Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: kmax, SonomaCat, rtb

User avatar
Hawks86
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 9436
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: MT

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Hawks86 » Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:11 am

She's not nominated because of her qualifications.


"I'm a Bobcat forever its in my soul..."

Image

Cataholic
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Cataholic » Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:59 am

The Butcher wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:51 am
rivercat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:40 pm
As a practicing Catholic and lifelong Fighting Irish fan, I'm embarrassed but not surprised.
Just out of curiosity since you brought up Catholicism; how do you feel about Biden who is a practicing Catholic? Trump does not regularly practice any type of organized religion, so does that matter to you like it does for a Justice?
Why are we having this discussion on Barrett’s religion - specifically that she is Catholic which 60 million people are in the US? Can you imagine if the nominee was Muslim? Would the Democrats even think about bringing up religion if that was the case?



Cataholic
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Cataholic » Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:32 am

This is just crazy. Hirono attacks Barrett for using the words “sexual preference”, when the terminology has been used regularly by other Democrats, including Joe Biden.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democr ... ence-biden

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/d ... -ginsburg/
Was the term actually offensive? Joe Biden used it in May 2020. Ruth Bader Ginsburg used it in 2017. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also used it in 2017. Democratic members of the judiciary committee Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal have said “sexual preference” during speeches on the Senate floor in the past decade. You can find its more recent usage in the Huffington Post and The Atlantic.



Cataholic
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Cataholic » Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am

seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am
The Butcher wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:50 am
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:36 am

To say her nomination is illegal is beyond bizarre. Are you referring to a nomination in an election year? RBG said it's not illegal and Supreme Court nominations in election year happened in 1912, 1916 (the Democrat president made two nominations), 1932, 1940, 1956, and 1968.
He didn't say the nomination is illegal..........
My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?



User avatar
seataccat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Portland or Seattle

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by seataccat » Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am
The Butcher wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:50 am
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:36 am

To say her nomination is illegal is beyond bizarre. Are you referring to a nomination in an election year? RBG said it's not illegal and Supreme Court nominations in election year happened in 1912, 1916 (the Democrat president made two nominations), 1932, 1940, 1956, and 1968.
He didn't say the nomination is illegal..........
My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?


"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire

Cataholic
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Cataholic » Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm

seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am
The Butcher wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:50 am
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:36 am

To say her nomination is illegal is beyond bizarre. Are you referring to a nomination in an election year? RBG said it's not illegal and Supreme Court nominations in election year happened in 1912, 1916 (the Democrat president made two nominations), 1932, 1940, 1956, and 1968.
He didn't say the nomination is illegal..........
My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.



User avatar
seataccat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Portland or Seattle

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by seataccat » Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am

Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am
The Butcher wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:50 am
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:36 am

To say her nomination is illegal is beyond bizarre. Are you referring to a nomination in an election year? RBG said it's not illegal and Supreme Court nominations in election year happened in 1912, 1916 (the Democrat president made two nominations), 1932, 1940, 1956, and 1968.
He didn't say the nomination is illegal..........
My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?


"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire

Cataholic
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Cataholic » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:19 am

seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am
The Butcher wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:50 am
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:36 am

To say her nomination is illegal is beyond bizarre. Are you referring to a nomination in an election year? RBG said it's not illegal and Supreme Court nominations in election year happened in 1912, 1916 (the Democrat president made two nominations), 1932, 1940, 1956, and 1968.
He didn't say the nomination is illegal..........
My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?
The rules - and the precedent - was set over a century ago.



User avatar
seataccat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Portland or Seattle

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by seataccat » Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:20 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:19 am
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am
The Butcher wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:50 am
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:36 am

To say her nomination is illegal is beyond bizarre. Are you referring to a nomination in an election year? RBG said it's not illegal and Supreme Court nominations in election year happened in 1912, 1916 (the Democrat president made two nominations), 1932, 1940, 1956, and 1968.
He didn't say the nomination is illegal..........
My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?
The rules - and the precedent - was set over a century ago.
So your saying that if the senate is controlled by one party and the president is of another, the precedent over 100 years ago was to never bring a scotus nominee to the senate for a vote?l You're full of ****** buddy.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire

Cataholic
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Cataholic » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:13 pm

seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:20 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:19 am
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am
The Butcher wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:50 am
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:36 am

To say her nomination is illegal is beyond bizarre. Are you referring to a nomination in an election year? RBG said it's not illegal and Supreme Court nominations in election year happened in 1912, 1916 (the Democrat president made two nominations), 1932, 1940, 1956, and 1968.
He didn't say the nomination is illegal..........
My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?
The rules - and the precedent - was set over a century ago.
So your saying that if the senate is controlled by one party and the president is of another, the precedent over 100 years ago was to never bring a scotus nominee to the senate for a vote?l You're full of ****** buddy.
Don’t be a dick. If you can’t be civil, don’t post.

