The W
November 18, 2011 - circuit.jpg
Views: 158607199
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.6.21 0927
The W - Current Events & Politics - The passing of an Associate Justice in a Presidential Election Year
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 7.03
Pages: 1
(2 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (7 total)
AWArulz
Scrapple








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 53 days
Last activity: 5 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.53
Antonin Scalia died in February of an election year and at the time a democrat was president (President Obama) and the republican senate blocked hearing his nominations for the new justice and waited until after the election. We were definitely getting a new president as the incumbent was term limited and wasn't running. The new president then nominated their choice and they took office more than a year after the death of Scalia.

This year Associate Justice Ginsburg passed here in August. We could have a re-election of the existing president or a new president.

At the time of Scalia's death, most progressives and democrats wanted a nomination approved. The current Democratic candidate for President said in 2016 "that if he were chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court justice "even a few months before a presidential election." While Mitch McConnell, the then and current leader in the Senate said “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,”

Of course, they are both on opposite sides now.

do you stand where you stood then or have you switch sides? I am where I was - the president has the constitutional power to nominate the the senate has to vote and I think it should go through (and should have gone through in 2016)



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Promote this thread!
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 6 days
ICQ:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.60


Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham will burn in hell for selling their souls to Trump.



Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 146 days
Last activity: 2 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.53
In principle, I have no problem with a President appointing a Justice right before, or after, an election. But if Garland didn't get a vote, then neither should any Trump appointment. Fair is fair.

In 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections, the Democrat got the most votes. Clearly Americans want a liberal Court. It is absurd to think that we could end up with 6 conservative Justices.

Besides that, Trump has been making all sorts of noise about fighting the results of the election. He insists that all mail-in ballots must be counted ON ELECTION DAY--not before, not after. This is simply because he knows that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, and he doesn't want those votes to count. Not to mention that he's assigned his donor to create problems within the Post Office to further suppress the vote. The thought of Court with three of his appointees hearing his case is extremely frightening. I have no faith that any of his appointees, or Alito or Thomas, will act with any degree of fairness at all.


Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    In principle, I have no problem with a President appointing a Justice right before, or after, an election. But if Garland didn't get a vote, then neither should any Trump appointment. Fair is fair.

    In 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections, the Democrat got the most votes. Clearly Americans want a liberal Court. It is absurd to think that we could end up with 6 conservative Justices.

    Besides that, Trump has been making all sorts of noise about fighting the results of the election. He insists that all mail-in ballots must be counted ON ELECTION DAY--not before, not after. This is simply because he knows that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, and he doesn't want those votes to count. Not to mention that he's assigned his donor to create problems within the Post Office to further suppress the vote. The thought of Court with three of his appointees hearing his case is extremely frightening. I have no faith that any of his appointees, or Alito or Thomas, will act with any degree of fairness at all.





Most votes is immaterial though in terms of electing a President. If most votes mattered, then only a few states would ever be considered in terms of the election, as that is where the most votes exist.

ETA - Sorry, I didn't answer the original question. An opening exists and it should get filled now, as it should have gotten filled then.

(edited by Sec19Row53 on 22.9.20 1205)


Nobody cares :-)
KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.76
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    In principle, I have no problem with a President appointing a Justice right before, or after, an election. But if Garland didn't get a vote, then neither should any Trump appointment. Fair is fair.


This.

    Originally posted by pieman
    Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham will burn in hell for selling their souls to Trump.


Also this.
Whitebacon
Banger








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 160 days
Last activity: 12 days
ICQ:  
#6 Posted on
    Originally posted by Sec19Row53


    Most votes is immaterial though in terms of electing a President. If most votes mattered, then only a few states would ever be considered in terms of the election, as that is where the most votes exist.



    (edited by Sec19Row53 on 22.9.20 1205)


This is more or less what's happening now though. Only a few states really get focused on, because their votes matter more.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 146 days
Last activity: 2 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.53
    Originally posted by Sec19Row53


    Most votes is immaterial though in terms of electing a President. If most votes mattered, then only a few states would ever be considered in terms of the election, as that is where the most votes exist.




If most votes mattered, more states would be considered. Right now the only states anyone cares about in the election are a handful of large swing states, which change over time.

The only thing the electoral college does is to make the votes of rural, white people count more and the votes of urban dwellers and minorities count less. It's preposterous that we don't have a direct popular vote.
Thread rated: 7.03
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Pro-Trump forces storm Capitol, shots fired
Next thread: So, there's pretty much nothing happening politically
Previous thread: Black Lives Matter
(2 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
i was going to use it too, but like 2 weeks ago someone pulled it out in this (?) thread already
The W - Current Events & Politics - The passing of an Associate Justice in a Presidential Election YearRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2021 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.088 seconds.