Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

How a Ginsburg departure complicates things for the Dems

 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post How a Ginsburg departure complicates things for the Dems Resident Skeptic
We are most likely about to see panic among the Dems like we have never seen before. It will make the Kavanaugh hearings look civil. Letting Trump appoint a third justice is completely unacceptable to the libs.

Therefore, I predict we will see the move to impeach Trump put on fast track. Such doubt about his character must be created that even Republican Senators will become afraid to hold confirmation hearings on a SCOTUS pick. Most likely, Comey appearing before the House Judiciary Committee next week is the start to this plot. But what might throw a monkey wrench into the works will be a lackluster Mueller report. So the Dems will be forced to whip up one false narrative after another, which the mews media, of course, will run with. But I predict this is where they will overplay their hand and quickly lose favor with the American people. Trump will prevail on SCOTUS and the wall. The former, along with strong leadership on economic challenges will ensure his reelection in 2020.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI


Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 1/11/19 10:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/11/19 10:25 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
I'm very excited about the prospect of Justice Ginsburg being replaced with a youthful conservative.

That said, the SCOTUS ruling against the president's bogus national emergency is going to be 9-0 with or without her.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 10:42 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post UncleJD
Dave Dorsey wrote:
I'm very excited about the prospect of Justice Ginsburg being replaced with a youthful conservative.

That said, the SCOTUS ruling against the president's bogus national emergency is going to be 9-0 with or without her.


Then he may have to take Lincoln and FDR's advice and ignore them. The constitution is clear on what he can do when HE (and he alone) decides is best to protect the country.
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2376
1/11/19 10:46 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
UncleJD wrote:
Then he may have to take Lincoln and FDR's advice and ignore them. The constitution is clear on what he can do when HE (and he alone) decides is best to protect the country.

Shocked

Could you... show me where that is?
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 10:47 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
I'm very excited about the prospect of Justice Ginsburg being replaced with a youthful conservative.

That said, the SCOTUS ruling against the president's bogus national emergency is going to be 9-0 with or without her.


We will see. But I doubt they will overturn him. At the SCOTUS, at least 5 of the Justices will not have already made up their mind before any arguments are presented, unlike the 9th Circuit. A solid case can me made to objective judges that Trump's move is justified. Evidence will actually be considered.

You still have not explained why it is "bogus".
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI


Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 1/11/19 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/11/19 10:51 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post UncleJD
Dave Dorsey wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Then he may have to take Lincoln and FDR's advice and ignore them. The constitution is clear on what he can do when HE (and he alone) decides is best to protect the country.

Shocked

Could you... show me where that is?


Which, that Lincoln and FDR ignored the court? Or the constitutional power?

LMGTFY

Here's a fair summary, though I've read much more over the years.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/424314-yes-trump-has-authority-to-declare-national-emergency-for-border-wall[/url]
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2376
1/11/19 10:53 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
We will see. But I doubt they will overturn him. At the SCOTUS, at least 5 of the Justices will not have already made up their mind before any arguments are presented, unlike the 9th Circuit. A solid case can me made to objective judges that Trump's move is justified. Evidence will actually be considered.

I do appreciate a justice who reviews the evidence before making up his or her mind. Scalia once said (paraphrasing) that a good justice is one who writes decisions he does not like.

And, it's bogus because it is. Truman tried it during a war -- an actually legitimate national emergency, when the US didn't have sufficient steel to fight in the Korean War -- and the Supreme Court sent him packing. Contra UncleJD, Article II of the Constitution does not contain a contingency king clause that empowers the president to unilaterally do whatever he wants if the other branches of government don't agree with him.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 10:57 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
UncleJD wrote:
Or the constitutional power?

Yes -- specifically language in the constitution (since you said the Constitution is clear) that empowers the president to unilaterally do whatever he wants when Congress and the Supreme Court oppose him.

Your Hill article cites the National Emergencies Act, which is power granted to the president by Congress. That's a complicated issue and I'd be happy to get into it, but if SCOTUS rules against him, it will be on the basis of the National Emergencies Act not applying to what he did. So, first, given that you started this by saying he should ignore a SCOTUS decision, I would like to see the part where "the constitution is clear on what he can do when HE (and he alone) decides is best [sic] to protect the country." If this is in the Constitution, you should be able to find it in Article II. I've missed it in the past, so if you could help me learn I'd really appreciate it.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 11:00 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
(BTW, the whole Truman thing is really interesting. That's what ultimately prompted Congress to pass the National Emergencies Act, which was an effort to clarify and restrict the power they had given the executive branch to declare national emergencies.) Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 11:06 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
We will see. But I doubt they will overturn him. At the SCOTUS, at least 5 of the Justices will not have already made up their mind before any arguments are presented, unlike the 9th Circuit. A solid case can me made to objective judges that Trump's move is justified. Evidence will actually be considered.

