Democrats: Here's who's to blame for overturning of Roe...

[meaner gene]

binding precedent,

It's binding.....until it isn't.

Shouldn't it take a bigger majority to overturn "settled law" than to create it?

 

[Missourian]

From just about this time last year... Somebody with a D after their name actually gets it...


 Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said Sunday he regrets that his party opened the door to changing the filibuster, even as he sounded open to changing it further to exempt voting rights legislation from the 60-vote legislative threshold.

When asked whether President Biden should support eliminating the filibuster, Warner pointed out that Democratic leadership in the Senate was the first in 2013 to enact what's been dubbed the "nuclear option."

"I would wish we wouldn’t even have started this a decade ago. When the Democratic leaders actually changed the rules, I don’t think we would have the Supreme Court we did if we still had a 60-vote margin on the filibuster, but we are where we are," Warren told host Martha McCallum on "Fox News Sunday."

Warner regrets Harry Reid's filibuster change: 'I wish we wouldn't even have started this'

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said his own party is to blame as Republicans have mounted a filibuster to reject the effort to begin debate on the massive, bipartisan infrastructure bill – pointing out that Democratic leadership in the Senate were the ones in 2013 to enact the so-called “nuclear option.”

www.foxnews.com

 

[Missourian]

Shouldn't it take a bigger majority to overturn "settled law" than to create it.

Wrong is wrong.

There is no Constitutional right to abortion.

If you can find it...post it here.

If you can make the Constitution say what you want it to say...then it doesn't say anything at all.

 

[meaner gene]

 Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said Sunday he regrets that his party opened the door to changing the filibuster, even as he sounded open to changing it further to exempt voting rights legislation from the 60-vote legislative threshold.

That alone wasn't the cause. We've seen a republican party that puts party over the American people they serve. Look how long the republicans kept the supreme court empty, rather than give the democrats a chance to fill a court vacancy.

From the district courts, to circuit appeals, republicans would rather see justice delayed, than let democrats fill the vacancy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Shouldn't it take a bigger majority to overturn "settled law" than to create it?

If you can find that in the Constitution, I'll have to agree.........ping me when you find it

 

[Missourian]

meaner gene ... and don't think it goes unnoticed that you have ignored the original post in this thread.

Do you agree that it was unbelievably shortsighted for Obama and Harry Reid to nuke the filibuster?

And that we would likely not be having this conversation if that decision had not been made?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That alone wasn't the cause. We've seen a republican party that puts party over the American people they serve. Look how long the republicans kept the supreme court empty, rather than give the democrats a chance to fill a court vacancy.

From the district courts, to circuit appeals, republicans would rather see justice delayed, than let democrats fill the vacancy.

That alone wasn't the cause. We've seen a republican party that puts party over the American people they serve.

Yeah, they screwed up when they borked Bork, eh?

Look how long the republicans kept the supreme court empty, rather than give the democrats a chance to fill a court vacancy.

I agree, they shouldn't have done that to Estrada.

From the district courts, to circuit appeals, republicans would rather see justice delayed, than let democrats fill the vacancy.

Thankfully, the dems are above that, right?

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong is wrong.

There is no Constitutional right to abortion.

If you can find it...post it here.

I can do you one better. There is no constitutional right to VOTE.

Does that mean a state can choose NOT to hold elections? Or (before the amendments stopping it) choose who gets to vote and who doesn't?

 

[Missourian]

That alone wasn't the cause. We've seen a republican party that puts party over the American people they serve. Look how long the republicans kept the supreme court empty, rather than give the democrats a chance to fill a court vacancy.

From the district courts, to circuit appeals, republicans would rather see justice delayed, than let democrats fill the vacancy.

The Democrats refused to compromise. They wanted ideologues.

The 60 vote rule allowed for a more modest swing in ideologies from BOTH sides.

The Democrats made a huge gamble and lost big-time.

