illinilaw08 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:44 PM) re: DeVos, Jill Stein remains a colossal moron Yep. It's the Democrats, in service of their corporate overlords, who convinced 50 Republican Senators to vote to confirm Devos. Or is she blaming this all on Hillary Clinton? As to the Biden Rule, fair enough. I'll be curious to see Brett's response to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:00 PM) Let's correct this. No one said there was an official rule, but it is called the Biden Rule. No outrage over his statement was made by the liberals when it was said. So yes, the fact is the idea is a liberal idea and it came thru this past election cycle. You'd get smashed in even a liberal court with this silliness. So you want the government to be run like Joe Biden wanted it run? And you called me a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:44 PM) re: DeVos, Jill Stein remains a colossal moron Did she delete this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:23 PM) Did she delete this? nope! https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/8290...src=twsrc%5Etfw http://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter-rea...s-confirmation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:28 PM) nope! https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/8290...src=twsrc%5Etfw http://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter-rea...s-confirmation/ Didn't show up at first for me. f***ing idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:16 PM) I'm still confused why it's okay and good to deny a President the powers of their office for at least 25% of their elected term regardless of what Joe Biden thought about it in 1992. Because of that other Kentucky case, the Brett Precedent. It has been on the alt-right/anti-government forums as long as the conspiracy theory mockumentary "Collapse." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 The political correctness police, led by Mitch McConnell, couldn't handle Warren reading a letter from Coretta Scott King about Jeff Sessions. Such snowflakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 10:12 PM) The political correctness police, led by Mitch McConnell, couldn't handle Warren reading a letter from Coretta Scott King about Jeff Sessions. Such snowflakes. McConnell needs to go away. The guy is absolutely unbearable and it just shows how stupid the people of Kentucky are to continuously vote his turkey neck ass in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) ”Plaintiff had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person…to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world,” the Manhattan suit says. “These product categories would have included, among other things, apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance,” according to the $150 million filing. Poor Melania! http://nypost.com/2017/02/06/melania-trump...-was-an-escort/ http://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-lo...-152441708.html Dems better rethink how to sell immigration plans in future Edited February 8, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) I guess I'm trying to understand what the basis is beyond "they started it!" regardless if that claim is true. Even if Biden and the Democrats had successfully blocked H.W. Bush from filling a hypothetical vacancy back in 1992, I'd still think it was wrong then and wrong in 2016. brett's said before that it was because we were in "election season." I'm not sure when the earliest campaigns started, but Ted Cruz announced in March of 2015. That means that at a minimum, we were in "election season" for nearly 50% of Obama's second term. Do we really want a standard where Presidents lose their power of appointment for that long? Do we think that should only apply when the opposition holds Congress, or do the people making the "Biden rule" argument also think that Trump should be blocked from making any appointments once the 2020 campaign starts? Where are these lines where we say that a sitting President now loses their appointment powers? If this is a legitimate ideological stance rather than just grasping at whatever paper-thin justification they can for taking unprecedented actions, they should be able to answer these sorts of questions. By the way, if there is any sort of precedent for this, any sort of "rule," it's that Presidents appointing someone to the Supreme Court during an election year is fine. One-third of all U.S. presidents appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 08:53 AM) By the way, if there is any sort of precedent for this, any sort of "rule," it's that Presidents appointing someone to the Supreme Court during an election year is fine. One-third of all U.S. presidents appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election year How many of those were in year 8? Or happened for example in 1968 after LBJ announced he wasn't running again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Judges halt NC GOP’s move to undercut governor A panel of judges has sided with North Carolina’s new Democratic governor in a growing power struggle with the Republican-led state legislature. In a brief ruling issued Wednesday, the three-judge panel of state judges placed on hold a law that would have required Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) nominees to head state Cabinet agencies to undergo confirmation hearings before the state legislature ahead of a planned hearing on Friday. The law requiring department heads to undergo confirmation hearings was one of a handful of measures Republicans passed in the weeks between McCrory’s concession and Cooper’s assuming office. A state judge had blocked another of those measures, which changed the way election boards are appointed, in December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/chr...rnor/index.html Chris Kennedy, son of RFK, to run for governor. