Because Biden

[Josh]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

How about Term Limits on congressmen first? Because the Federalist papers specifically noted that Lifetime Terms for SCOTUS appointments was a way to ensure the election independence of the judiciary. 
 

Otherwise, you have people influencing  the court by making promises for fat jobs afterwards or blacklisting threats for unfavorable decisions. You know, like how government regulators are currently affected in big industry sectors. General Aviation can’t make big promises to FAA administrators like the Airlines Or Boeing can. 
 

The founding fathers thought this system out very well. You go mucking about with it at our mutual peril. The Popular election of senators turned them into representatives of big business. See also Biden’s ENTIRE senate career. Which makes this all the more ironic and obtuse. Here’s a hint, Biden was in the senate for 36 years. 
 

 

I’m fine with Congressional term limits

As for people mucking around with SCOTUS justices, that appears to already occur now and is why there are calls for ethics reform.

[Skywalkre]

6 hours ago, Rick said:

Like this op-ed? After she lost.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-electoral-collegecnntv/index.html#:~:text=“I believe strongly that in,told reporters at the time. 
"“I think it needs to be eliminated,” Clinton said of the Electoral College. “I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”

Prior to Clinton, we had F.D.R. 's 1937 attempt at "court packing." The Democratic Party is truly evil because of the hellish lust of liberal beliefs. 

We're almost eight years past that op-ed... and there's been no serious move (legal or illegal) to get rid of the EC.  So... what's the point?  She had a bad proposal?  Ok, call her out on it.  rmgill was overreacting and implying Biden was trying to do something he wasn't.  There's a reason "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is a commandment.  The least we can do is be honest about someone we disagree with.  That's a courtesy most here that actively post on TN can't be bothered with...

We should also be careful on here about casting aspersions over nearly half of the country.  The Democratic Party may have a lot of positions we disagree with... but is it evil?  Many of the people that vote that way certainly aren't.  I know many.  Many of them agree with sentiments here regarding certain issues (the border, the modern 'woke' agenda getting pushed, DEI, etc.).  Our system in this country only works when we work together.  Both sides calling the other evil does nothing to make that job easier... and just guarantees we continue to slip towards a point of collapse.

[sunday]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

How about Term Limits on congressmen first? Because the Federalist papers specifically noted that Lifetime Terms for SCOTUS appointments was a way to ensure the election independence of the judiciary. 
 

Otherwise, you have people influencing  the court by making promises for fat jobs afterwards or blacklisting threats for unfavorable decisions. You know, like how government regulators are currently affected in big industry sectors. General Aviation can’t make big promises to FAA administrators like the Airlines Or Boeing can. 
 

The founding fathers thought this system out very well. You go mucking about with it at our mutual peril. The Popular election of senators turned them into representatives of big business. See also Biden’s ENTIRE senate career. Which makes this all the more ironic and obtuse. Here’s a hint, Biden was in the senate for 36 years. 

Looks like a usual phenomenon among some politicians with more guile than principles/political acumen - to attack any position held by the opposition, regardless of how justified and related to the common good is.

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

We're almost eight years past that op-ed... and there's been no serious move (legal or illegal) to get rid of the EC.  So... what's the point?  She had a bad proposal?  Ok, call her out on it.  rmgill was overreacting and implying Biden was trying to do something he wasn't.  There's a reason "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is a commandment.  The least we can do is be honest about someone we disagree with.  That's a courtesy most here that actively post on TN can't be bothered with...

So we'll see how prescient your prognostication and assertions are that this is just a throwaway comment and not some sort of concerted push on behalf of the DNC's leadership and muppets & puppets. 

 

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

We should also be careful on here about casting aspersions over nearly half of the country. 

Oh, no, we wouldn't want to cast aspersions over half the country. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/03/biden-danger-within-us/ (2022, but Biden re-iterated that point/idea at the Debate and has done so in recent interviews. I think he even did so in his address last week. )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/obama-on-small-town-pa-clinging-to-religion-guns-xenophobia-007737

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

The Democratic Party may have a lot of positions we disagree with... but is it evil?  Many of the people that vote that way certainly aren't. 

