PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on May 05, 2018, 01:28:27 PM
-
If this happens, and the President gets to nominate another Justice, the liberal progressives will go into a melt down of epic proportions.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/2018/05/03/high-court-balance-at-stake-as-kennedy-retirement-talk-heats-up
The reality is the President will make another, if not two more appointments to the court. This will throw the court conservative.
I predict that if another appointment happens in the near future, dems will try to block the President from nominating using some voodoo logic or parliamentary procedure, if not another attempt to get a bat shit crazy liberal judge to invoke some hair brained injunction against him.
-
Didn't we go through this last year as well? If he retires, Trump gets another nominee confirmed. At this point I'm more focused on the opinions the court still has to issue for this term as they have pretty big impacts. After the term is over, if he does retire, the Senate Democrats will be apoplectic, which is fine, but it'll be interesting to see which ones support a nominee given the mid terms later this year. Senators who are vulnerable may vote for a nominee in an attempt to save their seat.
-
Democrats will go bat shit crazy NO MATTER what happens, because that is their entire political strategy.
They have lost the tax cut argument and people like the idea of keeping som more of their money.
They've lost the bullshit Russia, Russia, Russia argument and are looking stupider and stupider by the day.
They've lost the 'let's run out a couple of lunatic, black congress members, including a tramp dressed in a stupid looking cowboy hat, that makes look like a hooker at a cowboy festival, to demand Trump be impeached for everything including eating corn flakes and using low fat milk instead of whole, argument.
All they have left is bat shit crazy and with Trump above fifty percent, that is looking dodgy to say the least.
-
Yes, the Democrats will do everything legally, and illegally to stop Trump from appointing another justice. It will be mayhem, and they get away with it due to a complicit MEDIA.
-
Yes, the Democrats will do everything legally, and illegally to stop Trump from appointing another justice. It will be mayhem, and they get away with it due to a complicit MEDIA.
I just had an interesting thought: maybe all of the anti-Trump brouhaha is exactly this: stopping appointments of conservative SCOTUS and federal judges. Getting a conservative majority and unfriendly federal courts certainly provides a way to thwart the evil plans of the Procommudems(TM).
-
I just had an interesting thought: maybe all of the anti-Trump brouhaha is exactly this: stopping appointments of conservative SCOTUS and federal judges. Getting a conservative majority and unfriendly federal courts certainly provides a way to thwart the evil plans of the Procommudems(TM).
Look at it this way. Had Felonious Von Pantsuits won the election, it would be her filling all of these federal court seats and her appointing these SC justices, which would tilt the courts definitively left for another generation.
Trump is reshaping the judiciary and will be moving the SC to a definitive conservative tilt. He started with Gorsuch, and it looks like Kennedy's retirement is next. Ginsburg is 85. Breyer is 79. So in all likelihood Trump may end up appointing 4 justices and replacing two very liberal judges and a swing judge. Under Trump we could see a 7-2 supreme court. Let that sink in for a few.
I still predict on the next opening the liberals going apocalyptic like never witnessed before.
-
Look at it this way. Had Felonious Von Pantsuits won the election, it would be her filling all of these federal court seats and her appointing these SC justices, which would tilt the courts definitively left for another generation.
Trump is reshaping the judiciary and will be moving the SC to a definitive conservative tilt. He started with Gorsuch, and it looks like Kennedy's retirement is next. Ginsburg is 85. Breyer is 79. So in all likelihood Trump may end up appointing 4 justices and replacing two very liberal judges and a swing judge. Under Trump we could see a 7-2 supreme court. Let that sink in for a few.
I still predict on the next opening the liberals going apocalyptic like never witnessed before.
Which is my point, and the real, unspoken impetus to impeach Trump on any possible grounds to get him out.
-
Of course had Felonious Von Pantsuit been elected we would have seen both congress and senate pass a bill to scrap Obamacare and sent it to her desk for a signature...... :o
-
Yes, the Democrats will do everything legally, and illegally to stop Trump from appointing another justice. It will be mayhem, and they get away with it due to a complicit MEDIA.
