? Republicans and Conservatives emphatically say no. They say that this is not the same kind of election, and there is no 'lame duck' president about to leave office. They also say there is no 'McConnell Rule' at all, that he followed the 'Biden Rule'.
When McConnell started to make his case that Garland should not be confirmed, he was careful to always say that there should be no new Supreme Court nomination during a Presidential election year. He was also careful to say, "we're following the Biden rule," whenever possible to establish some kind of precedent established by the words that came straight from the mouth of the man who was Obama's Vice-President at the time, Joe Biden.
So what exactly is the 'Biden Rule'?
That would be a speech then-Senator Joe Biden made in the U.S. Senate in 1992, when he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (which decides if the nominee is suitable for a confirmation vote by the full Senate).
Biden argued that since a Presidential Election was coming, and a vacancy should occur on the Supreme Court by that Summer, then-President George H.W. Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement or appoint a moderate the Democratically-controlled Senate at the time would approve.
The "rule" was never actually applied since no opening ever happened, but McConnell made sure those words came back to haunt the Democrats, and he successfully kept Garland off of the Supreme Court.
Has this ever happened before? AKA does the 'Thurmond Rule' exist or not?
During the fight over Garland's nomination, there was also reference to something called the 'Thurmond Rule'.
In March of 1968, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not run for re-election that November. That summer, with about 5 months until the election, Johnson nominated sitting Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice.
Republican Senator Strom Thurmond successfully blocked the nomination, creating the 'Thurmond Rule', but since there were other problems tied to Justice Fortas at the time, the rule never became a fully recognized precedent. It has been invoked a number of times by both parties to try and stop judicial nominees of outgoing presidents, but many legal associations have said it simply does not exist.
The 'Thurmond Rule' may or may not be a myth, but it appears to be what politicians in the Senate have used to justify holding off judicial nominees submitted by presidents several months before a presidential election. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein attempted to use it against President George W. Bush, and many Republicans also used it during the Garland nomination fight in 2016.
Do any of these 'rules' matter?
When it comes down to it, President Trump simply has just enough votes to get his pick confirmed, but with at least two moderate Republicans, he will have to be careful who he nominates.
Incidentally, Senator McConnell also has another Democratic Senate leader to thank for making that happen. Until 2013, it took 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to end debate and vote on a presidential nominee. Since McConnell and the Republicans were successfully blocking President Obama's pick, then-Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid invoked the 'nuclear option', which allowed a simple majority of 51 votes. That's how many Republicans make up the majority in the Senate today.
Video of Senator McConnell warning Reid and Senate Democrats against 'going nuclear' circulated Wednesday afternoon, haunting Democrats with McConnell's prophetic words: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
Getting those 51 votes will not be a cakewalk, though. With Arizona Senator John McCain dealing with health issues, he may not be available for possible votes, and he also has a very contentious relationship with President Trump. Also, at least two more moderate Republican senators could balk at voting for anyone too controversial or conservative that could hurt them politically. However, there's always Vice-President Mike Pence, who can step in and cast tie-breaking votes.
So when the next Supreme Court Justice is confirmed and sworn into office, Conservatives will likely have a 5-4 majority for at least two decades, but Liberals will likely take some comfort that the new justice probably won't be the vote to overturn landmark decisions like Roe vs. Wade.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Citaton please
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Left the :"I" out of citation, sorry
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Pay particular attention to democrat statements pre Trump.
54
LIVE EVENT
WH Coronavirus Task Force testifies
Whose Rule Is It Anyway? Battle Over SCOTUS Nomination Centers Around Election Year
by Brian Mattix, ABC 30 News
Thursday, June 28th 2018
With Supreme Court Justice Kennedy's retirement, President Trump gets another pick to place on the nation's highest court, but will he have to wait until after the mid-term elections? And what's this 'Biden Rule'? (AP Composite)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Within hours of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement, speculation about who will replace him and when President Trump's pick should be made has kicked into high gear in the U.S. Senate.