What you are witnessing is the culmination of the failure of that wager.

 

[meaner gene]

If you can find that in the Constitution, I'll have to agree.........ping me when you find it

Not everything is explicitly in the constitution, nor need it be.

Find executive privilege anywhere in the constitution. I'll wait.

Yet, you won't deny, such a right exists.

Strange HUH !!!

 

[Missourian]

I can do you one better. There is no constitutional right to VOTE.

Does that mean a state can choose NOT to hold elections? Or (before the amendments stopping it) choose who gets to vote and who doesn't?

Yet, I can find the right to vote...those exact words... The right to vote... in the text of the 14th Amendment.

Where is the right to an abortion?

 

[meaner gene]

The Democrats refused to compromise. They wanted ideologues.

The 60 vote rule allowed for a more modest swing in ideologies from BOTH sides.

The Democrats made a huge gamble and lost big-time.

What you are witnessing is the culmination of the failure of that wager.

If you look at judicial nominations, it's republicans who choose ideologies contrary to the majority of the people. Look at republican USSC justice votes, they nominate judges like Bork and Estrada, and look at the votes for Thomas, Kavanaugh and Bryan. They couldn't get 60 votes if they tried, because they were dangerous ideologues.

But on the democrat side, you won't find justices ramrodded into office.
Kagan's nomination was confirmed by a 63–37
The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68–31

And those were the close ones

Ginsburg Confirmed by the Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 96-3.

 

[Missourian]

Not everything is explicitly in the constitution, nor need it be.

Find executive privilege anywhere in the constitution. I'll wait.

Yet, you won't deny, such a right exists.

Strange HUH !!!

Is executive privilege a right?

I've never thought of it as such.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not everything is explicitly in the constitution, nor need it be.

Find executive privilege anywhere in the constitution. I'll wait.

Yet, you won't deny, such a right exists.

Strange HUH !!!

I won't deny, all you need is a majority vote to overrule "settled law".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you look at judicial nominations, it's republicans who choose ideologies contrary to the majority of the people. Look at republican USSC justice votes, they nominate judges like Bork and Estrada, and look at the votes for Thomas, Kavanaugh and Bryan. They couldn't get 60 votes if they tried, because they were dangerous ideologues.

But on the democrat side, you won't find justices ramrodded into office.
Kagan's nomination was confirmed by a 63–37
The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68–31

And those were the close ones

Ginsburg Confirmed by the Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 96-3.

If you look at judicial nominations, it's republicans who choose ideologies contrary to the majority of the people. Look at republican USSC justice votes, they nominate judges like Bork and Estrada,

They were both obviously qualified.

and look at the votes for Thomas, Kavanaugh and Bryan. They couldn't get 60 votes if they tried,

Because the dems opposing them were dangerous ideologues

But on the democrat side, you won't find justices ramrodded into office.
Kagan's nomination was confirmed by a 63–37
The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68–31

Because the Republicans believed a President should get his nominees barring a dramatic disqualificiation.

Ginsburg Confirmed by the Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 96-3.

Yes. And then the Dems finally poisoned the well.

 

[Missourian]

If you look at judicial nominations, it's republicans who choose ideologies contrary to the majority of the people. Look at republican USSC justice votes, they nominate judges like Bork and Estrada, and look at the votes for Thomas, Kavanaugh and Bryan. They couldn't get 60 votes if they tried, because they were dangerous ideologues.

But on the democrat side, you won't find justices ramrodded into office.
Kagan's nomination was confirmed by a 63–37
The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68–31

And those were the close ones

Ginsburg Confirmed by the Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 96-3.

I don't think I would reach the samee conclusion that you have.

These are Republicans accommodating Democrats. Reaching across the aisle in the way Republicans have for as long as I can remember.

Democrats...not so much.

Thomas, and Kavanaugh confirmations were abhorrent...but exactly what we've come to expect from undisciplined Democrats. The ends justify the means...it should be the DNC motto.