That's a little extreme, don't you think?
-
I just had an interesting thought: maybe all of the anti-Trump brouhaha is exactly this: stopping appointments of conservative SCOTUS and federal judges. Getting a conservative majority and unfriendly federal courts certainly provides a way to thwart the evil plans of the Procommudems(TM).
Trump has been appointing judges to the federal bench since he came into office and hasn't been stopped yet. There's no reason to think that he will be stopped while there's a Republican majority in the Senate, either.
-
Look at it this way. Had Felonious Von Pantsuits won the election, it would be her filling all of these federal court seats and her appointing these SC justices, which would tilt the courts definitively left for another generation.
Trump is reshaping the judiciary and will be moving the SC to a definitive conservative tilt. He started with Gorsuch, and it looks like Kennedy's retirement is next. Ginsburg is 85. Breyer is 79. So in all likelihood Trump may end up appointing 4 justices and replacing two very liberal judges and a swing judge. Under Trump we could see a 7-2 supreme court. Let that sink in for a few.
I still predict on the next opening the liberals going apocalyptic like never witnessed before.
I think the possibility exists of him appointing more justices, but I'm not sure what the likelihood of it is. We've been speculating about Kennedy's retirement for a couple of years now. I don't think Breyer is going anywhere right now and Ginsburg is unlikely to leave the seat until she either dies or a Democrat is elected in 2020.
The other thing to consider is even if Trump does get to nominate more justices, it will depend on who controls the Senate. Scalia's seat was left vacant for quite some time, I wonder how long the Democrats would be willing to stall a confirmation, especially if it happened in the summer of 2020.
-
That's a little extreme, don't you think?
I don't think it's extreme at all. Democrats have been unbelievably hostile to every Trump nominee so far. They have blocked or delayed almost everyone, then they complain that Trump hasn't filled all the seats yet. While Trump is trying to navigate real problems, like North Korea stabilization, China Trade, Russian interference in Syria and all the other problems, he is having to fight Democrats and Never-Trumpers on every front. Then, while he fighting off all their partisan attacks, they are accusing him of creating chaos in the white house. Trump, and America, are suffering death by a thousand cuts from the Democrats. I just hope he get a few more judges seated before the Dems succeed in destroying him and us.
-
I don't think it's extreme at all. Democrats have been unbelievably hostile to every Trump nominee so far. They have blocked or delayed almost everyone, then they complain that Trump hasn't filled all the seats yet. While Trump is trying to navigate real problems, like North Korea stabilization, China Trade, Russian interference in Syria and all the other problems, he is having to fight Democrats and Never-Trumpers on every front. Then, while he fighting off all their partisan attacks, they are accusing him of creating chaos in the white house. Trump, and America, are suffering death by a thousand cuts from the Democrats. I just hope he get a few more judges seated before the Dems succeed in destroying him and us.
You will see every Democrat, and Media outlet, and persona, including anchors, pundits, celebrities, etc on a constant 24/7 rampage about how Trump will ruin the country by overturning Roe v. Wade, and other Leftist icons. We will have blood in the streets due to no gun control. We will have the religious right controlling the country, and forcing religion on us. We will be destroyed by Man Made Climate Change. We will become a Nazi like, police state.
I stand on my word Mayhem, and add Bedlam in there also.
-
It was that idiot George Will that was telling us before the 2016 election that Hillary wouldn't be so bad.
I wonder if Will or any of his cabal even once considered the consequences of federal judges and SC Justices?
-
It was that idiot George Will that was telling us before the 2016 election that Hillary wouldn't be so bad.
I wonder if Will or any of his cabal even once considered the consequences of federal judges and SC Justices?