Republican Senate leaders said they are ready to move forward now, and get President Trump's next pick for the nation's highest court through the nomination this Fall.
Democrats in the Senate, however, say they are going back on what they said in 2016, when Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died during President Barack Obama's final term.
Now, a fight over who really started the idea that one party should prevent a sitting president from nominating someone for an open seat on the Supreme Court during an election year has sprung up.
Was it then Senator Joe Biden in 1992? Was it Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2016? What about Senator Strom Thurmond and LBJ in 1968? Whose 'rule started this fight?
There are plenty of questions about all of this, so let's take a look back through 50 years of U.S. political history and see if we can figure out whose 'rule' might be responsible.
Is the 'McConnell Rule' responsible?
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February of 2016, Obama's final year in office. Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, who most experts say is a moderate/liberal. The political experts say it was a safe pick by Obama at the time to get enough Senate Republicans on board to get him confirmed.
However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell successfully managed to keep Garland's confirmation from ever happening, keeping any vote to confirm Obama's pick for the high court from happening through the end of the Congressional year on January 3, 2017.
Cory Booker
✔@CoryBooker
In Judiciary Hearing.
I will argue, among other things, that we should wait until after the election (McConnell rule) to hear and vote on a Supreme Court nominee.
12.6K
8:42 AM - Jun 28, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
2,554 people are talking about this
McConnell made the case to fellow Republicans in the Senate and the public that since it was the final year of Obama's presidency, the voters should decide who picks the next Supreme Court justice. McConnell's gambit survived political and public pressure, warnings from legal experts, and even a court challenge. In the end, it paid off handsomely for conservatives.
Trump won the election, and within two weeks of his inauguration he selected Conservative Judge Neal Gorsuch, who sailed through his confirmation, and now sits on the high court.
With Kennedy's retirement, Trump is now set to select someone conservative enough to hold a majority on the Supreme Court for decades.
So what about the 'Biden Rule'?
Now that Justice Kennedy has officially announced his retirement, Democrats say that what happened in 2016 should happen again with the 2018 mid-term elections nearly four months away. Hoping to win control of the Senate in November, the Democrats also want control of confirming Trump's pick.
Wednesday afternoon, on the Senate floor shortly after Kennedy made his announcement, Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016: Not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year.”
Is this the same situation? Republicans and Conservatives emphatically say no. They say that this is not the same kind of election, and there is no 'lame duck' president about to leave office. They also say there is no 'McConnell Rule' at all, that he followed the 'Biden Rule'.
When McConnell started to make his case that Garland should not be confirmed, he was careful to always say that there should be no new Supreme Court nomination during a Presidential election year. He was also careful to say, "we're following the Biden rule," whenever possible to establish some kind of precedent established by the words that came straight from the mouth of the man who was Obama's Vice-President at the time, Joe Biden.
So what exactly is the 'Biden Rule'?
That would be a speech then-Senator Joe Biden made in the U.S. Senate in 1992, when he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (which decides if the nominee is suitable for a confirmation vote by the full Senate).
Biden argued that since a Presidential Election was coming, and a vacancy should occur on the Supreme Court by that Summer, then-President George H.W. Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement or appoint a moderate the Democratically-controlled Senate at the time would approve.
The "rule" was never actually applied since no opening ever happened, but McConnell made sure those words came back to haunt the Democrats, and he successfully kept Garland off of the Supreme Court.
Has this ever happened before? AKA does the 'Thurmond Rule' exist or not?
During the fight over Garland's nomination, there was also reference to something called the 'Thurmond Rule'.
In March of 1968, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not run for re-election that November. That summer, with about 5 months until the election, Johnson nominated sitting Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice.
Republican Senator Strom Thurmond successfully blocked the nomination, creating the 'Thurmond Rule', but since there were other problems tied to Justice Fortas at the time, the rule never became a fully recognized precedent. It has been invoked a number of times by both parties to try and stop judicial nominees of outgoing presidents, but many legal associations have said it simply does not exist.
