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: 8
29
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The CHOICE is Simple Now , A Democratic Republic , or a Socialist Police State . ............




posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Thanks.

And here I was under the impression that the world is not black and white.

I feel better now.

edit on 6/30/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It's Blacker and Whiter than you Think Grasshopper.......)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Gryphon66

The CHOICE is Simple Now , A Democratic Republic , or a Socialist Police State . ............


Making complex matters and simplistic as possible so that the only option is a "for or against" decision is a common tool of extremism.

Speaking of the Constitution, your buddy Mitch McConnell should be tried for sedition. It was President Obama's pick to replace Scalia, which would have resulted in a moderate justice, which would have prevented the Trump pick to replace Kennedy from unbalancing the Court.

The Court should be above politics, but failing that, it should represent the nation's political distribution.

The majority of Americans are not political extremists; we should have Justices that reflect our values, and to ignore that or thwart it is to invite true peril.
edit on 1-7-2018 by Gryphon66 because: NOted



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: xuenchen

When will they realize that they don't have or support a viable platform?



Still wondering how Racism is viable...



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Personally, the greatest threat to us all is that Trump is successful in stacking an arch-political SCOTUS majority. I know that many here are applying a "nyah-nyah, we won, if you don't like it go home" attitude, and while that is understandable, folks have to realize that we are not homogenous in our political beliefs in this country... and while everyone thinks they are in the majority, the fact is that fully implementing any political extreme is going to alienate a large group of moderates.
Funny you should mention this NOW as many voters took this into consideration when voting AGAINST her.
Consideration enough to give trump the house and Senate with his win.
Should she have won would you be whining about a shifted liberal court? I think not.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Speaking of the Constitution, your buddy Mitch McConnell should be tried for sedition. It was President Obama's pick to replace Scalia, which would have resulted in a moderate justice, which would have prevented the Trump pick to replace Kennedy from unbalancing the Court. 
Following the Senate rules is now grounds for "sedition"?
Surely you will source that claim?



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


The Court should be above politics, but failing that, it should represent the nation's political distribution.

I'm not sure I can agree with that second part. Follow me:

Every body in the government has a primary purpose. The Congress exists to create laws; the President enforces laws, oversees the military, and conducts foreign relation (as in immigration and treaty negotiations) all while also serving as the public face of the government; the Judiciary exists to ensure all laws and actions are within the scope of firstly the Constitution and secondly existing Federal law, essentially acting as a check on the power of the other branches.

The Congress represents the will of the people, and as such should be composed of a reasonable political cross section of the country. That's why we have elections form the different districts, so each district can add their respective combined voice.

The President is one man... as such, it is physically impossible for him to reflect the makeup of the country like the Congress does. Instead, he represents the general overall direction of the country. But unlike Congress, where the power to enact law is vested, the President can make no law. All the President can do is enforce existing law and make requests to Congress, as well as vetoing potential laws... but even that veto power is limited by Congress' ability to override a Presidential veto.

The Supreme Court makes no law; enforces no law; establishes no political direction. The Supreme Court, along with the lower Federal courts, exists to perform a closely specified duty: ensure that neither Congress nor the President violate the Constitution. That is their primary duty, and the Constitution is a written document. As long as the Justices perform their duty, the political makeup of the Supreme Court is irrelevant.

Of course, we know that is not always the case. Human nature and all.

That is the danger of having a "liberal judge" on the bench. There is not a lot of wiggle room in the Constitution. For instance, the freedom of speech is enumerated and cannot (or should not) be denied to any person in the US by any government entity. A case which pits a law against freedom of speech should always have the result that the law is struck down; the Constitution rules per the Constitution itself. Even if the law were to be something extremely helpful to a Republican, that law must be struck down if the Constitution is followed, regardless of whether or not the Justices are liberal, conservative, or moderate politically.

That is the goal: adherence to the Constitution.