George Will, and some other anti Trump "Republican" pundits have become worse than Democrats. They are hypocrites, and liars, and should be ignored.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/stg050718dAPR20180506034508.jpg)
-
I don't think it's extreme at all. Democrats have been unbelievably hostile to every Trump nominee so far. They have blocked or delayed almost everyone, then they complain that Trump hasn't filled all the seats yet. While Trump is trying to navigate real problems, like North Korea stabilization, China Trade, Russian interference in Syria and all the other problems, he is having to fight Democrats and Never-Trumpers on every front. Then, while he fighting off all their partisan attacks, they are accusing him of creating chaos in the white house. Trump, and America, are suffering death by a thousand cuts from the Democrats. I just hope he get a few more judges seated before the Dems succeed in destroying him and us.
Your argument is that Trump is fighting the good fight and everyone else is just standing in his way? I hope you can recognize that some, and certainly not all, of the problems inside the White House are Trump's own doing through his tweets, his changing statements on subjects, etc.
Attempting to block or otherwise stall nominations is called politics and that's always the way it is. The Republicans control the Senate so any stalling on judicial nominations is on them, not the Democrats. America isn't "suffering death by a thousand cuts from the Democrats" either. Our system was intentionally designed to make it difficult to get things done. I just don't buy this narrative that Trump is an angel everyone else who isn't 100% on board is just part of the problem. That kind of thinking limits debate and would have Republicans up in arms (as it has in the past) if it were a Democratic president (read: Obama's now infamous "pen and phone" comments).
-
It was that idiot George Will that was telling us before the 2016 election that Hillary wouldn't be so bad.
I wonder if Will or any of his cabal even once considered the consequences of federal judges and SC Justices?
I don't agree with George Will that Hillary wouldn't have been so bad but the larger point behind what he, and other never-Trumpers, was trying to get at is that our system is designed to withstand a single person. America wouldn't have been dismantled and forever destroyed if Hillary had been elected.
I also don't agree with Bret Stephens from the NYT who went on Bill Maher's show and was basically getting out the vote for Hillary (I think it was him, I could be mistaken). There's a difference between staying home and not voting and actively campaigning for the Democratic nominee.
-
George Will, and some other anti Trump "Republican" pundits have become worse than Democrats. They are hypocrites, and liars, and should be ignored.
How are they hypocrites and what have they lied out? Why should they be ignored? Are differing viewpoints and debate no longer acceptable because it may not be 100% in line with what Trump wants?
-
Your argument is that Trump is fighting the good fight and everyone else is just standing in his way?
With all of the phony scandals, the corruption of the DoJ/FBI and the establishment wimps, the President is still able to get much accomplished.
I just don't buy this narrative that Trump is an angel everyone else who isn't 100% on board is just part of the problem. That kind of thinking limits debate and would have Republicans up in arms (as it has in the past) if it were a Democratic president (read: Obama's now infamous "pen and phone" comments).
So where is that narrative in this thread? I've looked at the various post and I have yet to read where someone stated the President was a "angel".
And on BHO's famous "pen and phone" comments? Notice how no one, not even the conservatives even attempted to challenge him on that. BHO never feared the feekless republicans in congress or the senate as they were all too willing to give in to him.
-
I don't agree with George Will that Hillary wouldn't have been so bad but the larger point behind what he, and other never-Trumpers, was trying to get at is that our system is designed to withstand a single person. America wouldn't have been dismantled and forever destroyed if Hillary had been elected.
A President Hillary nominating federal judges and possibly 3 to 4 SC judges wouldn't have had lingering effects? YGTBSM.
-
How are they hypocrites and what have they lied out? Why should they be ignored? Are differing viewpoints and debate no longer acceptable because it may not be 100% in line with what Trump wants?
Bill Kristol from the "Weekly Standard" a long time conservative, now believe in Globalism, and Statism.
In his last years, Kristol told me, Bell became an ardent internationalist and a vocal defender of immigration.
“That was one of the impressive things about the American conservative movement,” Kristol mused as we sat in his office, surrounded by a near-avalanche of political tracts from the last few decades.
Yahoo fails to mention the illegal alien/open borders part.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/exile-bill-kristol-republican-resister-chief-100007991.html
You can Google the rest about him, George Will, and other Neocons that have turned their backs on true conservatism, and doing what is right for this country. Eliitist trash.
-
Your argument is that Trump is fighting the good fight and everyone else is just standing in his way? I hope you can recognize that some, and certainly not all, of the problems inside the White House are Trump's own doing through his tweets, his changing statements on subjects, etc.
That is not my argument at all. Trump is a pompous asshole that does bring a lot of shit down on himself. But he also has a good idea of how to improve our economy and our national security, and he is not afraid to stand up to adversaries, and he is not afraid to negotiate. But because the Democrats don't like his personality they are unwilling to allow him to accomplish anything whether it is good for the country or not. That may be current day politics, but is sucks. It hasn't always been like that. Even the framers of the Constitution negotiated and compromised and came away stronger than they were. Dems won't allow that to happen today.
-
America wouldn't have been dismantled and forever destroyed if Hillary had been elected.
Not sure I agree with that. Obama set a dangerous precedent with his use of executive orders to make changes to agency rules and I believe Hillary would have accelerated it...in fact, I expect the next Democrat president to do it more than Obama did. The issue is that whatever changes are made become the rule of law until they are later changed (presumably under a different president). Obama could have ordered the ATF to deem any semi-automatic rifle capable of holding more than 5 rounds to be a military weapon and that would have started a chain of events that would have resulted in the rule of law outlawing nearly every hunting rifle. The order would have been implemented through the administrative rules making process and eventually turned into a rule. The only recourse of this is for the Congress to countermand the president's directive or a legal challenge in a left slanted legal system.
Personally I believe that sometime in the next 20-30 years Congress will have to revoke the power of agencies to make their own rules, exactly because of how Obama used executive orders to do that. But will that really get better when Congress has to pass laws to change agency rules? The Administrative Procedures Act was enacted because Congress could not keep up with the pace of changes that needed to be made in 1946, what hope do they have of doing it now?
-
So where is that narrative in this thread? I've looked at the various post and I have yet to read where someone stated the President was a "angel".
I was referring to the narrative which Little Joe appeared to be trying to display. He has addressed that.
And on BHO's famous "pen and phone" comments? Notice how no one, not even the conservatives even attempted to challenge him on that. BHO never feared the feekless republicans in congress or the senate as they were all too willing to give in to him.
There were Republicans/conservatives who did come out against that even if the majority did not.
-
Bill Kristol from the "Weekly Standard" a long time conservative, now believe in Globalism, and Statism.
Yahoo fails to mention the illegal alien/open borders part.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/exile-bill-kristol-republican-resister-chief-100007991.html
You can Google the rest about him, George Will, and other Neocons that have turned their backs on true conservatism, and doing what is right for this country. Eliitist trash.
So one person now speaks for an entire political ideology (conservatism)? You also didn't address the part about them being ignored.
My broader point is that you are demonizing an entire group of people (conservatives) and saying they should be ignored because of one or two (or a handful, but certainly not all) people have a different viewpoint than you. You're also saying they're worse than Democrats which is just nonsense. I don't see them out there demanding nationalized healthcare, or free college education, or advocating for pro-choice policies (though some may be).
-
A President Hillary nominating federal judges and possibly 3 to 4 SC judges wouldn't have had lingering effects? YGTBSM.
Where did I say they wouldn't have had lingering effects? I said the system is designed to withstand a single person. Of course there would likely be lingering effects. That doesn't negate my point.
-
That is not my argument at all. Trump is a pompous asshole that does bring a lot of shit down on himself. But he also has a good idea of how to improve our economy and our national security, and he is not afraid to stand up to adversaries, and he is not afraid to negotiate. But because the Democrats don't like his personality they are unwilling to allow him to accomplish anything whether it is good for the country or not. That may be current day politics, but is sucks. It hasn't always been like that. Even the framers of the Constitution negotiated and compromised and came away stronger than they were. Dems won't allow that to happen today.