I divide the party from the people. Some are true radicals. These are the communist flag waving antifa types who want a fight and actively go and attack people.. Then there are the lawful evil folks in positions of authority, you know the types. The ones that demand people have firearms licenses, don't issue them to little people and grant them to political cronies and other nomenklatura. Pretty much the DC City establishment, Baltimore, NYC, etc. 

Then there's the folks who are just not clued in to how bad the world can be and how evil people CAN be. They mean well. They just don't grasp the evil in the world. I know MANY of these folks. They believe in some degree of socialism and can't imagine how it could go so badly like Mao's red guard or with Gulags and death camps. They also don't know about the Holodomor or the Hundreds of millions killed by socialism. One such person I disagree with a great deal is an old flame. We are still friendly with each other when we run across each other socially. We even argue politely online. I don't think she's evil and she doesn't think I am either. The same goes with a few other folks I know socially. 


 

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

I know many.  Many of them agree with sentiments here regarding certain issues (the border, the modern 'woke' agenda getting pushed, DEI, etc.).  Our system in this country only works when we work together.  Both sides calling the other evil does nothing to make that job easier... and just guarantees we continue to slip towards a point of collapse.

A point I've seen made by Ben Shapiro is that a proper tension between the Right and the folks I described who are in the second category seems fitting. I contemplated running for state rep at one point over 15 years ago. There's this one lady I know here in town who I disagree with on many things, I decided that if I ever DID run and win, I'd put her on my staff as the Kelt to whisper in my ear concepts to check and verify against. ie a Jimminy Cricket of sorts. 


 

Edited July 30 by rmgill

[rmgill]

The error correction checksum is off....

[JWB]

 

[bfng3569]

On 7/25/2024 at 8:53 AM, Josh said:

Because he was the only one who actively attempted to hide and obstruct the process of recovering the documents. You will notice that Pence was not charged either, despite also having documents.

 

 

Hunter is definitely a corrupt piece of shit. He also never served in government in any capacity. In any case at no time did I state that the Biden family was innocent of corruption ; I merely challenged bfng3569’s contention that the Trump family some how was not corrupt. There is every indication Donald, Jared, and Ivanka used their positions for financial gain, even if like Hunter there is not sufficient evidence to prove criminality in a court of law.

 

he didn't attempt to hide or obstruct anything, and even if he did, that's 100% irrelevant.  Either they all had documents they shouldn't have and they all should be charged or none of them. 

So what, your ok with people 'breaking the law' as long as they 'do the right thing' in the end.  Also, after everything Biden said about Trump having the doc's, when they were found laying around in his garage, he had no other choice. Plus what did he need them for, he already shared them with his ghost writer.

That statement alone that you made is exactly why most on the right claim two tiers of justice.

And my point about Hunter,  is it IS far more clear that his father got him where is he, access to his father is what got him on the board in Ukraine and got him his influence in china.

[bfng3569]

On 7/29/2024 at 4:08 PM, rmgill said:

Biden's new policy and diktat for the Supreme Court...

 

Biden's proposal, outlined in a Monday op-ed in the Washington Post, includes three main changes to the court, which he describes as "mired in a crisis of ethics." These changes include term limits for justices, a binding code of conduct, and a significant amendment aimed at ensuring that no president is above the law. The president's plan appears to be a direct response to the court's recent 6-3 decision granting broad immunity to presidents for crimes committed while in office.

"This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one," Biden wrote. He criticized the Supreme Court's decision, arguing it leaves virtually no limits on presidential actions except those self-imposed by the president.

Expressing clear concern over Trump potentially returning to office, Biden wrote, "If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power--like we saw on Jan. 6th, 2021--there may be no legal consequences."

In addition to what he calls the "No One Is Above The Law Amendment," Biden proposed term limits for Supreme Court justices, suggesting that each president should appoint a new justice every two years, with justices serving 18 years in active service.

Biden also called for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, criticizing the current voluntary ethics code as "weak and self-enforced." He stated that justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from political activities, and recuse themselves from cases where they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. He argued that every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and the Supreme Court should not be exempt.