I do appreciate a justice who reviews the evidence before making up his or her mind. Scalia once said (paraphrasing) that a good justice is one who writes decisions he does not like.

And, it's bogus because it is. Truman tried it during a war -- an actually legitimate national emergency, when the US didn't have sufficient steel to fight in the Korean War -- and the Supreme Court sent him packing. Contra UncleJD, Article II of the Constitution does not contain a contingency king clause that empowers the president to unilaterally do whatever he wants if the other branches of government don't agree with him.



Trying to take over an industry and using material means to enforce existing law are two different animals. Apples and Oranges.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7619
1/11/19 11:17 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Trying to take over an industry and using material means to enforce existing law are two different animals. Apples and Oranges.

Agree to disagree I guess. They are two different animals, I agree, but the question is what the president is empowered by the NEA to do over the objection of Congress. So while nationalizing an industry is a far, far greater exercise of power, it's still an exercise of power, and I expect SCOTUS to focus on that issue rather than on the scale of the exercise. They're both apples. One of them is just a lot bigger than the other one. Smile
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 11:19 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Take your pick: The Wall or a Conservative Justice? Aaron Scott
I would think that Trump could use the next justice as a negotiating tool. That is: "I will select a MUTUALLY AGREED UPON nominee...in return for FULL FUNDING of the wall."

Possible? Smart? Unsure?
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
1/11/19 11:43 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Take your pick: The Wall or a Conservative Justice? Dave Dorsey
Aaron Scott wrote:
I would think that Trump could use the next justice as a negotiating tool. That is: "I will select a MUTUALLY AGREED UPON nominee...in return for FULL FUNDING of the wall."

Possible? Smart? Unsure?

Unnecessary and unwise. Unnecessary, because unless they are able to accomplish what they tried with Kavanaugh, the Democrats have no input on the next SCOTUS nomination. The president appoints, and a simple majority in the Senate is sufficient to confirm.

Unwise, because trading 20-30 years of conservative jurisprudence for $5.7b (or even $20-25b for "full" funding) is a really bad deal.
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 11:47 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
That raises a good question for the "this is a national emergency" camp, though.

If it's so existentially urgent, what would you be willing to trade to get it done? DACA? Gun restrictions? National $15/hr minimum wage? Carbon emissions tax?

Where's the line between "this is a critical national emergency that must be addressed in whatever way possible" and "ok, it's not that important"?
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 11:55 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
Dave Dorsey wrote:
That raises a good question for the "this is a national emergency" camp, though.

If it's so existentially urgent, what would you be willing to trade to get it done? DACA? Gun restrictions? National $15/hr minimum wage? Carbon emissions tax?

Where's the line between "this is a critical national emergency that must be addressed in whatever way possible" and "ok, it's not that important"?


No trade off.

Wall with no contingencies.

It is an emergency that this illegal stuff get fixed once and for all. But not an emergency in that people die THE SAME DAY. More along the lines of an emergency like Global Warming is to Al Gore - gotta stop it now or in 10 years....
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15972
1/11/19 12:34 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
No trade off.

Wall with no contingencies.

It is an emergency that this illegal stuff get fixed once and for all. But not an emergency in that people die THE SAME DAY. More along the lines of an emergency like Global Warming is to Al Gore - gotta stop it now or in 10 years....

Sure, that's the ideal case, but that's not how the world works when you have divided government.

BTW, I think I like your definition of emergency in this case. I do agree that reducing illegal immigration is a very important issue.

But not everyone agrees. Some people believe this is an imminent, must-fix-now emergency. If that's true, what would they be willing to give up in order to have the Dems buy in to fixing this same day emergency now?
Acts Admin
Posts: 12105
1/11/19 12:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
If it comes to butting heads it can be good and bad for the country. I didn't like the 'Dictatorship' actions of Obama, and I probably won't like the same in Trump if it comes to that.

I honestly hope the best for the country comes out of this, but it is seldom wise to bet "All or nothing" or "Double or nothing" I have watched it in poker games on the ship. Never saw it work. It was always a desperate act of a loser to 'magically or luckily' become the winner.

But that was gambling and with the turn of a card you knew the answer.

It ain't gonna be so here, because he who loses will find the resources to try again. The guy on the ship had already borrowed all he was gonna get and it was never a win, it was break even or REALLY BROKE.

I am afraid 'REALLY BROKE' that is what we are seeing unless the two parties actually see this coming and compromise. Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 22367
1/11/19 12:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.