The fact is that if the senate is controlled by one party and the senate is controlled by the same party, that party controls the process. It’s not that complicated.



User avatar
seataccat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Portland or Seattle

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by seataccat » Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:42 am

Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:13 pm
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:20 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:19 am
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am
The Butcher wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:50 am


He didn't say the nomination is illegal..........
My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?
The rules - and the precedent - was set over a century ago.
So your saying that if the senate is controlled by one party and the president is of another, the precedent over 100 years ago was to never bring a scotus nominee to the senate for a vote?l You're full of ****** buddy.
Don’t be a dick. If you can’t be civil, don’t post.

The fact is that if the senate is controlled by one party and the senate is controlled by the same party, that party controls the process. It’s not that complicated.
Whos the dick here? Maybe you should take a bit of your own advice. Your last post made no sense at all.
Are you really suggesting that if the president is from a different party than the senate that no nominee shall be brought forward? And that the there is some 100 year precident stating that?


"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire

Cataholic
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Cataholic » Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:01 pm

seataccat wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:42 am
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:13 pm
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:20 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:19 am
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm
Cledus wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:54 am


My apologies, I don't mean to misquote anyone especially since I didn't read it carefully. Having said that, how is it illegitimate? It has been customary for an opposing party to the president to wait until after an election. Because the senate has a Republican majority, this is consistent with the custom. There's nothing illegitimate about her nomination.
What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?
The rules - and the precedent - was set over a century ago.
So your saying that if the senate is controlled by one party and the president is of another, the precedent over 100 years ago was to never bring a scotus nominee to the senate for a vote?l You're full of ****** buddy.
Don’t be a dick. If you can’t be civil, don’t post.

The fact is that if the senate is controlled by one party and the senate is controlled by the same party, that party controls the process. It’s not that complicated.
Whos the dick here? Maybe you should take a bit of your own advice. Your last post made no sense at all.
Are you really suggesting that if the president is from a different party than the senate that no nominee shall be brought forward? And that the there is some 100 year precident stating that?
You are being the dick. Read the thread and see who escalated the situation and who said I was full of sh1t. You did.

And I did have a typo on my last post. If the Senate and president are from the same party, they control the process. If you want to have a meaningful say, your party needs to control one of those bodies - usually via an election. It’s not that complicated and it has been that way for over a century.



profisme
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:05 pm
Location: Bozeman, MT
Contact:

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by profisme » Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:44 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:01 pm
seataccat wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:42 am
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:13 pm
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:20 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:19 am
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm

What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?
The rules - and the precedent - was set over a century ago.
So your saying that if the senate is controlled by one party and the president is of another, the precedent over 100 years ago was to never bring a scotus nominee to the senate for a vote?l You're full of ****** buddy.
Don’t be a dick. If you can’t be civil, don’t post.

The fact is that if the senate is controlled by one party and the senate is controlled by the same party, that party controls the process. It’s not that complicated.
Whos the dick here? Maybe you should take a bit of your own advice. Your last post made no sense at all.
Are you really suggesting that if the president is from a different party than the senate that no nominee shall be brought forward? And that the there is some 100 year precident stating that?
You are being the dick. Read the thread and see who escalated the situation and who said I was full of sh1t. You did.

And I did have a typo on my last post. If the Senate and president are from the same party, they control the process. If you want to have a meaningful say, your party needs to control one of those bodies - usually via an election. It’s not that complicated and it has been that way for over a century.
So, just for fun, I actually went back to 1921. Here is what I found:

With Republican control of the Presidency and Democratic control of the Senate, 11 SCOTUS nominees have been confirmed.

With Democratic control of the Presidency and Republican control of the Senate, 0 SCOTUS nominees have been confirmed.


-Elias P. Harmon-

User avatar
seataccat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Portland or Seattle

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by seataccat » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:11 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:01 pm
seataccat wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:42 am
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:13 pm
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:20 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:19 am
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am
seataccat wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:28 pm

What custom is that? It just pointed out in no uncertain terms that none of the Republicans that said all that BS about not wanting to nominate a supreme court justice in the last year of a presidency was never out of principle. It was just politics.
The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?
The rules - and the precedent - was set over a century ago.
So your saying that if the senate is controlled by one party and the president is of another, the precedent over 100 years ago was to never bring a scotus nominee to the senate for a vote?l You're full of ****** buddy.
Don’t be a dick. If you can’t be civil, don’t post.

