Supreme Court of the United States

[onejayhawk]

Prior to Gorsuch, there have been only 152 nominations. 30 nominations did not make it to the bench on that nomination and many of the 122 (including pre-Bork) did not get an automatic free pass - there was opposition. So if by hundreds of examples, you mean at least 200, that is impossible and it would behoove you to learn a little bit about what you are spouting off about.

Oooooooooh! Busted! Whatcha got to say about that J?

This is convincing evidence in my favor. Are you seriously saying that a more than 80% confirmation rate shows that it is contentious?

I give hundreds is over the top.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

Two can play this game

Please cite where any judge has the authority to rule on matters of foreign policy.
.

Article III
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

 

[metalhead]

This is convincing evidence in my favor. Are you seriously saying that a more than 80% confirmation rate shows that it is contentious?

J

You said apolitical, not contentious. Stop moving the goalposts. You were clearly ignorant and wrong. Just own it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Article III
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Oooooooooh! Busted! Whatcha got to say about that KmDubya?

(relevant clauses bolded)

 

[KmDubya]

Oooooooooh! Busted! Whatcha got to say about that KmDubya?

(relevant clauses bolded)

What does any of that have to do with immigration and travel from specific countries?

Regardless the travel ban will be re-written and back in effect within a few days. So it was all rather pointless unless you guys get lucky and a terrorist slips through during this window of opportunity. Then we'd have some dead Americans and you guys can all do your little death to America dance and feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[onejayhawk]

You said apolitical, not contentious. Stop moving the goalposts. You were clearly ignorant and wrong. Just own it.

I was clearly correct and you helped prove it. Just own it.

J

 

[metalhead]

Doubling down on ignorance and alternative facts. You really are Kellyanne Conjay!

 

[Lexicus]

Oooooooooh! Busted! Whatcha got to say about that KmDubya?

(relevant clauses bolded)

I already cited it, and it was duly ignored as expected.

 

[JollyRoger]

This is convincing evidence in my favor. Are you seriously saying that a more than 80% confirmation rate shows that it is contentious?

I give hundreds is over the top.

J

Your original point was that things were peachy keen until 1987. Since 1987, you only have 4 nominees that didn't make it to the bench - roughly the same rate of misses than before 1987. Plus, part of your post-1987 point involved a nomination that was successful, but a battle, so you can't really use that 80% number without undercutting your previous arguments.

 

[metalhead]

"Oh come on Senator, he never said that!"

- Mike Pence

 

[JollyRoger]

Years associated with failed nominations:

1793, 1795, 1811, 1828, 1835, 1844, 1845, 1852, 1853, 1861, 1866, 1869, 1873, 1874, 1881, 1893, 1894, 1930, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1987, 2005, 2016

Rejection by vote prior to 1987 - 11
Rejection by vote in 1987 - 1
Rejection by vote after 1987 - 0

 

[onejayhawk]

You really are Kellyanne Conjay!

That was almost clever. Keep trying.

Your original point was that things were peachy keen until 1987. Since 1987, you only have 4 nominees that didn't make it to the bench - roughly the same rate of misses than before 1987. Plus, part of your post-1987 point involved a nomination that was successful, but a battle, so you can't really use that 80% number without undercutting your previous arguments.

It was not. It was that confirmation was treated as some other than politics as usual. You cited numbers that bear that out.

Years associated with failed nominations:

1793, 1795, 1811, 1828, 1835, 1844, 1845, 1852, 1853, 1861, 1866, 1869, 1873, 1874, 1881, 1893, 1894, 1930, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1987, 2005, 2016

Rejection by vote prior to 1987 - 11
Rejection by vote in 1987 - 1
Rejection by vote after 1987 - 0

You keep adding detail to an accepted paradigm. Why?

J

 

[JollyRoger]

So you accept that Supreme Court selection has been political for most of our history?

 

[metalhead]

It was not. It was that confirmation was treated as some other than politics as usual. You cited numbers that bear that out.

J

That wasn't your point at all.

That's funny. Democrats introduced "partisan politicizing" so Republicans should apologize. It's consistent, at least.

It did not used to be. That changed in 1987. So, take anything prior to that as your standard.