Now, the talk out of the White House is a Constitutional Justice to replace Kennedy... many are taking that to mean a conservative Justice, as in one who would rule in favor of the GOP. I do not want that, nor is that the definition of a Constitutional Justice. A Constitutional Justice is a Justice who interprets the Constitution as written, based on the definitions used at the time it was written. In other words, a Justice who will do their duty.

I do not want a Supreme Court that changes positions regularly. Can you imagine the turmoil if what was legal today became illegal tomorrow because of public opinion? That is how a non-Constitutional Justice would rule, based on political agendas rather than on the document they are charged with upholding. It would be a society in chaos.

Also, there is a check against a Supreme Court which is outdated as it is: a Constitutional Amendment. Yes, it is a steep hill to climb, but it should be. It allows Congress and the states unchecked power over Judiciary, and even the Constitution itself.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The Supreme Court makes no law; enforces no law; establishes no political direction. The Supreme Court, along with the lower Federal courts, exists to perform a closely specified duty: ensure that neither Congress nor the President violate the Constitution. That is their primary duty, and the Constitution is a written document. As long as the Justices perform their duty, the political makeup of the Supreme Court is irrelevant.

Of course, we know that is not always the case. Human nature and all.

That is the danger of having a "liberal judge" on the bench. There is not a lot of wiggle room in the Constitution.


You essentially declare that the Supreme Court is irrelevant...on contingencies.

That's the entire point of contention.

But Hey...do you like just watching news that agrees with you?

The son of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was leading a real-estate division of Deutsche Bank as it gave President Donald Trump over $1 billion in loans to finance his real-estate projects when other banks wouldn't, The New York Times reported Thursday.

A billion dollars. That doesn't scream bull# at all, does it?



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MemoryShock

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The Supreme Court makes no law; enforces no law; establishes no political direction. The Supreme Court, along with the lower Federal courts, exists to perform a closely specified duty: ensure that neither Congress nor the President violate the Constitution. That is their primary duty, and the Constitution is a written document. As long as the Justices perform their duty, the political makeup of the Supreme Court is irrelevant.

Of course, we know that is not always the case. Human nature and all.

That is the danger of having a "liberal judge" on the bench. There is not a lot of wiggle room in the Constitution.


You essentially declare that the Supreme Court is irrelevant...on contingencies.

That's the entire point of contention.

But Hey...do you like just watching news that agrees with you?

The son of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was leading a real-estate division of Deutsche Bank as it gave President Donald Trump over $1 billion in loans to finance his real-estate projects when other banks wouldn't, The New York Times reported Thursday.

A billion dollars. That doesn't scream bull# at all, does it?


Want to talk about liberal/conservative when a sitting President took a Billion dollar load from the son of a now retiring Supreme Court Justice?

Or do you you want to obfuscate?

Edit to to add - yeah...it's a load.
edit on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 02:13:36 -0500 by MemoryShock because: meh


One more edit - This is Very On Topic.
edit on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 02:28:08 -0500 by MemoryShock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MemoryShock


You essentially declare that the Supreme Court is irrelevant...on contingencies.

On the contrary, I believe it to be possibly the least irrelevant branch of the three, because of its inherent checks and balances on the other two, and its sharp separation from them. The President has no authority over the Supreme Court other than to nominate Justices; the Legislative has no authority over the Judicial except to confirm nominees in the Senate and to pass Constitutional amendments with the support of the states. Yet, the Supreme Court can interrupt any unconstitutional action by either branch, and the Justices are insulated from political influence by serving for life.

I'm not sure what post you were reading...


But Hey...do you like just watching news that agrees with you?

Sure, and I read not only the Business Insider piece, but also the New York Times piece it came from. I saw no serious allegations. I do wonder a few rather important details that were not covered:
  • Was the loan made before or after Trump announced his decision to run for office?
  • Was the loan repaid?
  • Has Trump taken any improper action since becoming President concerning Justice Kennedy?
I would assume that should any of these questions be answerable in a bad light surrounding Trump, the infamous New York Times would have gladly spilled the beans. Of course, if you have the answers I would enjoy hearing them... ottherwise, you just posted the most irrelevant link I have seen in quite some time.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MemoryShock


You essentially declare that the Supreme Court is irrelevant...on contingencies.