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chri...0208-story.html Edited February 9, 2017 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 So let's see, was just at a small rally at this school, bout a hundred people, out of that group we had one student who is blocked from his wife, a couple who just wanted their parents to be able to come to their graduation, and a couple who just started graduate programs and now can't risk going home or traveling overseas for research/conference purposes for more than half a decade. Also had a guy who returned from Afghanistan last year who is sponsoring 2 Afghans to come to this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 My wife contacted both Duckworth's and Durbin's office yesterday in regards to the Elizabeth Warren stifling which she took as both sexist and racist . She spoke to someone at both offices for quite a while, and Durbin's office asked her to draft a letter and email it to them. She's a lawyer who has argued in front of the Supreme Court so her letter was well thought out and written. Nothing will obviously come of it, but it is action nonetheless from someone who never acted before. If this picks up, things will eventually change. Who knows, maybe this BS going on now was the kick in the ass we all needed. Unfortunately, at minimum, there is going to be a lot of collateral damage that can't be repaired. And that is far sadder than Ivanka's clothes made in China not being sold at Nordstrom's anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:11 PM) Ha! It's called the Biden Rule by Conservatives who are attempting to grasping to find some historical evidence to obstructing Garland. To the extent that we were in Court, the evidence of the Biden rule would, at best, be circumstantial evidence that Biden might have tried to prevent a SCOTUS appointment in 1992 had one been available. But the weight of that evidence would be lessened because what Biden would have actually done is, at best, speculative. One more time. Biden did not prevent a SCOTUS appointment in an election year because there was no vacancy in 1992. Also, you didn't respond to the comparison of the "Biden Rule" to the ACA's origins as a Republican idea in the early 90s. I never said Biden used it. I use the video as solid proof that the idea originated with him. Easy win in court there. Anything else you need clarified there? What about the origins of the ACA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:16 PM) I'm still confused why it's okay and good to deny a President the powers of their office for at least 25% of their elected term regardless of what Joe Biden thought about it in 1992. What was denied? Was he prevented from making a nomination? Nope. So it looks like his power was unaffected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) So you want the government to be run like Joe Biden wanted it run? And you called me a liberal. Given your post about your voting style you are at best an INDY. So my liberal comment really wasn't wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 01:25 PM) My wife contacted both Duckworth's and Durbin's office yesterday in regards to the Elizabeth Warren stifling which she took as both sexist and racist . She spoke to someone at both offices for quite a while, and Durbin's office asked her to draft a letter and email it to them. She's a lawyer who has argued in front of the Supreme Court so her letter was well thought out and written. Nothing will obviously come of it, but it is action nonetheless from someone who never acted before. If this picks up, things will eventually change. Who knows, maybe this BS going on now was the kick in the ass we all needed. Unfortunately, at minimum, there is going to be a lot of collateral damage that can't be repaired. And that is far sadder than Ivanka's clothes made in China not being sold at Nordstrom's anymore. Your wife should know that Warren broke the rules and was disciplined appropriately. Best of luck proving that it was sexist or racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 02:33 PM) Given your post about your voting style you are at best an INDY. So my liberal comment really wasn't wrong. You are the one showing public support for Joe Biden's plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Not sure why folks continue to feed deliberately obtuse trolls. *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 02:33 PM) Given your post about your voting style you are at best an INDY. So my liberal comment really wasn't wrong. Ha! So anyone that isn't as Conservative as you are is a liberal. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) I never said Biden used it. I use the video as solid proof that the idea originated with him. Easy win in court there. Anything else you need clarified there? What about the origins of the ACA? Nope. The issue is whether or not the Republicans engaged in unprecedented obstructionism in refusing to consider Garland because the nominee was up in an election year. The burden is on you to prove they would have. Biden's speech in 1992 is not anything other than circumstantial evidence that the Dems would have refused to consider a nominee in 1992 because there was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time. Thus, you haven't met your burden, and the Judge finds in my favor. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/p...servatives.html The Republican Congress floated the idea of a coverage mandate in response to Clinton's health care reform proposal. So by the Brett logic of politics, the Republicans should not be opposed to the mandate in the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:07 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/chr...rnor/index.html Chris Kennedy, son of RFK, to run for governor. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chri...0208-story.html He was on WGN this morning. Seemed to add nothing new and if you did not know any better, prior to Rauner, the State of Illinois was doing just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 02:31 PM) What was denied? Was he prevented from making a nomination? Nope. So it looks like his power was unaffected. They refused to even consider any nominee at all. He was effectively denied the ability to use his powers of appointment. Why is that okay? How long should it be acceptable to deny any and all appointments a President may make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts