Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 198
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    Here's how it SHOULD play out:

    Trump should nominate someone, just like Obama did in 2016. At the nomination, he announces he will not put pressure on the senate, and they can choose to confirm immediately or wait until the election.

    That's a win/win for Trump. It puts his nominee on the ballot. If he loses the election, he could push his nominee through via recess appointment.

    By the way, if Republicans decide to go HAM and push through the nominee before the election, democrats can thank Harry Reid for invoking the nuclear option for confirming judges. Chickens coming home to roost, indeed.
    Agreed. That is probably the best way to handle it. Itís trumpís job to be president until heís not. Part of that is making the nomination. After that, itís out of his hands and up to senate.


    3 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpolk View Post
    Who knew ibdancin could see the future.

    Didn’t work out to well when you were saying we wouldn’t fire moorehead**
    I didn't read the future. I simply analyzed the current data.

    My thoughts on Moorhead being given another year had nothing to do with analyzing data. If you don't like that I had a differing opinion, that's on you.


    0 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBarksalot View Post
    What?? Iíve been paying attention to the Mossberg thread...

    looking at Trumps list..what are the chances Cruz or Cotton would make it?
    I don't think either of them is realistic. I think they're just on the list to troll democrats.


    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by EngDawg View Post
    This is the smart move. Takes the heat somewhat off the struggling GOP senators and Increases the chance the nominee gets confirmed. Still a big win for the GOP replacing Ginsburg with a much more center leaning justice.
    Trump nominating Garland would be political suicide for him.


    3 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  5. #85
    Merrick Garland is so interesting to me, for a variety of reasons. He seems to be a true centrist, which is one of the main reasons Obama nominated him, thinking that Republicans would confirm him. Also, nobody really knows if heís pro-life or pro-choice. Allegedly, heís never spoken his feelings on the matter, even in private.

    Heís a law and order type judge with regard to criminal cases, more closely aligned with conservatives. Heís also a judge that defers to precedent, something also more closely aligned with conservatives. The exception would be Roe v. Wade. Also, heís a big supporter of our right to privacy. Again, something that is more closely aligned with conservative values. An exception to that being Roe v. Wade.


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by QuaoarsKing View Post
    And that matters because? Obama was elected in 2012 to appoint Supreme Court justices for the next 4 years regardless of whether he was also elected in 2008.

    Mitch McConnell didn't say in 2016 that it mattered whether the president was in his first or second term or whether the president and senate were part of the same party. He said that the American people should have a say and that was that. We all knew he was a grandstanding, lying, hypocrite anyway, and now we have first-hand proof. I'd respect him a lot more if he'd just said "All I care about is getting conservative justices onto the Supreme Court, and I will use whatever tool I can to accomplish that."

    And let's never forget that Democrats unanimously confirmed Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy in 1988, an election year (lame duck year too), so the entire thing was never sincere from McConnell (who was in the Senate at the time and also voted for Kennedy).
    Here's the bottom line: When the president and the senate agree on a nominee, the nominee generally gets confirmed.

    America gave the Senate a majority when Obama was in the white house. The Senate chose not to vote on Garland. The circumstances are different now. Rational people understand that.

    And you're laughably (but not surprisingly) wrong about Kennedy. Reagan nominated Kennedy in 1987, a full year before the election, and it was a compromise candidate after his two previous nominees, most notably Robert Bork, had failed to get confirmed. His nomination of Kennedy drew the ire of many conservatives, and he had gotten assurances from many democrats (most notably, one Joseph Biden), that they would support Kennedy before nominating him.

    If you're going to cite history, it's helpful that you actually know history.


    6 out of 13 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibdancin View Post
    - It was a lame duck election year. Big difference.

    - It won't matter if it is prior to the election or after the election, whoever Trump nominates will be subjected to the same Kav treatment.

    - The Dems have been talking for over a year about a new SCOTUS. The plan is that once they control the Senate, they will expand the SCOTUS to "X" amount to nullify KAV, Gorsuch, and whoever if he were to get another pick. So they will vote to expand the SCOTUS and then nominate and pass those they want to fill all of those seats.

    So don't worry.... there is a plan.
    How much did the tariffs on aluminum affect your hat making budget?


    0 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    Here's the bottom line: When the president and the senate agree on a nominee, the nominee generally gets confirmed.

    America gave the Senate a majority when Obama was in the white house. The Senate chose not to vote on Garland. The circumstances are different now. Rational people understand that.
    I get it. Politics is a game and McConnell is going to win this one within the rules. Just don't pretend like McConnell's not a hypocrite, or act like McConnell's arguments included special circumstances all along that just so happen to cover 2020. We all see through it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    And you're laughably (but not surprisingly) wrong about Kennedy. Reagan nominated Kennedy in 1987, a full year before the election, and it was a compromise candidate after his two previous nominees, most notably Robert Bork, had failed to get confirmed. His nomination of Kennedy drew the ire of many conservatives, and he had gotten assurances from many democrats (most notably, one Joseph Biden), that they would support Kennedy before nominating him.

    If you're going to cite history, it's helpful that you actually know history.
    No, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 97-0 (apparently not that much ire) on February 3, 1988. The narrative McConnell is pushing is that a justice has never been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year. Kennedy was. McConnell's claim never included a footnote explaining that it doesn't count if the nomination process started the previous year. (And we both know Garland's nomination wouldn't have gone any differently if Scalia had died in December 2015.)

    You taking little nitshit shots at me like "If you're going to cite history, it's helpful that you actually know history," are just embarrassing for you when I am actually correct.
    Last edited by QuaoarsKing; 09-18-2020 at 11:59 PM.


    8 out of 12 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    Here's the bottom line: When the president and the senate agree on a nominee, the nominee generally gets confirmed.

    America gave the Senate a majority when Obama was in the white house. The Senate chose not to vote on Garland. The circumstances are different now. Rational people understand that.

    And you're laughably (but not surprisingly) wrong about Kennedy. Reagan nominated Kennedy in 1987, a full year before the election, and it was a compromise candidate after his two previous nominees, most notably Robert Bork, had failed to get confirmed. His nomination of Kennedy drew the ire of many conservatives, and he had gotten assurances from many democrats (most notably, one Joseph Biden), that they would support Kennedy before nominating him.

    If you're going to cite history, it's helpful that you actually know history.
    The year he is looking for is 1888. That's the last time that happened.


    0 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by QuaoarsKing View Post
    That was never the argument at the time. That's just how they're trying to recast it 4 years later to look less hypocritical.
    Itís also how itís worked 18 previous times in our countryís history which you would know if you were the least bit informed. 10 of those times the prezís party was in control of the senate and 9 of those 10 the justice was confirmed. But hey, keep spouting MSNBC garbage. Donít let facts get in the way. Amy Coney Barrett is on deck. This and the ensuing riots from the left, could give Trump a landslide.
    Last edited by CookieMonster; 09-19-2020 at 12:09 AM.


    3 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by QuaoarsKing View Post
    I get it. Politics is a game and McConnell is going to win this one within the rules. Just don't pretend like McConnell's not a hypocrite, or act like McConnell's arguments included special circumstances all along that just so happen to be true in 2020. We all see through it.


    No, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 97-0 on February 3, 1988. The narrative McConnell is pushing is that a justice has never been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year. Kennedy was. McConnell's claim never included a footnote explaining that it doesn't count if the nomination process started the previous year. (And we both know Garland's nomination wouldn't have gone any differently if Scalia had died in December 2015.)

    You taking little nitshit shots at me like "If you're going to cite history, it's helpful that you actually know history," are just embarrassing for you when I am actually correct.
    Do you understand the difference between nominated and confirmed? Kennedy was confirmed in February 88 but was nominated in November 87. Garland was nominated in March of 2016, He would've been set for a confirmation vote in mid to late summer of 2016 if the Senate had moved forward, just a couple or three months before the election. It's apples and oranges. Plus, as I said earlier, Kennedy was put forward as a compromise. The senate had derailed his two previous nominees. Totally different situation.

    And no, I disagree. If Scalia had passed away in 2015, the Senate would not have held that seat open for a full year.
    Last edited by Drebin; 09-19-2020 at 12:05 AM.


    3 out of 8 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  12. #92

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Starkville
    Posts
    4,309
    Politicians are hypocrites. Most all of them.

    Term limits.


    5 out of 5 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibdancin View Post
    The year he is looking for is 1888. That's the last time that happened.
    Yes, this is correct.


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  14. #94

    Hereís the breakdown



    3 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    Do you understand the difference between nominated and confirmed? Kennedy was confirmed in February 88 but was nominated in November 87. Garland was nominated in March of 2016, He would've been set for a confirmation vote in mid to late summer of 2016 if the Senate had moved forward, just a couple or three months before the election. It's apples and oranges.

    And no, I disagree. If Scalia had passed away in 2015, the Senate would not have held that seat open for a full year.
    “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year,” - Mitch McConnell in a statement today

    February 3, 1988: Democratic-controlled Senate confirms Republican nominee Anthony Kennedy.

    It's a bit creepy that you are fighting about basic facts. McConnell is wrong, and since he was in Senate in 1988, it's not like he's making an honest mistake. He is lying to push a false narrative, because he knows people like Drebin will buy it.


    4 out of 7 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    It's apples and oranges.
    Itís more like Fujis and Honeycrisps.


    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgg View Post
    How much did the tariffs on aluminum affect your hat making budget?

    I assume you are referring to the Dem plan? Here are your sources.

    2019- Politico:
    By BURGESS EVERETT and MARIANNE LEVINE


    - WAPO headline: Court pack gains in Dem ranks.

    - CBS: Attorney General Eric Holder said Democrats should consider expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court.


    I am going to skip the rest of the year 2019 (because that was just from the 1st quarter of 2019). I'm also going to skip all of 2020 and just give you the quotes from tonight:

    Politico again:

    Posted on by Jason Easley
    Democrats Vow To Expand The Supreme Court If McConnell Rams Through SCOTUS Nominee

    Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said that if McConnell rams through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Democrats will abolish the filibuster and expand the court.




    Your turn.


    2 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by QuaoarsKing View Post
    “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year,” - Mitch McConnell in a statement today

    February 3, 1988: Democratic-controlled Senate confirms Republican nominee Anthony Kennedy.

    It's a bit creepy that you are fighting about basic facts. McConnell is wrong, and since he was in Senate in 1988, it's not like he's making an honest mistake. He is lying to push a false narrative, because he knows people like Drebin will buy it.
    You're being dishonest. His original quote from 2016 and reaffirmed in 2019 was, "“You’d have to go back to 1888... to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential (election) year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House.”

    The vacancy that was ultimately filled by Kennedy was not created in a presidential election year. It was created in 1987.


    4 out of 8 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibdancin View Post
    I assume you are referring to the Dem plan? Here are your sources.

    2019- Politico:
    By BURGESS EVERETT and MARIANNE LEVINE


    - WAPO headline: Court pack gains in Dem ranks.

    - CBS: Attorney General Eric Holder said Democrats should consider expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court.


    I am going to skip the rest of the year 2019 (because that was just from the 1st quarter of 2019). I'm also going to skip all of 2020 and just give you the quotes from tonight:

    Politico again:

    Posted on by Jason Easley
    Democrats Vow To Expand The Supreme Court If McConnell Rams Through SCOTUS Nominee

    Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said that if McConnell rams through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Democrats will abolish the filibuster and expand the court.




    Your turn.
    It must be exhausting to be you.


    2 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  20. #100

    I'd love for Trump to nominate Garland

    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    Trump nominating Garland would be political suicide for him.
    But agree. Dumb political move. Trump doesn't give a damn who he nominates outside of how it benefits him politically today. He will delay to make this a referendum on a judge to take the focus away from him. His base is rock solid. Basically nuclear bomb proof. He doesn't need to impress them.

    That said, his ceiling is very low and takes an equally hated candidate in terms of favorability (Hillary) to have a chance. Biden actually has net positive favorability ratings compared to negative teens that Clinton had. It's a very different dynamic than 2016 in that regard. If Trump can make the election less about him and more about a judge, that raises his ceiling and increases his chances at reelection and stabilizes the senate races the GOP needs to maintain the majority.

    Trump rarely makes the expected move, so who really knows what happens.


    1 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  21. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    You're being dishonest. His quote is, "ďYouíd have to go back to 1888... to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential (election) year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House.Ē

    The vacancy that was ultimately filled by Kennedy was not created in a presidential election year. It was created in 1987.
    First of all, I have never been "dishonest" here and never will be. In the unlikely event that I ever type something that isn't true, it would be an error. It would take a real loser to get on here and just start lying.

    I realize that the vacancy was created in 1987. I have never said otherwise. This is a direct quote from McConnell's statement today.



    4 out of 6 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  22. #102
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13,432
    A politician is a hypocrite. Water is wet.








    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  23. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by QuaoarsKing View Post
    First of all, I have never been "dishonest" here and never will be. In the unlikely event that I ever type something that isn't true, it would be an error. It would take a real loser to get on here and just start lying.

    I realize that the vacancy was created in 1987. I have never said otherwise. This is a direct quote from McConnell's statement today.

    I know what he said today. But you have to go back to his original decision and justification for why he did what he did in 2016 for the proper context, especially if you want to paint him as a hypocrite because of what he did to Garland in 2016. He's clearly referring to vacancies created in an election year. OF COURSE YOU KNOW THIS, which is why I said you're being dishonest, because you're ignoring that critical piece of context.


    2 out of 7 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  24. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Drebin View Post
    I know what he said today. But you have to go back to his original decision and justification for why he did what he did in 2016 for the proper context, especially if you want to paint him as a hypocrite because of what he did to Garland in 2016. He's clearly referring to vacancies created in an election year. OF COURSE YOU KNOW THIS, which is why I said you're being dishonest, because you're ignoring that critical piece of context.
    Again, I just don't understand why you're fighting this. McConnell explicitly lied in his statement, and no amount of spin can change the fact that Democrats confirmed (the wording McConnell used today and in the past) Anthony Kennedy in 1988.

    Honestly, something like "HAHA we win again suck it libz" would be a more respectable argument than whatever you're trying right now.


    5 out of 9 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  25. #105
    fishwater99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    80403
    Posts
    12,958
    Twitter
    @fishwater99
    On CNN it was actually discussed tonight to add additional judges to the court if Trump appoints one before he goes out of office. Would that not require a constitutional amendment?


    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  26. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by fishwater99 View Post
    On CNN it was actually discussed tonight to add additional judges to the court if Trump appoints one before he goes out of office. Would that not require a constitutional amendment?
    One way or the other this country is about to be fundamentally changed like we never thought possible.


    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  27. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by QuaoarsKing View Post
    McConnell is going to win this one within the rules.

    This is the important part.

    Soon, President Trump will nominate, and the Senate will confirm, another US Supreme Court Justice.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  28. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by irondog View Post
    MSNBC just had a guest on the air that claims she was raped by who ever Trump nominates.


    LOL.

    Good one.


    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  29. #109
    BiscuitEater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg Virginia
    Posts
    3,975
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBarksalot View Post
    Chickens are coming home to roost.

    Tell me this...how in the hell, would Democratís ever confirm any nominee in the next 45 days? Iím listening to pundits on TV saying itís possible...I donít understand how. Explain like Iím 5.
    Sandra Day OíConnor was confirmed in 33 days. John Paul Stevens was confirmed in 17 days. Republicans control the Senate now.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  30. #110
    Not an amendment. Congress can just pass a bill increasing the size of the court.


    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  31. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBarksalot View Post
    Assuming zero chance of any confirmation before inauguration?

    2020 is ruthless.


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  32. #112
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13,432
    Theyíve had some rulings that raised some eyebrows but I honestly think they are very objective And Roberts is that way too. For the most part they have ruled conservative.








    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  33. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibdancin View Post
    I didn't read the future. I simply analyzed the current data.

    My thoughts on Moorhead being given another year had nothing to do with analyzing data. If you don't like that I had a differing opinion, that's on you.
    I put the ** on the post. Youíre so sensitive man. Settle down I was joking.


    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  34. #114
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13,432
    I find it humorous that youíre so upset that a group of politicians is being hypocritical. The sooner you realize theyíre almost all that way, the better off youíll be. If the script was flipped, Democrats would be doing the same thing in the never ending political game to try and one up the other.








    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  35. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by DesotoCountyDawg View Post
    I find it humorous that you’re so upset that a group of politicians is being hypocritical. The sooner you realize they’re almost all that way, the better off you’ll be. If the script was flipped, Democrats would be doing the same thing in the never ending political game to try and one up the other.
    Then find it even more humorous that some of our Republican posters are trying to argue that McConnell isn't hypocritical and is being totally consistent with his 2016 position.


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  36. #116
    SixPack's Official Farmer DesotoCountyDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13,432
    Same difference. Carry on.








    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  37. #117
    Presented without comment.



    3 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  38. #118
    When he said that he had no way of knowing that the Dems would let their party fall completely into the hands of it's lunatic fringe.


    2 out of 6 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  39. #119
    I don't see how they will ever bring term limits up for a vote in either house. Is there some way that "we the people" can make this happen?
    Quote Originally Posted by paindonthurt View Post
    Politicians are hypocrites. Most all of them.

    Term limits.


    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

  40. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by ronpolk View Post
    I donít keep up with politics all that much. I didnít realize it was a politically motivated thing to not confirm Obamaís nominee. I just thought that was normal policy.

    Honestly, it should be normal policy, especially this close. No reason for a potentially outgoing president to decide something this important. I agreed with not confirming Obamaís person and I would agree with it now.
    normally I would agree that it would be better to wait, but with so many Democrat politicians enabling and not really condemning rioting (until it started showing up in polls) and implicitly threatening they will continue as long as trump is president, Iíd be reluctant for republicans to do anything that would make that strategy look successful. Iím not expecting a confirmation before the election but hope republicans do everything they can to make it happe.


    3 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Cooking Thread | Game Thread Yes | No

Posting Permissions

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








Disclaimer: Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Mississippi State University or any other Mississippi State sports website. Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Scottish & Newcastle PLC d/b/a Bulldog Strong Ale. The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SixPackSpeak.com. The interactive nature of the SixPackSpeak.com Discussion Forums makes it impossible for SixPackSpeak.com to assume responsibility for any of the content, including photographs and/or images, posted by participants. The ideas, suggestions, thoughts, recommendations, opinions, comments, advice, and observations made by participants of the interactive Discussion Forums are not endorsed by SixPackSpeak.com.