 

Mind you, the Surpeme Court as an office is NOT created by the Office of the President NOR of the US Congress, so neither has the power to re-structure the Court other than what is specifically given in the US constitution such as for appointments. 

This proposal by Biden represents a power grab from the 3rd portion of the US Government. Yet again, they must violate basic rules of the republic established over 200 years ago to 'save their democracy'. 

And had those recent major supreme court rulings gone there way, this wouldn't even be a topic of conversation.

Another clear indication that the left will do what ever they can, right wrong or indifferent, to maintain and control power and limit or remove if possible any other option.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, bfng3569 said:

And had those recent major supreme court rulings gone there way, this wouldn't even be a topic of conversation.

Another clear indication that the left will do what ever they can, right wrong or indifferent, to maintain and control power and limit or remove if possible any other option.

I suspect if Thomas didn’t have Harlow’s hand up his ass and also tried to cover it up for years the issue would not have come up.

[bfng3569]

27 minutes ago, Josh said:

I suspect if Thomas didn’t have Harlow’s hand up his ass and also tried to cover it up for years the issue would not have come up.

there is zero denying the lefts out cry over certain supreme court rulings of late and this, the timing is all to obvious.

the reason is all to obvious.

[Josh]

15 minutes ago, bfng3569 said:

there is zero denying the lefts out cry over certain supreme court rulings of late and this, the timing is all to obvious.

the reason is all to obvious.

Well I also suspect if the GOP senate did not employ a double standard on its nomination process there also would be less to gripe about. In any case, SCOTUS reform is not happening. At worst it will be court packing, and only if the GOP loses everything in November, which seems rather unlikely.

[rmgill]

What does consent mean to you Josh? 
 

Advice and consent. What does it mean? Rubber stamp? Given the left has been big on me too, do you really want to water down what consent means ? 

[Josh]

32 minutes ago, rmgill said:

What does consent mean to you Josh? 
 

Advice and consent. What does it mean? Rubber stamp? Given the left has been big on me too, do you really want to water down what consent means ? 

I have no idea what you are responding to.

[rmgill]

There’s the problem. You apparently don’t understand basic US law. Per the constitution, the president nominates appointees. The senate then advises and consents. Which implies rather clearly that they may not give consent to appointments, ie they can reject one or many. The consent is NOT always a yes, otherwise the senate would not need to give it. 
 

This is all ironic given who was front and center for Robert Bork’s nomination hearing and its opposition. In the context of Judicial nominations, Borking isn't a Swedish chef reference. 

Live by the sword, die by the sword. So don’t complain about violation of standards. 
 

Serious question, you never learned about the Bork hearings did you? 

 

US Constitution, Article II section 2

2nd paragraph

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Edited August 1 by rmgill

[Josh]

You posted a wildly vague couple sentences and I am under no obligation to decipher it or read your right wing blather; since you were so unclear with you previous so I stopped reading this one after the first six words.

[rmgill]

A citation from the US constitution is not blather. 

Thus, your ignorance of the SCOTUS appointment process is obvious and deliberate. 

Thus your bleating about the GOP not rubber stamping past DNC nominations is borne of that same ignorance. 
 

You’ll get nothing but contempt and small regard in this realm. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

A citation from the US constitution is not blather. 

Thus, your ignorance of the SCOTUS appointment process is obvious and deliberate. 

Thus your bleating about the GOP not rubber stamping past DNC nominations is borne of that same ignorance. 
 

You’ll get nothing but contempt and small regard in this realm. 

Its Tanknet. You can get that just by saying you are glad Roosevelt helped win the war, so its not exactly a high bar.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

A citation from the US constitution is not blather. 

Thus, your ignorance of the SCOTUS appointment process is obvious and deliberate. 

Thus your bleating about the GOP not rubber stamping past DNC nominations is borne of that same ignorance. 
 

You’ll get nothing but contempt and small regard in this realm. 

I would be disappointed if I didn’t. I keep you off the ignore list, and indeed participate in the FFZ political threads at all, simply to learn what flavor of alternate facts the other side is working with, not to earn your good graces.

[rmgill]

Yes. 

US Constitution, Article II section 2 is alternate facts. 

