What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (3 Viewers)

No.

Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back....without approval of the SCOTUS.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish- said:
Wrong again.   Reid didn't mess with SC appointments, nor did he deny a confirmation hearing based on a false claim that SC justices aren't seated in election years.
Click to expand...
I said he started, you reap what you sow. They thought she was going to win, they did not put up much of a fight. But you know what, it doesn't matter we won and the left lost. 5-4 solid for decades. rather see 6-3 or 7-2. Don't trust Roberts, although he did help the cause in the long run. Democrats still have Obamacare hanging around their necks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
No.

Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.
Click to expand...
Can you list the parts of Obamacare that were done via executive order?

 
Opie said:
No.

Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.
Click to expand...
Yeah but we have 6 more years almost, until Ivanka or Nikki break the glass ceiling. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
Oh no....that disaster is ALLL yours!
Click to expand...
You should probably read the obamacare thread to get a clear picture of my opinions on it.  I was far from a fan.  Still don't like it...it's not the right answer and it keeps getting worse because the GOP can't get out of their own way and remove it.

None of that matters though.  You said my comment about your bar is incorrect.  It's precisely correct in the context you established because Obamacare wasn't passed via executive order just like the tax cuts weren't.  The problem is with your bar....it's inaccurately set by any measure of "truth".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
No.

The Democrats govern from the courts.  They cannot pass legislation so they try to pack the courts with left-leaning judges that will uphold any silly-### EO that a Democrat POTUS implements.  It is the only way that the Left seems to be able to get "things done".
Click to expand...
I can point to numerous instances of conservative judicial activism, including Scalia deciding that half of the words in the Second Amendment should just be ignored.  Was that following the Constitution?

 
Qanon said:
Remember Pelosi, we have to pass it before we can read it. 
Click to expand...
That's a misquote, a mischaracterization of what was said and the context in which she said it.  It's not like she kept the bill literally behind closed doors and prevented others from reading it until it was time to vote on it.  You're thinking of Paul Ryan.    
By the standards you hold others to in threads you participate in, you wold be screaming for them to produce links and calling them liars over what you've done here.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't understand this one.  Was somebody's high school era an issue and I missed it?
Click to expand...
A major party candidate for president spent years claiming the current person in the position wasn't born in the country and therefore wasn't lawfully in office.  During the campaign, the candidate accused the father of another candidate of participating in the JFK assassination and got a magazine publisher friend to print a fake story supporting it.  Also spent a lot of time making fun of others' appearances and mannerisms, including mocking a reporter with a disability.  Promised to put the other major party candidate in jail.  
There was a LOT more crap like this.  That was just the stuff off the top of my head.  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
That's a misquote, a mischaracterization of what was said and the context in which she said it.  It's not like she kept the bill literally behind closed doors and prevented others from reading it until it was time to vote on it.  You're thinking of Paul Ryan.    
By the standards you hold others to in threads you participate in, you wold be screaming for them to produce links and calling them liars over what you've done here.
Click to expand...
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

Pelosi: Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/17/david_gregory_asks_pelosi_about_pass_the_bill_so_you_can_find_out_whats_in_it_comment.html

David Gregory Asks Pelosi About "Pass The Bill So You Can Find Out What's In It" Comment

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/

Video of the Week: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"

 
The Z Machine said:
Is there a path back to normalcy for SCOTUS nominations, or are we stuck with this abomination forever?
Click to expand...
As long as it is not a Democrat POTUS doing the appointing...THIS is the new norm.

Hell....this may be low tide if President Trump gets to appoint another one!

 
Qanon said:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

Pelosi: Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/17/david_gregory_asks_pelosi_about_pass_the_bill_so_you_can_find_out_whats_in_it_comment.html

David Gregory Asks Pelosi About "Pass The Bill So You Can Find Out What's In It" Comment

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/

Video of the Week: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"
Click to expand...
Did you say Pelosi said "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"?  
Or did you say Pelosi said "we have to pass it before you can read it"? 

 
The Z Machine said:
Is there a path back to normalcy for SCOTUS nominations, or are we stuck with this abomination forever?
Click to expand...
Only thing I see potentially solving the problem is installing term limits on SCOTUS justices and staggering their terms of service so there's one new justice for each two-year session of Congress.  But GLLLL getting the two major parties as they stand now to agree on that.  

So, I'd bet on "stuck with this abomination forever".

 
IvanKaramazov said:
fatness said:
Did she say what this paper was about, or make an accusation?
Click to expand...
Nope.  Just innuendo.  
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.

This is all I can find that she said:

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in a statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
Click to expand...
I don't see innuendo there, nor anything to apologize for. That's a pretty bland statement.

 
Opie said:
Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back....
Click to expand...
DACA has proven to be very hard to roll back.

----

Also, just heard that the letter we've heard about was when Kavanaugh was 17 and allegedly locked a similar age girl in a room (which she subsequently left) and, in the process, made her feel uncomfortable.

If true, what an asinine fishing trip/headline troll job here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness said:
No, I meant a credible link.
Click to expand...
The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible.  Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there.  Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here.   It's all a wisp of air.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible.  Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there.  Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here.   It's all a wisp of air.
Click to expand...
If I may, I think the only play with whatever this letter is, and the reason Feinstein won’t let anyone find out about it, is to be used against Trump because he knew about whatever is in it and put forth Kavanaugh anyway. 

