Image of the day

From the
ATWB Customer Gallery

NGC 1499 (California Nebula)

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: James Brown

September 21, 2020 03:02 PM Forum: Politics

Ginsberg: Loss Of A legend

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey



For example, so far, Gorsuch has been moving to the center. There are exceptions and extremes, such as Douglas or Thomas. But overall, the court stays remarkably center regardless of who is appointed.

This is true, and works both ways.  Roberts is pretty much a centrist now.

September 21, 2020 03:06 PM Forum: Politics

Mitch McConnell

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell
" "The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this seat should not be filled until we have a new president." -Mitch McConnell, 2016


Aaaaaaaannnnnnd the fucking guy waits an entire 90 minutes after RBG's death to contradict himself....


Dave
Hi Dave:

Hypocrisy, yes.  But as someone famous once said, "elections have consequences."   As James Lacey once said, "what goes around comes around."  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Jim

September 21, 2020 03:33 PM Forum: Politics

Ginsberg: Loss Of A legend

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


This strategy is * precisely* what I expect them to do. This way, they retain the leverage to motivate their voters until after the election, and then, either way, they still get their appointment.
But...  I would not have December hearings if I were McConnel, if the D's win the Presidency and Senate too, because I really do not want to see the court packed, which the incoming D majority would surely do.  In a few generations we would have 100s of Supreme Court Justices, thus destroying the most highly functional branch of the federal government.  If the Rs lose the presidency but retain the Senate, then if I were McConell, I would go for it as a matter of bare-knuckle politics.

Jim 

September 22, 2020 03:26 PM Forum: Politics

More facts about the Supreme Court Nomination in an election year.

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


This observation is the first thing I thought when I saw Rich's posts; they are a massive self-own. All he is doing is providing yet more evidence that when Republicans were claiming that denying a supreme court nomination to an incumbent President for almost a year was in keeping with precedent and tradition, they were lying and merely using their position of power to get their way. 
Hi James and Jim:

If I understand the history correctly, it is "traditional" for presidents to get a nomination confirmed in an election year, if their party controls the Senate.  It is also "traditional" for the president's nomination to be thwarted in an election year, if the president's party is does not control the Senate.  Actually "tradition" has nothing to do with it, it is just hardball politics.  Unless one defines the "tradition" as hardball politics...

I agree that the messaging/rhetoric employed by the R's in this instance reeks of hypocrisy.  Maybe that will hurt them at the polls.  I would bet not.  No one on Earth believes that the Ds would behave any differently if the parties were switched.  Absolutely no one.  Remember that the Ds are the party that invented Borking when they Borked Robert Bork.  The Ds are the party that tried to Bork Thomas and Kavanaugh.  The Ds are the party that removed the filibuster for federal judges.  And so on.  There are no clean hands in DC.

I saw a headline that Romney was on board with a SC vote this year.  If that is true, I think it is a done deal.  Trump will nominate and the Senate will confirm.  The only question is whether this costs or benefits him on election day.

Jim   

September 22, 2020 03:31 PM Forum: Politics

Winning!!

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Exactly, and I remember James Lacey excusing every illegal act he made.  
I don't think that word means what you think it does.

September 22, 2020 03:42 PM Forum: Politics

More facts about the Supreme Court Nomination in an election year.

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James and Jim:

If I understand the history correctly, it is "traditional" for presidents to get a nomination confirmed in an election year, if their party controls the Senate.  It is also "traditional" for the president's nomination to be thwarted in an election year, if the president's party is does not control the Senate.  Actually "tradition" has nothing to do with it, it is just hardball politics.  Unless one defines the "tradition" as hardball politics...

I agree that the messaging/rhetoric employed by the R's in this instance reeks of hypocrisy.  Maybe that will hurt them at the polls.  I would bet not.  No one on Earth believes that the Ds would behave any differently if the parties were switched.  Absolutely no one.  Remember that the Ds are the party that invented Borking when they Borked Robert Bork.  The Ds are the party that tried to Bork Thomas and Kavanaugh.  The Ds are the party that removed the filibuster for federal judges.  And so on.  There are no clean hands in DC.

I saw a headline that Romney was on board with a SC vote this year.  If that is true, I think it is a done deal.  Trump will nominate and the Senate will confirm.  The only question is whether this costs or benefits him on election day.

Jim   
I had not read this tweet from Romney before I made similar points above.  This is where all the Rs are going though.  Since they have Mitt on board, confirmation is probably a done deal, unless Trump really truly drops the ball with his nomination (i.e. an epic Harriet Meirs-esq failure).  Jim

September 22, 2020 03:56 PM Forum: Politics

Winning!!