On the contrary, I believe it to be possibly the least irrelevant branch of the three, because of its inherent checks and balances on the other two, and its sharp separation from them. The President has no authority over the Supreme Court other than to nominate Justices;


Except when he's buying them.

I'd rather you identified my specific issues and rhetoricalled them/...

So. How Does that Kennedy Bank sit with you?

edit on Sun, 01 Jul 2018 02:41:47 -0500 by MemoryShock because: Eh....



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

  • Has Trump taken any improper action since becoming President concerning Justice Kennedy?I would assume that should any of these questions be answerable in a bad light surrounding Trump, the infamous New York Times would have gladly spilled the beans. Of course, if you have the answers I would enjoy hearing them... ottherwise, you just posted the most irrelevant link I have seen in quite some time.

    TheRedneck


  • Do you want to find the dates or shall I?



    posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 02:43 AM
    link   
    a reply to: TheRedneck

    To be literal, we're talking about Kennedy's son and a Billion dollar loan.



    posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 02:59 AM
    link   
    a reply to: MemoryShock


    How Does that Kennedy Bank sit with you?

    As totally irrelevant unless much more information is discovered. I'm not sure how taking out a loan which is about 40% the value of one of his properties could be considered buying a Justice, especially when we don't yet know any of the specifics of the loan.

    Are you alleging that taking a loan for 40% the value of one of one's properties disqualifies one to serve as President?


    Do you want to find the dates or shall I?

    Feel free. I'm about to call it a night.


    To be literal, we're talking about Kennedy's son and a Billion dollar loan.

    To be realistic, every loan officer in every bank in every country is someone's son, and it is well-documented that those who come from wealthy and powerful families tend to have an advantage in acquiring high-level positions.

    To be realistic on the amount, most people have acquired loans for much more than 40% of a property's value, and from a bank officer who is someone's son (or possibly daughter).

    Is there a specific decision by Justice Kennedy that you believe was "bought" with a mortgage?

    TheRedneck



    posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 03:03 AM
    link   
    a reply to: MemoryShock

    www.salon.com...

    www.esquire.com...

    www.nytimes.com...

    Would you like to spar, Redneck....



    posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 03:05 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: TheRedneck
    Is there a specific decision by Justice Kennedy that you believe was "bought" with a mortgage


    There are now multiple.



    posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 03:08 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: TheRedneck
    a reply to: MemoryShock


    How Does that Kennedy Bank sit with you?

    As totally irrelevant unless much more information is discovered. I'm not sure how taking out a loan which is about 40% the value of one of his properties could be considered buying a Justice, especially when we don't yet know any of the specifics of the loan.

    Are you alleging that taking a loan for 40% the value of one of one's properties disqualifies one to serve as President?


    Do you want to find the dates or shall I?

    Feel free. I'm about to call it a night.


    To be literal, we're talking about Kennedy's son and a Billion dollar loan.

    To be realistic, every loan officer in every bank in every country is someone's son, and it is well-documented that those who come from wealthy and powerful families tend to have an advantage in acquiring high-level positions.

    To be realistic on the amount, most people have acquired loans for much more than 40% of a property's value, and from a bank officer who is someone's son (or possibly daughter).

    Is there a specific decision by Justice Kennedy that you believe was "bought" with a mortgage?

    TheRedneck


    Did you just really, "Your Mom," me?

    Lol



    posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 03:11 AM
    link   
    a reply to: MemoryShock

    My Mom doesn't have a billion bucks...and she has nothing on Deutches Bank...

    But let's hear your interpretation...



    posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:39 PM
    link   
    a reply to: Gryphon66

    "
    " Making complex matters and simplistic as possible so that the only option is a "for or against" decision is a common tool of extremism. "


    No , it's Extremely Logical . Complexity from Simplicity is a Fools Errand..............




    top topics



     
    29
    << 5  6  7   >>

    log in

    join