The fact is that if the senate is controlled by one party and the senate is controlled by the same party, that party controls the process. It’s not that complicated.
Whos the dick here? Maybe you should take a bit of your own advice. Your last post made no sense at all.
Are you really suggesting that if the president is from a different party than the senate that no nominee shall be brought forward? And that the there is some 100 year precident stating that?
You are being the dick. Read the thread and see who escalated the situation and who said I was full of sh1t. You did.

And I did have a typo on my last post. If the Senate and president are from the same party, they control the process. If you want to have a meaningful say, your party needs to control one of those bodies - usually via an election. It’s not that complicated and it has been that way for over a century.
Escalated the situation? I asked a simple question and you keep going on with the same nonsense about the party that controls the senate controls the process. And that there is some sort of precedence set 100 years ago.
I'll ask one more time but I know you can't answer.
Are you saying that if the president is not the same party as the senate, no supreme court nominee shall EVER have hearings or be voted on? And that there is 100 years of precedence? Got it? Snowflake...


"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire

Cataholic
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Chase Giacomo on Judge Barrett

Post by Cataholic » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:30 pm

seataccat wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:11 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:01 pm
seataccat wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:42 am
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:13 pm
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:20 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:19 am
seataccat wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:41 am
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:12 pm
seataccat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:51 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:53 am


The custom that whoever is in control of the Senate can control the appointment process. Is there some law I am not aware of that has changed that ability? Also, does the President still get 4 years in control, or did the laws change making it just 3.5 years?
Oh I fully understand that. My point was all the talk about not appointing Obama's apointee in his last year in office. The Republicans said it was because they didn't want to rush it. That was a lie. It was never on principles. It never is, so I cannot stand hearing about democrats not having principles. It was always about the senate majority leader not bringing it to vote. So now with that precident set, what is stopping the senate who holds the majority from stonewalling a president from the opposite party from every nominating someone?
Well wait a second... weren’t the Democrats pushing hard for a nomination to be approved in 2016? This year they are pushing hard for no nomination. However, I don’t recall saying anything about the Democrats not having principles. I simply stated that the control is in the hands of whoever controls the Senate. Win the Senate and you control the process. Not that complicated.
No dude, the question I asked is now that the Republicans have set this precident, why should either party that controls the senate ever allow a president of the opposite party to nominate a supreme court justice? Can you answer that?
The rules - and the precedent - was set over a century ago.
So your saying that if the senate is controlled by one party and the president is of another, the precedent over 100 years ago was to never bring a scotus nominee to the senate for a vote?l You're full of ****** buddy.
Don’t be a dick. If you can’t be civil, don’t post.

The fact is that if the senate is controlled by one party and the senate is controlled by the same party, that party controls the process. It’s not that complicated.
Whos the dick here? Maybe you should take a bit of your own advice. Your last post made no sense at all.
Are you really suggesting that if the president is from a different party than the senate that no nominee shall be brought forward? And that the there is some 100 year precident stating that?
You are being the dick. Read the thread and see who escalated the situation and who said I was full of sh1t. You did.

And I did have a typo on my last post. If the Senate and president are from the same party, they control the process. If you want to have a meaningful say, your party needs to control one of those bodies - usually via an election. It’s not that complicated and it has been that way for over a century.
Escalated the situation? I asked a simple question and you keep going on with the same nonsense about the party that controls the senate controls the process. And that there is some sort of precedence set 100 years ago.
I'll ask one more time but I know you can't answer.
Are you saying that if the president is not the same party as the senate, no supreme court nominee shall EVER have hearings or be voted on? And that there is 100 years of precedence? Got it? Snowflake...
More name calling. That is really productive and makes a great impression for anybody reading.

From what I could determine, there have been 19 times where presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party also controlled the Senate. 17 of the nominations were successful. One failure was George Washington’s 1793 nomination of William Paterson which was withdrawn for technical reasons and resubmitted and confirmed the first day of the next Congress (Paterson had helped draft the Judiciary Act of 1789 creating the Court, and the Constitution thus required his term as a senator to end before he could be appointed to the Court). The other failed nomination was the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas as chief justice in 1968.

Is that enough precedent for you?



Post Reply