scorpeao
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,524
Location: NorCal USA
Jun 25, 2014 21:04:54 GMT
|
Post by scorpeao on Feb 1, 2017 18:26:42 GMT
I hope they'll try their very best to "mess it up". You know, kind of like how the Republicans did for the past year on Garland. This. It's politics...tit for tat, turn about is fair play, you reap what you sow, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Feb 1, 2017 18:28:36 GMT
How does that solve anything? I can't take the "tit for tat" as a viable argument. We're not six.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 1, 2017 18:39:14 GMT
Um your link actually shows there ISN'T a whole lot of precedent for a SUPREME COURT nominee for lame duck presidents and the one time they did nominate someone it failed: The politifact also included lower courts as that was part of Rubio's statement and is completely false. Um, blondiec47 said, "You do realize that the precedent is for the out going president to not put a person up during an election year." as if precedent is a tradition or norm. My point is that there's NO tradition for not putting someone up, it's just that there haven't been many opportunities. I just had this argument with my father the other night. It's just an oily, slithery way of the Republican party trying to support their rationale for blocking Garland. This becomes even more evident when you see the number of lower court judges appointed. Gotcha - so the fact is it is exceedingly rare for a lame duck president to have the opportunity appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year as it's only happened once in the last 75 years (and in reality even that one seat wasn't actually vacant but an attempt at retirement) thus a "precedent" for either nominating or not nominating is unestablished. |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,927
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 1, 2017 18:47:18 GMT
I hope they'll try their very best to "mess it up". You know, kind of like how the Republicans did for the past year on Garland. This. It's politics...tit for tat, turn about is fair play, you reap what you sow, etc. Is it? Or is it simply Republicans utilizing rules put in place by Harry Reid in 2013? Politico: "Senate goes for 'nuclear option'" |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Feb 1, 2017 18:50:37 GMT
Hmm. How are we defining "lame duck"? I always thought it was the period of time between the election and the inauguration.
If we're going to extend that period of time simply because it was a foregone conclusion the President Obama would not (could not) continue, then would we refer to to him as a lame duck during his entire second term? That ain't right.
(And if the answer is "Well, he's a lame duck during the period of the campaign," that's fraught, also. We're getting to the point that the campaigns are starting to bleed into each other - and President Trump registered his intention to run again, and legally solicit donations, on the very day of his inauguration.)
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 1, 2017 18:53:29 GMT
^^^ I also thought LAME DUCK session meant the session of Congress between the election in November and the inauguration in January.
|
|
trollie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580 
|
Post by trollie on Feb 1, 2017 19:08:22 GMT
Some Republicans will say anything to justify the blocking of Garland.... shocking
|
|
scorpeao
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,524
Location: NorCal USA
Jun 25, 2014 21:04:54 GMT
|
Post by scorpeao on Feb 1, 2017 19:21:56 GMT
I don't quite understand your point, unless you're suggesting that the Trump administration might change the rules regarding the Supreme court like the democrats did for the circuit courts? |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,927
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 1, 2017 19:40:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 1, 2017 19:40:37 GMT
Hmm. How are we defining "lame duck"? I always thought it was the period of time between the election and the inauguration. If we're going to extend that period of time simply because it was a foregone conclusion the President Obama would not (could not) continue, then would we refer to to him as a lame duck during his entire second term? That ain't right. (And if the answer is "Well, he's a lame duck during the period of the campaign," that's fraught, also. We're getting to the point that the campaigns are starting to bleed into each other - and President Trump registered his intention to run again, and legally solicit donations, on the very day of his inauguration.) Well according to Merriam Webster Lame duck has 3 meanings: Definition of lame duck 1 : one that is weak or that falls behind in ability or achievement; especially, chiefly British : an ailing company 2 : an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor 3 : one whose position or term of office will soon end As president's are only allowed to serve two terms, if they are elected to a second term, they are a lame duck president: people.howstuffworks.com/lame-duck-president.htmAs discussed in the link above, sometimes their power is greater as they no longer need to worry about re-election. And just so we're clear - I'm in no way insinuating President Obama didn't have the power - not to mention obligations of the presidency during his second term - or his final year. Nor am I saying Merrick Garland shouldn't have been voted on. I was discussing the precedent (or lack thereof) of nominations during the the final year of a lame duck presidency as someone else linked to it. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueDiamond on Feb 1, 2017 19:57:48 GMT
I just find it incredible that a committee/government body can change their rules to uphold their views, i.e. the nuclear option. And I'm not talking just this instance, I mean anytime it's been used before. It just boggles my mind. I will never understand certain aspects of politics.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,927
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 1, 2017 20:07:44 GMT
I just find it incredible that a committee/government body can change their rules to uphold their views, i.e. the nuclear option. And I'm not talking just this instance, I mean anytime it's been used before. It just boggles my mind. I will never understand certain aspects of politics. That and the fact that they can vote for their own raises. That has never sat well with me. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 1, 2017 20:08:49 GMT
What GOP did to Obama over Garland was disgusting. I hope the Dems don't respond in kind. Disgusting behavior is discouraged for a reason. It lowers the standards and makes every next action more open to more disgusting behavior.dems have gone hog wild with disgusting behavior. Republicans and conservatives have exhibited horrid behavior and under the guise of being Christian when in reality they are not. Add that to all the lies you tell as well as the daily lies of your cheeto in Charge. In all this, the worst offenders have been those people, and you can put yourself right up there with the worst. |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,927
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 1, 2017 20:12:38 GMT
Hey, hey...that's "Cheeto in Chief" to you!   |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 1, 2017 20:17:04 GMT
oh, come on, now... I actually LOVE Cheetos, and now I'm not sure I'll be able to look at them quite the same way.
