Because everyone doesn't always see every thread and the search function is not very good.I really hate to play Captain Obvious, but what is the purpose of this thread when we already have one that was started last night on the same subject?
9-29-2020 debate/toddnjoyce commentary thread.
Let's discuss the most important presidential debate of multiple generations. Gonna eat and clean up supper. Set my ass down in a big comfy chair and watch DJT kick some ass. Stay tuned......www.texasguntalk.com
View attachment 228743
I really hate to play Captain Obvious, but what is the purpose of this thread when we already have one that was started last night on the same subject?
9-29-2020 debate/toddnjoyce commentary thread.
Let's discuss the most important presidential debate of multiple generations. Gonna eat and clean up supper. Set my ass down in a big comfy chair and watch DJT kick some ass. Stay tuned......www.texasguntalk.com
View attachment 228743
He wasn't dodging it at all. He flat out stated that he was not going to answer that question because he didn't want it to become an issue.
How dare you!
See post #2
Well the Supreme Court really has nothing to do with "destroying the Constitution." They don't vote on changes to it or have any input into any proposed changes. They have nothing to do with that.
She can be confirmed, (and will be confirmed), and if we lose the POTUS and majority in the Senate, the Supreme Court can do nothing about anything they pass except rule if it is against the Constitution. There are many, many things that can be done that don't require approval of the SCOTUS. Like, taxing ammunition, packing the supreme court, changing rules about filibuster in the Senate.
Yes, I guess they could.The court could still rule that the tax is overly burdensome and an infringement on 2A rights.
Unless of course it were stacked...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The court could still rule that the tax is overly burdensome and an infringement on 2A rights.
Unless of course it were stacked...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was pointed out by McConnell, IIRC in response the Democrats stacking the courts, I think it was a threat by Pelosi, that trying to stack the courts could have reverse effect in the future. What would stop the Republicans from doing the same thing at a future time to swing the momentum in the opposite direction?
Good question!
Years from now, we could have a SCOTUS with 200 judges. Then it is no longer a "Republic". IIRC, our forefathers wanted a strong Senate, a feature of a Republic, balanced by Representatives, balancing the executive power, and SCOTUS to have final say over whether laws adhere to the Constitution. Capt Obvious, hee hee, knows this has all gotten out of whack with all branches grasping and wielding excess power.
Then it isn't about what the SCOTUS stands for any longer, as they just become another political tool to be used by whomever might be currently in power.
Well said!!!
Additionally, they would no doubt develop agendas of their own (gee where did I get that thought) and the legislating from the bench would be atrocious!!!
I personally think Trump was 'jabbering' nonstop to drown out the person talking into Biden's ear.
Trying to listen to two people talking can be confusing. Biden seems to be susceptible to confusion.
What Biden failed to understand, it is within Trump's power to nominate a candidate to be considered for appointment. That is within the Constitution. Plain and simple. Nothing I remember said anything about waiting to see who gets elected, and then they get to choose the nominee for SC justice.
Interesting theory...
Unlike what the D's and MSM is saying, it is Trump's Constitutional DUTY to nominate a candidate. Impeach him? He could actually be impeached for not doing so. That said, they have set the bar so low they can impeach for anything they please now.
It is the Senate's Constitutional DUTY to consider the candidate. IMO the Repubs should have considered Garland Merrick, and voted him DOWN. It is their cowardice then that has given the D's this opportunity to cry foul. I hope McConnell stands firm. I just wish we were going strait to a vote instead of the zoo of judiciary committee hearings. They are already posturing with several D's refusing to meet with Coney-Barrett.
Nancy pulled off the "impeachment" threat the other day! She knows it's a weak attempt to counter Trump's nomination, and it could backfire on the Democrats, just like the last "impeachment"!
I really think Biden was being "handled" in some way last night. He was for the most part, pretty coherent for once.
Drugs? Bugs in his ear? I'm curious.