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I may not agree with everything you just wrote but I agree with a lot of it.
-
So one person now speaks for an entire political ideology (conservatism)? You also didn't address the part about them being ignored.
My broader point is that you are demonizing an entire group of people (conservatives) and saying they should be ignored because of one or two (or a handful, but certainly not all) people have a different viewpoint than you. You're also saying they're worse than Democrats which is just nonsense. I don't see them out there demanding nationalized healthcare, or free college education, or advocating for pro-choice policies (though some may be).
I wasn't demonizing all conservatives. The topic was George Will. I was talking about those NEOCONS that now adopt ideals, and positions opposite from true conservatives. They are a minority, but vocal, and anti Trump. I don't want conservatism to represent Statism, Globalism, Open Borders, more gun control, etc. I was speaking specifically of the likes of Will, Kristol, and sometimes a few like Rich Lowry, and the National Review.
Again, a minority of conservatives, but all Establishment conservatives who love big government, and the status quo.
-
Where did I say they wouldn't have had lingering effects? I said the system is designed to withstand a single person. Of course there would likely be lingering effects. That doesn't negate my point.
The system may be designed to withstand a single person, but . . .
If Hillary followed Obama, that would be two;
And if she were able to appoint a few Supreme Court nominees, then that number is greater than two,
not to mention all the lower judges and cabinet positions and department heads she would be appointing.
And selling strategic reserves to our enemies for personal profit might be non-recoverable,
and making bad deals with bad players, like Iran and Syria and North Korea and China will hamstring future administrations for years.
There is a limit as to how much abuse the system can take.
But Trump said "pussy" so he is just as bad, huh?
-
We dodged a huge bullet with Hillary losing. That is why the Left is still trying to delegitimize the Trump Admin. They knew how important this election was, and that is why they are trying everything. It's like the movie "The Thing". The alien keeps morphing from Russia, to Stormy Daniels, to obstruction of justice, to illegal funds, etc.
Obama got to appoint two far left supreme court justices, and many lower court judges. Hillary would have sealed the courts fate, as well as other courts, and agencies. She was to be the completion of the Fundamental Transformation that Obama couldn't finish.
-
Never more than a generation away and this is how easy it is to lose it.
-
I think Trump should nominate Merrick Garland.
There would be no way it would be blocked and he'll have another 'bi-partisan' win.
Then his next pick (probably replacing Ginsberg) can be ultra conservative.
We all win!
-
I think Trump should nominate Merrick Garland.
There would be no way it would be blocked and he'll have another 'bi-partisan' win.
Then his next pick (probably replacing Ginsberg) can be ultra conservative.
We all win!
Dems would protest Garland too if Trump nominated him.
-
I think Trump should nominate Merrick Garland.
There would be no way it would be blocked and he'll have another 'bi-partisan' win.
Then his next pick (probably replacing Ginsberg) can be ultra conservative.
We all win!
This is silly. The Democrats may not make a move to block this but the Republicans would. They blocked it the first time he was nominated so there's no way they'd allow him to get through on a second nomination. Not to mention he's pretty anti-Second Amendment so there's no way he gets the votes.
-
Another article out today on a potential Kennedy retirement. Nothing really new in the article other than some observations some have made that may indicate his retirement:
But Ian Samuel, a Climenko fellow and lecturer on law at Harvard Law School, who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, said the small number of cases the court has granted could signal Kennedy is throwing in the towel. The court has only agreed to hear 15 cases so far next term.
“One possibility is they are not granting cases because they don’t know who their ninth member is going to be. … You could imagine Kennedy telling the chief, ‘I’d like to keep this between us, but I’d like to retire,’ and the chief saying, ‘Let’s see who Kennedy’s replacement is before we grant all these cases,’” Samuel said.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/388413-kennedy-retirement-rumors-shift-into-overdrive