And eventually we got sick of it.

Now we fight fire with fire.

And suddenly I'm happy!

Republicans are winning.

You want things back to the old ways...make the first move.

Or, if you want to escalate...that will work equally well.

 

[whitehall]

Why do lefties spend time and energy reliving RvW while the freaking Country is going down the drain? The world is upside down when the Biden administration (and the minions in the media) tell Americans "the border is closed" while we see criminals wading across the river and dying in freaking tractor trailers. What are we supposed to believe when a rich doddering old fool tells Americans to tough it out because energy prices ain't coming down in the near future? Are we supposed to worry about the decision that put abortion back in the hands of the people while the Country goes down the drain? Grow the fuk up lefties and deal what's wrong with the Country in the short time you have left in the majority.

 

[meaner gene]

Is executive privilege a right?

I've never thought of it as such.

If not, it could never be invoked.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

We have never experienced the silence from a major party that we are experiencing now.
The leader of the Republican Party may be in trouble with the law. Trump surely is in trouble with the voters. Yet not one Republican in Washington is coming to the defense of Trump in the media. Republicans are totally silent on the issues involving their leader.
Not one Republican wants to be sworn in to testify for the defense of Trump in Jan. 6 committee hearings. The very opposite is happening. Republicans are avoiding the hearings for fear they may be indicted. Several Trump allies in his weird stolen election scheme have pleaded the Fifth.

ABC reports "On June 24, the Supreme Court's smallest-possible majority struck down the long-standing Roe v. Wade ruling, which had for five decades guaranteed a right to access abortion. It was a rare instance of the court restricting rights it had previously extended via the Constitution.

"Roe's reversal was partly possible because of the votes of the court's three most recent justices, all of whom were appointed for life by President Donald Trump -- himself elected by a minority of the population. He lost the popular vote and was confirmed by Senate Republicans representing roughly 43 percent of the country."

The problem is, our Constitution gave too much power to the smaller states, meaning states with small populations. Americans who live in states with large populations have less power and less representation than those Americans who live in states with smaller populations.

What does this mean exactly? It means the farmer in Montana has more political power, more government influence than the doctor in California. The problem becomes more acute with the realization that, generally speaking, the doctor in California is going to have more education and be more informed than the farmer in Montana.

Republican leaders are not dumb, and they are taking full advantage of their less educated, less informed, voters. Because they are largely uninformed and not fully cognizant of events around them, grassroots Republicans are largely unaware of what is being done in their name. All they know is, they are loyal followers of Donald Trump. Most of them know very little about Trump's attempt to overthrow the elected government.

Here is one example of the problem. There are many others.

Technically speaking, our President is not chosen by the American people. He is voted into office by the electors in the Electoral College in accordance with our Constitution. The number of electors each state has is the total of its Senators and representatives.

California has a total population of a little more than 39 million. California has 55 electors. Montana has a population of little more than a million. Montana has three electors.

When you divide the population by the number of electors, each elector in Montana represents 333,333 Americans. Each elector in California represents 709,090 Americans. The farmer in Montana has over twice the representation than the doctor in California. That is how Trump became our President in 2016 even though he lost the popular vote cast by the American people.

This becomes all the more serious when one realizes that the doctor has a college education and, generally speaking, is more informed than the farmer in Montana who has no use for a college education and political awareness unless the latter has something to do with farming.

 

[g5000]

Mitch McConnell should get a little.

He didn't change the rules though. He simply made choices unpopular with Democrats within his power by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland.

He also removed the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices confirmations in retaliation for an earlier Democratic Filibuster rule change.

Um...removing the filibuster IS changing the rules!

And it's funny how you neglected to point out McConnell's blazing hypocrisy by refusing to confirm Garland because it was a presidential election year, and yet he confirmed TWO judges in the next presidential election year.

So, yeah. It's McConnell's fault. Bigly.