Nominee to US Court of Appeals - Vote Along Party Lines

[TxHoops]

My favorite Ginsburg story:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

Even though it is a “story” by the way, still found it pretty funny.  I’m sure no one enjoyed it more than the late, great Scalia. 

[Englebert]

9 hours ago, TxHoops said:

That is a an interesting and thoughtful argument.  Although you know it is flawed in the instance discussed.  

But to your point, sometimes precedents are ignored, or even overturned.  Ultimately, judges are to follow the law to which they are bound, even if they determine a previous ruling interpreted a law incorrectly in their estimation.  Why else would Roe v Wade still be an issue decades later?

It is not at all flawed in the instance discussed...it is spot on. Republicans were just following a precedent set earlier. But I agree with your second part. I have never been a fan of the use of "precedents" in court cases. Each case should stand on it's on merits, regardless of previous rulings. Precedents are good for guiding behavior, but not for determining guilt or innocence. And in this case, the Democrats are the ones that invoked the precedent, then whined like children when the same tactic was used against them. That is childish. And I used the term Democrat instead of Liberal in this instance for good reason.

[TxHoops]

7 hours ago, Englebert said:

It is not at all flawed in the instance discussed...it is spot on. Republicans were just following a precedent set earlier. But I agree with your second part. I have never been a fan of the use of "precedents" in court cases. Each case should stand on it's on merits, regardless of previous rulings. Precedents are good for guiding behavior, but not for determining guilt or innocence. And in this case, the Democrats are the ones that invoked the precedent, then whined like children when the same tactic was used against them. That is childish. And I used the term Democrat instead of Liberal in this instance for good reason.

So the Republicans in turn “invoked the precedent” and acted like 2 year olds because “they did it first!!”  Yes, yes, no flaws at all in comparing this behavior to a foundational tenet of the appellate justice system.

 

[Reagan]

18 hours ago, new tobie said:

I don't care what rule they were following, it was wrong. 

Just to clarify: you said Republicans set the standard.  Again --  it was actually Biden.  You of your guys!

[TxHoops]

And of course, those Constitution-lovin, right winging, lockstepping Pubes used a speech, A SPEECH, by the VP almost 25 years earlier about what people should do as “precedent.”  “Precedent” to completely ignore the document that they wuv so very much!!!

So again, impressive display of childishness at best, utter hypocrisy at worst and haven’t a doubt in mind it was a healthy combination of both. 

[TxHoops]

8 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Just to clarify: you said Republicans set the standard.  Again --  it was actually Biden.  You of your guys!

Biden gave a speech Tobie, in 1992 that the Pubic Pubbies found, giggling like school girls, and used as justification to urinate, deficate, and other -ates, all over the constitution.  You know, the document they “love” even though most have a better grasp of Green Eggs and Ham?

[stevenash]

Txhoops-  Am I wrong about this-  Many of the actions taken by former Law Professor, while President of the United States were also in violation of the constitution.  I've heard that and can't prove it but unless you state that it, unequivocally never happened, I will do a little more research with some help from some of those in your profession.  I just have this sneaking suspicion that working outside of the constitution is not the exclusive property of a single party.

[TxHoops]

10 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Txhoops-  Am I wrong about this-  Many of the actions taken by former Law Professor, while President of the United States were also in violation of the constitution.  I've heard that and can't prove it but unless you state that it, unequivocally never happened, I will do a little more research with some help from some of those in your profession.  I just have this sneaking suspicion that working outside of the constitution is not the exclusive property of a single party.

No question.  In fact one instance was found to be such by the SCOTUS.  The Line Item Veto act sponsored by the Pubbies and passed by Congress allowed Clinton to begin taking a red pen to legislations.  SCt said that’s a no no.  

[Reagan]

33 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Biden gave a speech Tobie, in 1992 that the Pubic Pubbies found, giggling like school girls, and used as justification to urinate, deficate, and other -ates, all over the constitution.  You know, the document they “love” even though most have a better grasp of Green Eggs and Ham?

One shouldn't get upset when one set the rules (The Biden Rule) and then when we play by them one get upset.

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, Reagan said:

One shouldn't get upset when one set the rules (The Biden Rule) and then when we play by them one get upset.

So since “rules” get set by speeches, should I pull out some of President Trump’s finer speeches (since speeches based on Pubic logic create rules and “precedents.”). I mean, if a single Senator can create a rule and precedent, I guess an actual President can create a super-rule or even a lifestyle, way of thinking, or general principle that should be applied to him, his party, and most certainly anyone who has supported him.  Would that upset any of you???  Don’t answer.  The answer must be on this board a thousand times  

[LumRaiderFan]

Oh well, it worked out...in this case, two wrongs did make a “right”.

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

So since “rules” get set by speeches, should I pull out some of President Trump’s finer speeches (since speeches based on Pubic logic create rules and “precedents.”). I mean, if a single Senator can create a rule and precedent, I guess an actual President can create a super-rule or even a lifestyle, way of thinking, or general principle that should be applied to him, his party, and most certainly anyone who has supported him.  Would that upset any of you???  Don’t answer.  The answer must be on this board a thousand times  

So since “rules” get set by speeches, should I pull out some of President Trump’s finer speeches (since speeches based on Pubic logic create rules and “precedents.”). I mean, if a single Senator can create a rule and precedent, I guess an actual President can create a super-rule or even a lifestyle, way of thinking, or general principle that should be applied to him, his party, and most certainly anyone who has supported him.  Would that upset any of you???  Don’t answer.  The answer must be on this board a thousand times  

LOL!  It's always fun to throw back in the face of what liberals say as they run around high-fiving each other while saying it.  But, more importantly, there's nothing in obama's past choices for judges that would give any reason that the one in question was a strict Constitutionalist.  Knowing obama's contempt for the Constitution, he didn't select judges with that criteria in mind.   Kagan, Sotomayor are jokes.  They make decisions in lock-step with what obama wanted and now doing the bidding for whatever the socialist, Anti-Amercan agenda calls for.  The two clowns, Watson and Chuang, that voted to block Trump's immigration policy had no concern of what the law actually says.  Everyone knows the President has this authority.  But, again, that's not why they were chosen.  I believe I put an article on this forum about obama being involved in filing these lawsuits against Trump.  Then they go judge shopping.  They go to ones he appoints because he knows what the outcome will be.  Again -- he should, that's why he put them there.  So, again, the salient point is, the judge in question would not been good for America. 

[Englebert]

4 hours ago, TxHoops said:

So the Republicans in turn “invoked the precedent” and acted like 2 year olds because “they did it first!!”  Yes, yes, no flaws at all in comparing this behavior to a foundational tenet of the appellate justice system.

 

Nope, no flaws at all. The analogy/comparision is just as far as you want to take it, and what point of view you want to apply to each situation.