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


The funny thing is, I didn't even participate here when Obama was President, did I? I took a long hiatus from Astromart entirely and didn't even join back until 2016, right before the November election. My first post was on 10-NOV-2016. I don't know how I made excuses for Obama when I wasn't even here.
Richard and Donald - Never let the facts get in the way of the narrative!

September 22, 2020 04:03 PM Forum: Politics

More facts about the Supreme Court Nomination in an election year.

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


I agree with you completely, and I didn't mean to suggest that Democrats were somehow above the fray. Only that Rich is merely providing more evidence that what Rs did back in 2016 compared to today is political hypocrisy. I believe I have been entirely transparent that I think both sides will use power and spend political capital to their advantage whenever they can despite the optics.
Understood.  Richard lacks the capacity to even understand that the historical precedent and the political messaging from 2016 vs. 2020 are two different things.  Either that, or he is intentionally avoiding this obvious distinction.

Frankly, the R's seem to have stepped in it in 2016.  They could have tuned the message to something hard-ass along the lines of "Nominations always get shot down in election years, when the president and the Senate are of different parties.  Deal with it"  Instead they went for the "tradition" and "fairness" angles and now reap what they sowed.  I still don't think this is going to swing many votes.

Jim

September 23, 2020 04:17 PM Forum: Politics

Winning!!

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Exactly, and I remember James Lacey excusing every illegal act he made.  
Hi Rich:

This morning would have been a good time to acknowledge your mistake above.

Jim

September 23, 2020 04:24 PM Forum: Politics

More facts about the Supreme Court Nomination in an election year.

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, its actually called obeying and abiding by the Constitution of the United States. You probably ought to learn that sometime soon, rather than your usual capitulating to the MOB of Leftist Democrats who never gave a damn about the Constitution, only power by any means, which you appease regularly. smile 

And btw, in case I haven't mentioned it, you're the old school Republican who never stood for fighting them at all with the same hardball tactics they employ all the time.

Since you strike me as one who is continuously worrying about what the Democrats might do should you dare to go against their wishes, which is why in the past the Republican party has been stomped by the Dems on nearly every issue because they've always been terrified of angering said Leftist Democrats, perhaps you ought to wake up and realize what is happening all around you.  wink

Where did all your appeasement of the left ever get you?  In second place, that's where.

I just find it amazing that Republicans like yourself can see what the results of your capitulation to all their demands and radical moves have gotten you in politics, which is nowhere, and yet you still want to play pitty pat with them. 

And now you're once again, like Clockwork, ready to appease them, because if Donald Trump DARES to follow the Constitution as it is written, they threaten violence, and they understand that guys like you will then back down and give in to their radical threats of violence. 

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/reza-aslan-declares-war-on-republicans-if-they-even-try-to-replace-ruth-bader-ginsburg/

You've now had the entire year to see what Democrats are willing to do, IF you don't give in to their demands and their threats.  They make good on their threats and burn down everything around them using the MOB to do it. 

As far as I'm concerned, I've personally had it with their tactics, and I'm dead serious.

They are literally AT WAR with anyone who dares to challenge them or go against them.  IF you haven't realized it yet, then you are as naive as any human being can ever be.

They aren't talking figuratively any longer, they mean what they say. 

This is their plan in case you don't get it, which it so woefully appears that you don't. 

Let me spell it out if you've missed it.

They plan to do this if they don't get their way.

1.  Abolish the Constitution's Electoral College Description of how elections work in this country.

2.  Pack the Supreme Court with more justices if they take over the Senate and Keep the House.

3.  ADD 2 More states, one being the District of Columbia, which has been taboo forever, in order to pack the Senate with 4 more DEMOCRATS. Obviously you are too blind to see that is their goal. 

  Of course D.C. was never meant to be a state. Maybe you should re-familiarize yourself with Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of the US Constitution, and remember why the Leftist Democrats want to do this. 

And that is just the beginning.  As I said, I'm done playing pitty pat with this Rogue Party who doesn't give a DAMN about the Consitution and depends on guys like you who sit back and say "ahh, it's not a big deal if Biden gets elected, because we'll survive".

Sorry, you're old school. 

I'm ready for the War.  It already has begun, and the only possibility of stopping the tyranny of the left is to destroy their chances of destroying this nation from within.

Have a good day!  smile
I just skimmed this.  Do you agree with my comments or disagree with my comments?  I couldn't tell.  Jim