Everyone took this to mean that Democrats changed the paradigm in 1987, politicizing a previously apolitical process. You are now trying to claim you said something different, but you didn't. You ignorantly spouted off and are now trying to backtrack completely. Give it up.

 

[Cutlass]

What does any of that have to do with immigration and travel from specific countries?

Regardless the travel ban will be re-written and back in effect within a few days. So it was all rather pointless unless you guys get lucky and a terrorist slips through during this window of opportunity. Then we'd have some dead Americans and you guys can all do your little death to America dance and feel all warm and fuzzy.

I don't see why you and Trump are so dead set on making as many dead Americans as you can. The Trump plan you're fighting for was certainly designed to maximize the number of dead Americans. What's the play? First get as many Americans killed as possible, and then use that as an excuse to rape away what liberty Americans have left? I mean, I know that people like you fundamentally believe that government rightfully controls all aspects of everyone's lives. But this is over the top even at that.

 

[KmDubya]

I don't see why you and Trump are so dead set on making as many dead Americans as you can. The Trump plan you're fighting for was certainly designed to maximize the number of dead Americans. What's the play? First get as many Americans killed as possible, and then use that as an excuse to rape away what liberty Americans have left? I mean, I know that people like you fundamentally believe that government rightfully controls all aspects of everyone's lives. But this is over the top even at that.

How does limiting the number of potential terrorists into the country promote 'more dead Americans'? If it was up to me I'd find an area near Syria that could be secured and protected and move the refugees there until a more permanent home could be found, preferably in a culture similar to where they came from. People who are cool with Sharia Law are not going to integrate well into a liberal democracy like USA, better to send them somewhere that they'll fit in.

As far as which side is taking away rights, it's you guys on the left who advocate for violence against anyone with a different viewpoint. That's a pretty big assault on the First Amendment. Where is similar behavior from the right? Even all the birther questions about President Obama were all talking, no riots ever occurred.

President Bush started the Patriot Act with support from Sen. Clinton and President Obama continued the program, you should be angry at them for the trampling of freedom not President Trump. I'd rather have America First and isolationism rather than a continuation of the past sixteen years of wars of foreign adventurism, which Hillary Clinton would have continued.

 

[Lexicus]

How does limiting the number of potential terrorists into the country promote 'more dead Americans'?

Well, if you want to talk about it in these terms, the best thing we could do would be to immediately deport everyone who takes Breitbart and Fox News seriously.

 

[onejayhawk]

So you accept that Supreme Court selection has been political for most of our history?

It's human. Political is redundant. It has been less partisan than most politics.

Everyone took this to mean that Democrats changed the paradigm in 1987, politicizing a previously apolitical process.

That you got right, mostly. They fully politicized what had been held apart from the usual. JR has provided considerable evidence that it was handled differently.

J

 

[KmDubya]

Well, if you want to talk about it in these terms, the best thing we could do would be to immediately deport everyone who takes Breitbart and Fox News seriously.

Citation please


Seriously show some sort of data that people who follow Fox News or Breitbart have committed terrorist attacks against the USA. There have been several terrorist attacks conducted by individuals who came from the seven countries listed in the travel ban.

Also you can't deport a citizen, they are where they are supposed to be. Meanwhile non citizens do not have a right to come to the USA, they come at the pleasure of the USA. If we, as a country, decide to stop the influx of foreign nationals to the USA then that is our right to do so.

 

[Lexicus]

Seriously show some sort of data that people who follow Fox News or Breitbart have committed terrorist attacks against the USA. There have been several terrorist attacks conducted by individuals who came from the seven countries listed in the travel ban.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

“Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists,” said Dr. Kurzman, whose study is to be published by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security and the Police Executive Research Forum.

John G. Horgan, who studies terrorism at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, said the mismatch between public perceptions and actual cases had become steadily more obvious to scholars.

“There’s an acceptance now of the idea that the threat from jihadi terrorism in the United States has been overblown,” Dr. Horgan said. “And there’s a belief that the threat of right-wing, antigovernment violence has been underestimated.”

Of course, I don't advocate deporting people en masse to deal with something that has a very low chance of killing me relative to a car accident. I'm just using your logic for the sake of argument.