 

[glenn239]

On 7/30/2024 at 12:58 PM, Josh said:

I’m fine with Congressional term limits

As for people mucking around with SCOTUS justices, that appears to already occur now and is why there are calls for ethics reform.

The reason why there are calls for reform is because the Democrats don't like the rulings the SC is delivering.   In terms of Biden's proposed 18 year terms, I suppose he could hope the GOP is that stupid, as 18 years can obviously be dropped to much less once the precedent is set.

The hilarious part is that, as Biden's handlers surely must know, Congress would be in violation of the Constitution to pass a law imposing term limits, and the body that would decide on the case would be the Supreme Court, which is the target.  I would assume the SC would strike the law down.  Then what?  Arrest the SC in the name of democracy?   One assumes that the Dems know this and are doing a publicity stunt for election popularity.

Edited August 1 by glenn239

[bfng3569]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

Well I also suspect if the GOP senate did not employ a double standard on its nomination process there also would be less to gripe about. In any case, SCOTUS reform is not happening. At worst it will be court packing, and only if the GOP loses everything in November, which seems rather unlikely.

i don't disagree.

its unfortunate how both sides act.

i just see a much clearer (and worse) history from the left when it comes to this stuff.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

The reason why there are calls for reform is because the Democrats don't like the rulings the SC is delivering.   In terms of Biden's proposed 18 year terms, I suppose he could hope the GOP is that stupid, as 18 years can obviously be dropped to much less once the precedent is set.

The hilarious part is that, as Biden's handlers surely must know, Congress would be in violation of the Constitution to pass a law imposing term limits, and the body that would decide on the case would be the Supreme Court, which is the target.  I would assume the SC would strike the law down.  Then what?  Arrest the SC in the name of democracy?   One assumes that the Dems know this and are doing a publicity stunt for election popularity.

There is undoubtedly an element of that, but there also is the fact that it has come to light in the last year that Thomas has received millions, maybe tens of millions, in gifts. That sounds more like a judge in Venezuela than the US.

[rmgill]

17 minutes ago, Josh said:

There is undoubtedly an element of that, but there also is the fact that it has come to light in the last year that Thomas has received millions, maybe tens of millions, in gifts. That sounds more like a judge in Venezuela than the US.

Citation please. 

And please show where the other judges are or are not doing the same thing. 

Does Sotomayor's books count as gifts? Does her staff encouraging schools (ie government agencies) to buy the book count? And this is connected with speaking engagements. What does a book or set of books cost? Is this like the Clintons and their $600,000 speeches for 30 minutes? 

 

Sotomayor's staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children's books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009. Details of those events, largely out of public view, were obtained by The Associated Press through more than 100 open records requests to public institutions. The resulting tens of thousands of pages of documents offer a rare look at Sotomayor and her fellow justices beyond their official duties.

 

Note, it's an NPR link. 
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1187005372/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-staff-book-sales-signings-memoir

[Josh]

9 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Citation please. 

And please show where the other judges are or are not doing the same thing. 

Does Sotomayor's books count as gifts? Does her staff encouraging schools (ie government agencies) to buy the book count? And this is connected with speaking engagements. What does a book or set of books cost? Is this like the Clintons and their $600,000 speeches for 30 minutes? 

 

Sotomayor's staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children's books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009. Details of those events, largely out of public view, were obtained by The Associated Press through more than 100 open records requests to public institutions. The resulting tens of thousands of pages of documents offer a rare look at Sotomayor and her fellow justices beyond their official duties.

 

Note, it's an NPR link. 
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1187005372/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-staff-book-sales-signings-memoir

I’m fine with ethics rules being applied to everyone on the court.

The correct number was $4.2 million, all from Harlow:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/releases/durbin-reveals-omissions-of-gifted-private-travel-to-justice-clarence-thomas-from-harlan-crow#

[Murph]

What part do our liberals not understand is that the Supreme Court is NOT beholden to either Pedo-Joe, or Chucky Schumer since they are a separate branch of the government, and neither Congress NOR the President can do anything to the court short of a constitutional amendment which is not, thank G_d that easy.