Page 685 of 1306 FirstFirst ... 1855856356756836846856866876957357851185 ... LastLast
Results 13,681 to 13,700 of 26103
  1. #13681
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Winston’Salem
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Damn straight.
    I’ll get that signed engagement letter, and the retainer check, over to you soon, man! Thanks for your patience.
    "Amazing what a minute can do."

  2. #13682
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Tripping William View Post
    I’ll get that signed engagement letter, and the retainer check, over to you soon, man! Thanks for your patience.
    “Will work for beer”

  3. #13683
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Winston’Salem
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    “Will work for beer”
    There’s a thread for that.
    "Amazing what a minute can do."

  4. #13684
    And that thread never gets put in timeout. The thread does take timeouts for a beer though.
       

  5. #13685
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    And that thread never gets put in timeout. The thread does take timeouts for a beer though.
    If the internet was around at the height of the tastes great/less filling battles, who knows what would have happened! Though I'm guessing Miller Lite is a little low brow for the beer connoisseurs there...

  6. #13686
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by LasVegas View Post
    Reuters/ipsos poll taken after RBG’s death shows 62% of adults, including HALF of republicans, believe the vacancy should be filled by the winner of the election.

    I’ll stand by my point that this would be a death kiss for Trump and maybe even for the senate majority. This does not poll well and certainly will not help the GOP like some have suggested.
    But how does it break down v the electoral college?

    -jk

  7. #13687
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    But how does it break down v the electoral college?

    -jk
    I don't think we know enough yet. The 538 take was Republicans have to confirm. They can't pass this up. Repercussions be damned. They do think there will be repercussions and possibly severe.
       

  8. #13688
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    I don't think we know enough yet. The 538 take was Republicans have to confirm. They can't pass this up. Repercussions be damned. They do think there will be repercussions and possibly severe.
    I don't know...things are already looking bleak, would things getting worse be all that bad compared to the reward of a 6th conservative justice?

    My kids are still young and there are plenty of times the are happy to accept punishment for actions and feel they got the good end of the deal.
       

  9. #13689
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I don't know...things are already looking bleak, would things getting worse be all that bad compared to the reward of a 6th conservative justice?

    My kids are still young and there are plenty of times the are happy to accept punishment for actions and feel they got the good end of the deal.
    Sure. But presumably your kids are more mature than politicians.
       

  10. #13690
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    Sure. But presumably your kids are more mature than politicians.
    They are 7 and 9...so unless I ask the to eat mushrooms, I would say they are.
       

  11. #13691
    Ha! Genius!!
       

  12. #13692
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    I don't think we know enough yet. The 538 take was Republicans have to confirm. They can't pass this up. Repercussions be damned. They do think there will be repercussions and possibly severe.
    It could get very interesting. Pelosi said that nothing is off the table including trying to impeach Bill Barr to occupy the Senate. I think that would be a really bad move by Pelosi. That would galvanize the base a make Pelosi into a Hillary like target for Trump to gather the same support he got in 2016.

  13. #13693
    Quote Originally Posted by nmduke2001 View Post
    It could get very interesting. Pelosi said that nothing is off the table including trying to impeach Bill Barr to occupy the Senate. I think that would be a really bad move by Pelosi. That would galvanize the base a make Pelosi into a Hillary like target for Trump to gather the same support he got in 2016.
    Except Nancy isn't his opponent.
       

  14. #13694
    The SCOTUS, like all of politics, become politicized to the point that it’s legitimacy may be questioned by large segments of the public. Imo the issue is lifetime appointments. The stakes for each new appointment have become paramount to the point that presidents look for the youngest candidates who can serve the longest, justices serve until death and the senate grills appointments over being immature, drunk and handsy in HS. I know the court has been expanded in the past - what is the process?

    If anyone asked I would propose a 17 member court serving 16-year terms with a justice rotating off and a new justice appointed each year. The president would nominate the next justice 60-days before a justice rotates off the court. If there is no vote before the justice rotates off, the appointment is automatically confirmed. Voting down a justice would require a 70% majority.

    With 4 justices appointed each term, the stakes would be lowered, and the best justices, regardless of age, could nominated.
       