It seems to me that’s the only reason to keep it from Democrats.  To be used when it may push a vote or two against the President. In an election or impeachment. 

 
Sand said:
The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible.  Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there.  Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here.   It's all a wisp of air.
Click to expand...
I actually think you may be right about this. But I have two problems with what you wrote: 

1. fatness really is correct; Laura Ingraham is not a credible source for news reporting. During the Trump years in particular she has repeated several falsehoods. 

2. I don’t always agree with Diane Feinstein but I’ve never known her to be dishonest. For me, if  I had to name a trustworthy politician, she would be first on my list. 

So those are my two caveats. But I’m sure we’ll find out one way or another. 

 
timschochet said:
I actually think you may be right about this. But I have two problems with what you wrote: 

1. fatness really is correct; Laura Ingraham is not a credible source for news reporting. During the Trump years in particular she has repeated several falsehoods. 

2. I don’t always agree with Diane Feinstein but I’ve never known her to be dishonest. For me, if  I had to name a trustworthy politician, she would be first on my list. 

So those are my two caveats. But I’m sure we’ll find out one way or another. 
Click to expand...
1 - Anyone that goes against your narrative is not creditable, including most people here.

2 - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/8/6/367861/-
 

Is Senator Dianne Feinstein a Crook?

While Feinstein was on the military appropriations committee] the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.

Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.
Click to expand...

 
timschochet said:
I actually think you may be right about this. But I have two problems with what you wrote: 

1. fatness really is correct; Laura Ingraham is not a credible source for news reporting. During the Trump years in particular she has repeated several falsehoods. 

2. I don’t always agree with Diane Feinstein but I’ve never known her to be dishonest. For me, if  I had to name a trustworthy politician, she would be first on my list. 

So those are my two caveats. But I’m sure we’ll find out one way or another. 
Click to expand...
Ingraham is a Dartmouth girl and I can assure you her veracity is beyond reproach

Feinstein is a dolt

 
The Commish said:
Opie said:
No.

Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.
Click to expand...
Can you list the parts of Obamacare that were done via executive order?
Click to expand...
Anything?  No....because as far as Obamacare is concerned it was done via Congressional legislation, not EO.

Now, of course, one of the best examples probably ever of "governing by the courts" is our current president's approach to immigration and from what I remember you've been cheering that on like a high school cheerleader.

Don't worry, the irony wasn't lost on me...well done :thumbup:  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
A major party candidate for president spent years claiming the current person in the position wasn't born in the country and therefore wasn't lawfully in office.  During the campaign, the candidate accused the father of another candidate of participating in the JFK assassination and got a magazine publisher friend to print a fake story supporting it.  Also spent a lot of time making fun of others' appearances and mannerisms, including mocking a reporter with a disability.  Promised to put the other major party candidate in jail.  
There was a LOT more crap like this.  That was just the stuff off the top of my head.  
Click to expand...
And that was all bad, right?  Or does it become okay when your side is doing it?

 
The Z Machine said:
Is there a path back to normalcy for SCOTUS nominations, or are we stuck with this abomination forever?
Click to expand...
Sure Mitch McConnell can't live forever.  He isn't really a Sith lord.

 
fatness said:
Got a link?
Click to expand...


A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/13/brett-kavanaugh-dianne-feinstein-confidential-letter

What kind of person looks at this story and thinks "Here's something that should be reviewed by the FBI?"

 
Also, I refuse to believe that anybody would characterize something like that as "sexual misconduct," unless of course they were just trying to smear somebody in bad faith.

 
Qanon said:
1 - Anyone that goes against your narrative is not creditable, including most people here.

2 - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/8/6/367861/-
 

Is Senator Dianne Feinstein a Crook?

While Feinstein was on the military appropriations committee] the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.

Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what Feinstein is doing with this Kavanaugh mess, but this second story about corruption is utter nonsense and a perfect example of something I've referenced before with you and more broadly with right wing conspiracy theorists- the internet is so full of so many strands of information that if you look hard enough for anything you can find what you're looking for.

Appropriations committees generally don't award money to contractors directly.  They appropriate money to agencies (in this case, presumably, DOD) and then the agencies (a completely separate branch of government) choose the contractors.  And they do so under a set of very strict guidelines, under close scrutiny. As someone else put it once in response to some previous similar unsubstantiated claim of corruption: "this isn't Nam, this is government contracting. There are rules."  And when I went down the rabbit hole a bit on this one, sure enough the only allegation, found in some local Northern California blog linked from her husband's wikipedia page, is that she "lobbied Pentagon officials to support Defense projects she favored."  :rolleyes:

Also FWIW- the link you provided is to a Daily Kos user post ("community")- ie the source isn't even a blogger, it's just some random commenter- and the flawed link in the article is to a former right wing opinion writer for The Hill by the name of David Keene, not a reporter.

More generally, when someone tries to tell you someone has done something in Washington via legislation or regulation and doesn't give you a link, a cite or at least some easy way to find the documents they reference, they're almost always full of ####. Anyone remotely familiar with government or reporting on government knows that you have to do that.

Perhaps you are a real stickler for ethics in government, and you think the immediate family of high-ranking government officials should do no business whatsoever with the federal government or otherwise do anything that might appear to be a benefit from government service. That sounds good to me too. Why even risk the appearance of impropriety, right?  But if that's the case I've got some bad news for you about the current President.

 
If those are the actual details and there’s nothing else, then yeah It sounds like nothing and I’m disappointed in Feinstein. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top