The 'Thurmond Rule' may or may not be a myth, but it appears to be what politicians in the Senate have used to justify holding off judicial nominees submitted by presidents several months before a presidential election. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein attempted to use it against President George W. Bush, and many Republicans also used it during the Garland nomination fight in 2016.
Do any of these 'rules' matter?
When it comes down to it, President Trump simply has just enough votes to get his pick confirmed, but with at least two moderate Republicans, he will have to be careful who he nominates.
Incidentally, Senator McConnell also has another Democratic Senate leader to thank for making that happen. Until 2013, it took 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to end debate and vote on a presidential nominee. Since McConnell and the Republicans were successfully blocking President Obama's pick, then-Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid invoked the 'nuclear option', which allowed a simple majority of 51 votes. That's how many Republicans make up the majority in the Senate today.
Video of Senator McConnell warning Reid and Senate Democrats against 'going nuclear' circulated Wednesday afternoon, haunting Democrats with McConnell's prophetic words: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
Getting those 51 votes will not be a cakewalk, though. With Arizona Senator John McCain dealing with health issues, he may not be available for possible votes, and he also has a very contentious relationship with President Trump. Also, at least two more moderate Republican senators could balk at voting for anyone too controversial or conservative that could hurt them politically. However, there's always Vice-President Mike Pence, who can step in and cast tie-breaking votes.
So when the next Supreme Court Justice is confirmed and sworn into office, Conservatives will likely have a 5-4 majority for at least two decades, but Liberals will likely take some comfort that the new justice probably won't be the vote to overturn landmark decisions like Roe vs. Wade.
Is the ABA website a good enough source?
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/Web rating Chart Trump 115.pdf
https://www.americanbar.org/content.../webratingchart-trump116.pdf?logActivity=true
Do you want me to just give the ones that were classified as NQ (not qualified)?
This really wasn't a difficult search to do.
Agreed. But that seems to be politics today. ANYONE they can get in is good.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Still waiting for the "Schumer principle"
ecco
Veteran Member
If you watched the clip, you would have seen that the Chinese reporter who asked Trump the question, thought he was being racist.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Q:How many trumplicans does it take to change a light bulb?Liars and braggards
A:None, trump announces he fixed it, and his followers sit in the dark and applaud.
Of course he will, he thrives on it. And worse, he actually believes what he says. He is a product of the power of positive thinking, his guru, Norman Vincent Steele.
For some with a like 'IQ' they found someone who expressed their own concerns, one who did not talk 'over' them or down to them, but for them, but spoke in simple words they could understand. Others who knew better found, finally, one who would carry their agenda forward. And add to all the greatest culprit of all, voter apathy!
shmogie
Well-Known Member
You didn't see it? Too bad.
Schumer pronounced his support for the the "Thurmond rule", when he thought it was advantageous to democrats. He stated it as a principle.
Does that help?
Chuckie was for it before he was against it. Keep up.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
No, it wasn't a difficult search, I am sure. However, I have been criticized for not citing sources when the correspondent could easily find the material.
Thank you for the material. I am in the process of reading the details of each NQ rating. I am comparing these ratings with the academic qualifications and experience and past evaluations.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
It is VERY OBVIOUS that you didn't.
I am most amused by those who are the least qualified to judge a Christian assume the mantle of high spiritual judge.
There are words, then there are actions. Since you have decided to invoke the Bible to judge me, use it to judge yourself and your actions.
American politics is not a no contact sport. It isn't bean bags. I despise the progressive agenda and most concepts.
Progressives in pursuing their political goals fight with knives in both hands. Those who seek to counter them must do the same.
Hate of ideas isn't hate of a person. And I certainly do, in the political vein, enjoy hearing liberal progressives whimper about a political point.,