|
|
Jili
Pearl Clutcher
SLPea
Posts: 4,378
Jun 26, 2014 1:26:48 GMT
|
Post by Jili on Feb 1, 2017 20:18:09 GMT
Hey, hey...that's "Cheeto in Chief" to you! Wait a minute-- that's no cheeto, that's a circus peanut! |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,927
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 1, 2017 20:18:31 GMT
oh, come on, now... I actually LOVE Cheetos, and now I'm not sure I'll be able to look at them quite the same way. It's okay, they don't ALL look like The Donald.  Here's one that looks like a submarine!  |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 1, 2017 20:19:19 GMT
whew!!! My Cheeto love is unsullied.
But I have NEVER liked circus peanuts! (And now I know why!) |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,927
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Feb 1, 2017 20:22:23 GMT
Hey, hey...that's "Cheeto in Chief" to you! Wait a minute-- that's no cheeto, that's a circus peanut! True! But I thought it might be less scarring than the ones I actually found:    ETA: WTH are Circus Peanuts anyway? 'Cause, they sure aren't peanuts! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 1, 2017 20:25:14 GMT
okay, those Cheetos don't bother me (other than they're darn creepy pictures!). But they're PUFFED Cheetos, and I like the crunchy ones.
And I have NO idea what a circus peanut is. I mean I KNOW, they're a candy, but as to the specifics... (I don't want to Google it, either) How do they stay on the market, is what I REALLY want to know? Who actually BUYS them?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:15:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 20:49:47 GMT
okay, those Cheetos don't bother me (other than they're darn creepy pictures!). But they're PUFFED Cheetos, and I like the crunchy ones. And I have NO idea what a circus peanut is. I mean I KNOW, they're a candy, but as to the specifics... (I don't want to Google it, either) How do they stay on the market, is what I REALLY want to know? Who actually BUYS them?Hmmmmm no idea  Also puffed Cheeto best Cheeto |
|
Jili
Pearl Clutcher
SLPea
Posts: 4,378
Jun 26, 2014 1:26:48 GMT
|
Post by Jili on Feb 1, 2017 20:55:17 GMT
Wait a minute-- that's no cheeto, that's a circus peanut! True! But I thought it might be less scarring than the ones I actually found: ETA: WTH are Circus Peanuts anyway? 'Cause, they sure aren't peanuts! LOL! You're right, definitely less scarring!!  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:15:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 21:02:23 GMT
How does that solve anything? I can't take the "tit for tat" as a viable argument. We're not six. ITA. And this is why we need a third party. Or even a fourth one. Then they'd have to play nicely to build a consensus and get things done. The two-party system is ruining us. Save |
|
scorpeao
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,524
Location: NorCal USA
Jun 25, 2014 21:04:54 GMT
|
Post by scorpeao on Feb 1, 2017 21:33:58 GMT
Got it! I just saw the headline quoting Trump saying "go nuclear." |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Feb 1, 2017 21:38:25 GMT
Just for some levity.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Feb 1, 2017 22:14:55 GMT
How does that solve anything? I can't take the "tit for tat" as a viable argument. We're not six. That's what I keep thinking too  Let's not keep talking about wanting to be united and together and then say stuff like that which is in direct opposition of working together and being united. |
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Feb 1, 2017 23:18:09 GMT
Hey, hey...that's "Cheeto in Chief" to you! Wait a minute-- that's no cheeto, that's a circus peanut! Am I the only one who thinks that looks like Andy Rooney?  |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 1, 2017 23:39:37 GMT
I see the resemblance... it's definitely curmudgeonly! (if a circus peanut can be curmudgeonly at all, that one is it!)
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 2, 2017 0:13:03 GMT
Hey, hey...that's "Cheeto in Chief" to you! Still hard to believe that this critter is President. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 2, 2017 2:15:00 GMT
Hey, hey...that's "Cheeto in Chief" to you! Wait a minute-- that's no cheeto, that's a circus peanut! Lol! It IS a circus peanut!! Both literally and figuratively!!! |
|
Let's not keep talking about wanting to be united and together and then say stuff like that which is in direct opposition of working together and being united. 