  15. #13695
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Thomasville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by nmduke2001 View Post
    It could get very interesting. Pelosi said that nothing is off the table including trying to impeach Bill Barr to occupy the Senate. I think that would be a really bad move by Pelosi. That would galvanize the base a make Pelosi into a Hillary like target for Trump to gather the same support he got in 2016.
    Pelosi and McConnell need to do the stimulus deal and leave this other stuff to the side. Americans are hurting and all they want to do is fight.

  16. #13696
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    San Diego, CA

    Reforming SCOTUS

    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    The SCOTUS, like all of politics, become politicized to the point that it’s legitimacy may be questioned by large segments of the public. Imo the issue is lifetime appointments. The stakes for each new appointment have become paramount to the point that presidents look for the youngest candidates who can serve the longest, justices serve until death and the senate grills appointments over being immature, drunk and handsy in HS. I know the court has been expanded in the past - what is the process?

    If anyone asked I would propose a 17 member court serving 16-year terms with a justice rotating off and a new justice appointed each year. The president would nominate the next justice 60-days before a justice rotates off the court. If there is no vote before the justice rotates off, the appointment is automatically confirmed. Voting down a justice would require a 70% majority.

    With 4 justices appointed each term, the stakes would be lowered, and the best justices, regardless of age, could nominated.
    YES! This is exactly the kind of thing that would reduce the randomness and significance of the SCOTUS sweepstakes. Mayor Pete had a similarly targeted reform plan for SCOTUS that made it similar to an arbitration panel--there'd be a set of conservative justices and a set of liberal justices and they'd have to agree on the members of a third "neutral" set of justices. The problem is, much like the Electoral College, these kinds of reforms would take an amendment to accomplish and currently our process is too fractured to deliver anything like that.

  17. #13697
    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    The SCOTUS, like all of politics, become politicized to the point that it’s legitimacy may be questioned by large segments of the public. Imo the issue is lifetime appointments. The stakes for each new appointment have become paramount to the point that presidents look for the youngest candidates who can serve the longest, justices serve until death and the senate grills appointments over being immature, drunk and handsy in HS. I know the court has been expanded in the past - what is the process?

    If anyone asked I would propose a 17 member court serving 16-year terms with a justice rotating off and a new justice appointed each year. The president would nominate the next justice 60-days before a justice rotates off the court. If there is no vote before the justice rotates off, the appointment is automatically confirmed. Voting down a justice would require a 70% majority.

    With 4 justices appointed each term, the stakes would be lowered, and the best justices, regardless of age, could nominated.
    Sounds great! As soon as my preferred tribe is behind on the metaphorical supreme court Justice count, I'll propose it. Just as with gerrymandering reform , I only support it when my side is losing.
       

  18. #13698
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    Sounds great! As soon as my preferred tribe is behind on the metaphorical supreme court Justice count, I'll propose it. Just as with gerrymandering reform , I only support it when my side is losing.
    Well, anti-gerrymandering should be supported regardless of who is in charge. We shouldn't be supporting disenfranchising populations, which is what gerrymandering is.

    But SCOTUS term limits is a more nuanced discussion.

  19. #13699
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Trump says he’ll name his nominee by this weekend. We have 2 GOP senators that support the “Nov 4 winner should choose” idea. Alexander has said he supports Trump’s plan so I guess the question marks are Romney and maybe Gardner and Grassley?

    Meanwhile, Romney is making the news jabber rounds as a potential Biden Secretary of State.
       

  20. #13700
    Quote Originally Posted by JosephReidBooks View Post
    YES! This is exactly the kind of thing that would reduce the randomness and significance of the SCOTUS sweepstakes. Mayor Pete had a similarly targeted reform plan for SCOTUS that made it similar to an arbitration panel--there'd be a set of conservative justices and a set of liberal justices and they'd have to agree on the members of a third "neutral" set of justices. The problem is, much like the Electoral College, these kinds of reforms would take an amendment to accomplish and currently our process is too fractured to deliver anything like that.
    I think the bolded part is inaccurate. The number of members on the Supreme Court was set at 9 by legislation, not a Constitutional amendment, in 1869. So in 2021 Dem majorities in both houses could pass a law upping that number, which could be signed by a Dem president. Whether they would do so, I don’t know. Nor does anyone know, right now, whether Dems will win the White House and Senate. Very complicated politics, but virtually everything has been thrown out the window since 2016 election.

Similar Threads

  1. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 12:28 PM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •