It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Schumer Demands Congress Wait Until After Midterm Elections to Confirm Kennedy Replacement

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Wow great plan then he can claim well now we can't do it because there is a presidential election. Im not sure he's aware elections occur every 2 years. So there is always pending elections. What he's mad about was he was sure clinton would win. So he figured holding off the election instead of pushing it through would benefit Hillary.

Democrats made a mistake i was screaming it was stupid not to push this. It was stupid and now we will pay the price



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Why are so many seemingly afraid of a SCOTUS Justice following the Constitution which is what we'll get with Trump nominee - the ones make me afraid are those ignoring, bending or making law out thin air based upon populism and fleeting public demands.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix
Justices interpret the Constitution as it applies to other law, vice versa, actually. That is their job.

That is not the problem. The problem is when the Court is heavily weighted to either a conservative or liberal interpretation.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
Why are so many seemingly afraid of a SCOTUS Justice following the Constitution which is what we'll get with Trump nominee - the ones make me afraid are those ignoring, bending or making law out thin air based upon populism and fleeting public demands.


Pretty sure that I'm impressed that you can type while demonstrating that you can't read. Trump has advocated policies that are anti constitutional...and you expect his SC nomination to care? After it has been demonstrated that he will change his opinion based on who gives him more money?

Wtf?



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Phoenix
Justices interpret the Constitution as it applies to other law, vice versa, actually. That is their job.

That is not the problem. The problem is when the Court is heavily weighted to either a conservative or liberal interpretation.


I agree weighting the court in one direction or another is a disaster. If the supreme court functions as it should 5 to 4 decisions should be the norm. If we start seeing 6 to 3 that means past decisions could be reevaluated. And that means well established rights could change.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 02:29 AM
link   
There is no way in HELL Republicans will wait. If democrats took enough seats they could stall until there is a Democrat president.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

You know that the Republicans have a very tiny majority in the Senate?

Just one of them could stop a vote in its tracks.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


And that means well established rights could change.

Rights cannot be changed by a government. They can only be infringed upon by a government.

A right is not granted by a government; that is a privilege.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

You know that the Republicans have a very tiny majority in the Senate?

Just one of them could stop a vote in its tracks.


And be known as the man that cost republicans a supreme court seat. They would be a pariah. Half of the republicans i know say they voted for trump purely to keep the supreme court.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

Maybe one of them has a sense of moral conviction over politics.



Nah... you're right.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

Maybe one of them has a sense of moral conviction over politics.



Nah... you're right.


Lol. Did you forget what a politician is for a second?



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I don't understand why any true patriot would want our highest court to be stacked with people from one political party.


All that power in the hands of the few is very un-american in my view.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Who was the last "true patriot" you know of, in DC? Its all about the teams now.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


The problem is when the Court is heavily weighted to either a conservative or liberal interpretation.

When I first read that, I agreed with it. Then I started thinking.

The Supreme Court is charged with one duty: to interpret the Constitution in situations where the lower courts cannot determine a satisfactory interpretation. I read the word "interpretation" as being somewhat restrictive in this sense: the document that sets forth the operation of our government and the protections the people have from that government should always be determined not by either conservative or liberal policies, but by what the thing says.

In that sense, I want the entire court, all 9 Justices, to be Constitutionalists. I want the Constitution followed, to the letter... after all, that is their charge by the Constitution itself. Any change to the Constitution can be accomplished by amendment, and should never be accomplished via strained interpretation. If some people want to label that view as "conservative," that is their prerogative I suppose. However, the result is the same: the document has been the sole source of all government power since 1783... that's what, 235 years? It does not need to be changed over a political agenda of either bent by 9 people.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

Maybe one of them has a sense of moral conviction over politics.



Nah... you're right.


Senate will push through a nomination as long as the candidate isnt to crazy. And if they dont i think it will happen after elections either way. Looking at senate seats up for grabs several are in states Trump won by double digits. Meaning democrats could lose seats if they try to resist to much.

So more then likely some democrats will vote for approval.
edit on 6/28/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Constitutionalists is not the only interpretation of the constitution. Other see it as a living document that changes with time. Case in point would be civil rights that wasnt originally part of the constitution this was changed as society changed.

I personally think its more like guidelines and should be used to further our morals and beliefs. I dont see it as written in stone and unchanging.
edit on 6/28/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

well, heck can we all hope that the investigation brings them all down and we end up with Joe Shmoe from Idaho as president???

but to be honest, if they waited around for a year for the presidential election so the voters could have a say in who gets to chose the nominee,.... I don't really see where there's that much difference between that and now. shouldn't the voters also get a say in who's in the congress to vote for or against this nominee? I mean, both the president and congress plays a role in placing a justice on the supreme court and a more liberal congress could force trump from nominating a ultra right judge. and if the court survived around a year without a seat being filled and the conservatives were okay with that, then it will survive the 6 months or so it takes for the election.

after all, shouldn't the voters get a say, like they did last time?



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I'll have to disagree with you there. The document itself has specific means written into it to allow it to be changed as times dictated. We've done it many times. Why would anyone take the time to work out a process by which the document could be changed if they intended it to be treated as a "living document" and changed to fit the political winds of the time?

Also, why write it down even? Stories change with time and with the teller. There's even an old joke that fish are the only animal that keeps growing after it dies, a reference to the fact that stories of catching fish often change with telling and the fish typically gets reported as larger than the time before. If a friend and I decide to do something together, we typically don't write it down, because we trust each other to be fair should we need to adjust our plans. Contrast that with any written contract: inflexible, exact, and solid. If one signs a mortgage on their home, the entire purpose of that signature is to prove agreement with exactly worded documents describing the mortgage and the duties under it of both the lender and the borrower.

The very fact that the Constitution was written down so precisely is proof that it was not intended to be a "living document." Like any other legal paper, it is intended to be steadfast over time.

And here, 235 years after it was signed, we stand as one of the most prosperous countries on Earth. Back then, we were a rag-tag association of 13 colonies, none self-supporting. Our people were outcasts from British society for the most part. Yet, from that meager beginning we attained the prosperity we enjoy today in a time span never heard of before. We had our problems, yes, like everyone does, but we must have done something right.

The one thing we did differently was the Constitution. It was unheard of in that day for a people to control the government.

So I do have to disagree with you. The Constitution is not a living document; it is a solid rock that guides our way, not a floating ship that gets tossed to and fro in every storm that comes along.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Are you agreeing with me?

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join