• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Zorba said:
The states picked the republican senate and president. Any attempt to claim the people did is dishonest. Not that this will stop you, Republicans love to claim they have a mandate from the people whole receiving a minority of the votes.
Click to expand...
Each senator was elected by a popular vote in his or her respective state, so they are selected by the people. The president is elected by the states. The number of people voting doesn't enter the equation as long as the nonvoters weren't suppressed.
 
Greenman said:
Each senator was elected by a popular vote in his or her respective state, so they are selected by the people. The president is elected by the states. The number of people voting doesn't enter the equation as long as the nonvoters weren't suppressed.
Click to expand...

You realize that only one-third are up for vote every two years. They serve 6 year terms. To not understand this is disingenuous, but hey you’ll troll on. But the States populations are not equal. A guy who gets 100,000 votes is equally as powerful as one who got 10,000,000 votes. Who represents “the people?” The numbers don’t lie. Yes it is our system, but do not say that a system meant to give people who wanted to leave the country a bone to stay in is fair and equitable. It is not,but is the system we have.

Edit - Please define “suppressed.” Does gerrymandering and voter identification laws enter into that definition?
 
Last edited:
Zorba said:
The states picked the republican senate and president. Any attempt to claim the people did is dishonest. Not that this will stop you, Republicans love to claim they have a mandate from the people whole receiving a minority of the votes.
Click to expand...
What determines a mandate? A decisive electoral win is not necessarily a mandate. A popular vote win drawn from population centers is not a mandate. A decisive popular vote win under low voter turnout is not really a mandate either.

A mandate is when the electorate entrust a President with the legislative backing to further an agenda. Neither party has been able to meaningfully hold power long enough to further much of anything.
 
Grey_Beard said:
The Senate is a 6 year term. At any given time, only one third of the country decides. This is voting by the people. Yes people vote, but the assumption is that everyone voted, which is misleading at best. If you truly want to know what “the people” wanted, see the a House and the popular vote. The election was decided by 77,000 out of 130,000,000. Less than 50% of the “people” actually voted. Let me know what you decide to use facts and not hide behind troll bait.
Click to expand...
The facts are that both parties understand the rules of the game, make excuses for their losses rather than learn from them and assert mandates that don’t exist.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Gosh i'm sorry Starbuck, you don't seem to understand that Republicans are always evil and wicked and Democrats are always pure and sweet and perfect. That even though Ted Kennedy /Joe Biden and other Democrats went far beyond the established norms to attack nominee Judge Bork that somehow and someway it's the Republicans fault for it. And when Reid exercised the nuke option for judicial nominees it was also the evil and wicked Republicans fault because Democrats are always honest and truthful and only want what's good for everyone and as "we" all know the Republicans are nasty and evil.

The same for the "high-tech lynching" of Judge Thomas by the Democrats and the smears and lies about Judge Kavanaugh by the Democrats. The Democrats have been swimming in the judicial cesspool of their own making for decades, but they want to blame it on Republicans.
Click to expand...

Bork failed the vote. He did get one, unlike Garland.
 
brandonbull said:
Of course it would. If things don't go the way that Progressheviks want, it's time to burn everything down. Nancy Pelosi threatening impeachment for Trump trying to exercise his Constitutionally granted power and it is another backdoor attempt at controlling the Senate. Plus, the Democrats are the party of the rich and elitists and only have contempt for the average American regardless of race and fancy themselves as superior all the while Nancy is getting duped by a hair stylist.
Click to expand...
How is this burning everything down? Just like its within the rights of Republicans to nominate and confirm a supreme court judge now, and just like it was within the rights of republicans to block Obama's nomination, if the Dems win back the senate and the presidency, it will be within their rights to expand the court. The Supreme Court hasn't always consisted of 9 members. The size has changed in the past. If republicans refuse to follow norms, why should democrats?

Republicans are deciding to act against the new norms they established just four years ago, a decision that is highly unfavorable amongst voters. They will pay the political bill for that decision, whatever it ends up being. It may be giving democrats enough political capital to expand the supreme court.

I'm not sure what to say to the rest of your post, just sounds like you're channeling your inner Trump.
 
mect said:
How is this burning everything down? Just like its within the rights of Republicans to nominate and confirm a supreme court judge now, and just like it was within the rights of republicans to block Obama's nomination, if the Dems win back the senate and the presidency, it will be within their rights to expand the court. The Supreme Court hasn't always consisted of 9 members. The size has changed in the past. If republicans refuse to follow norms, why should democrats?

Republicans are deciding to act against the new norms they established just four years ago, a decision that is highly unfavorable amongst voters. They will pay the political bill for that decision, whatever it ends up being. It may be giving democrats enough political capital to expand the supreme court.

I'm not sure what to say to the rest of your post, just sounds like you're channeling your inner Trump.
Click to expand...

Brandonbullshit is just full of it. The "burn it down" crowd went balls deep for trump in 2016, now it's just projection that others are gonna "burn it down". He's a typical mentally defective american.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
What determines a mandate? A decisive electoral win is not necessarily a mandate. A popular vote win drawn from population centers is not a mandate. A decisive popular vote win under low voter turnout is not really a mandate either.

A mandate is when the electorate entrust a President with the legislative backing to further an agenda. Neither party has been able to meaningfully hold power long enough to further much of anything.
Click to expand...

Include that in your dictionary tho, cuz it's not necessarily accurate. All those things you said aren't mandates can actually be included in the accepted English dictionary definition of mandate. Maybe Google it.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
The facts are that both parties understand the rules of the game, make excuses for their losses rather than learn from them and assert mandates that don’t exist.
Click to expand...

Just because they understand does not make it fair. If we are to truly have “equal” representation, then we should. Gerrymandering should be illegal, as this does not promote “equal.” Until both sides play “fair,” then no sides should. One side is better rigging the “system” to their benefit. Just because you think of it first or do it, does not mean it right to do it. I guess since the local 7-11 skims credit cards and the issuers let them because it less costly to eat the cost than fight the war, makes this a solid capitalistic practice, right, regardless of who it hurts or who actually pays for it. Sounds like your trying to say something is okay because, “...if I don’t do it, then they will” argument, aka BOTH SIDES, REASONS!
 
Greenman said:
Each senator was elected by a popular vote in his or her respective state, so they are selected by the people. The president is elected by the states. The number of people voting doesn't enter the equation as long as the nonvoters weren't suppressed.
Click to expand...
What sense does it make to have a state with 39,000,000 people have 2 Senators like a state with 597,000?

Yes I know the Constitution but does it make sense? How about some proportion? Let's say 6-2?
 
Sonikku said:
The GoP always picks the most partisan Judges they can get. Garlond in contrast was a moderate liked by moth parties. Mitch didn't give him a hearing though because he didn't want a moderate. He wanted a partisan hack that would rubber stand the GoP agenda. I hope the Dems get a clue and figure out they need to do the same but on their own end of the spectrum if they want to balance it out, but I doubt they will. Which is ironic because the common consensus amongst joe blow is the Dems are always bad in equal measure to Repubs.
Click to expand...

Its amazing they get their nominees through confirmation then, isnt it?
 
blackangst1 said:
Remind me again the party that changed the rules in 2013 when they were majority to disallow filibusters for SCOTUS nominations?

Beware unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Again, they did not change them for the SCOTUS. Republicons did it in anticipation of the Democrats doing the same back to them. Facts seem to allude you.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Gosh i'm sorry Starbuck, you don't seem to understand that Republicans are always evil and wicked and Democrats are always pure and sweet and perfect. That even though Ted Kennedy /Joe Biden and other Democrats went far beyond the established norms to attack nominee Judge Bork that somehow and someway it's the Republicans fault for it. And when Reid exercised the nuke option for judicial nominees it was also the evil and wicked Republicans fault because Democrats are always honest and truthful and only want what's good for everyone and as "we" all know the Republicans are nasty and evil.

The same for the "high-tech lynching" of Judge Thomas by the Democrats and the smears and lies about Judge Kavanaugh by the Democrats. The Democrats have been swimming in the judicial cesspool of their own making for decades, but they want to blame it on Republicans.
Click to expand...
Not all Democrats.
Grey_Beard said:
Again, they did not change them for the SCOTUS. Republicons did it in anticipation of the Democrats doing the same back to them. Facts seem to allude you.
Click to expand...
When you escalate and then draw lines in the sand, don’t complain when your opponent chooses to cross them.
 
Grey_Beard said:
Again, they did not change them for the SCOTUS. Republicons did it in anticipation of the Democrats doing the same back to them. Facts seem to allude you.
Click to expand...

Facts dont allude me at all. I posted the timeline of these crazy filibuster/court nomination rules several posts back. Reading is fundamental.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Not all Democrats.
When you escalate and then draw lines in the sand, don’t complain when your opponent chooses to cross them.
Click to expand...

Escalate? Lines in the sand? Is this the schoolyard you hoped it would be? So when someone stops you from entering a street or does not allow you leave an area, you just stand there and allow it happen? Oh yeah, you accept that when you push back you get beat down. Nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top