Jump to content



Photo

Gary Johnson


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#121 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,132 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 11:03 AM

There is not a thing more reassuring about Trump selecting justices than Clinton


and not a thing more reassuring about Clinton selecting than Trump.
  • Quasar likes this

#122 Hickory Huskers

Hickory Huskers

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 11:08 AM

Hillary will likely get to appoint two or three, not one.

 

She will get to appoint Scalia's replacement, and maybe not even that because the Republicans in the Senate may just go ahead and accept Obama's nominee rather than risk one farther left from Hillary.  Perhaps Ginsburg and/or Breyer retire and/or die during Hillary's term, but the Republicans in the Senate will not confirm anybody who is nearly as far left as those two, so only one seat moves farther left. 

 

Besides, the court's decisions on abortion and gay marriage as well as many others that the right does not like are very unlikely to ever get reversed regardless of who is appointing justices, so voting for Trump just because of the Supreme Court is really shortsighted.


  • kelley likes this

#123 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 12:37 PM

She will get to appoint Scalia's replacement, and maybe not even that because the Republicans in the Senate may just go ahead and accept Obama's nominee rather than risk one farther left from Hillary.  Perhaps Ginsburg and/or Breyer retire and/or die during Hillary's term, but the Republicans in the Senate will not confirm anybody who is nearly as far left as those two, so only one seat moves farther left. 

 

Besides, the court's decisions on abortion and gay marriage as well as many others that the right does not like are very unlikely to ever get reversed regardless of who is appointing justices, so voting for Trump just because of the Supreme Court is really shortsighted.

 

It isn't shortsighted.  It is very important.  It isn't just about SCOTUS.  It includes every level of the Federal Court System.

Anyone appointed to the Supreme Court should have a record of being a strict constitutionalist.  They are their to protect the constitution not legislate from the bench.


  • CityBoy likes this

#124 Hickory Huskers

Hickory Huskers

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 12:51 PM

It isn't shortsighted.  It is very important.  It isn't just about SCOTUS.  It includes every level of the Federal Court System.

Anyone appointed to the Supreme Court should have a record of being a strict constitutionalist.  They are their to protect the constitution not legislate from the bench.

 

Yes, it is important, but it takes 60 Senators to allow a court nominee to come up to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.  No strict constitutionalist is going to get confirmed regardless of who is President, so it is shortsighted to base a Presidential vote entirely or even mostly on who they will nominate as judges.  

 

The judges argument is one that the Trump campaign is selling to gullible voters who don't understand how big of a role the Senate plays in who can and can't end up on the bench.


  • kelley likes this

#125 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,132 posts

Posted 10 November 2016 - 03:11 PM

Last word on the election from our national chair Nicholas Sarwark following the blame for Hillary losing key states being placed on third-party candidates:

"Your tears are delicious and your parties will die."

Not the posture I've taken or the words I would have chosen, but now that he mentions it, yeah.
  • GrumpyGranny, Quasar and MoeMomma like this

#126 Hickory Huskers

Hickory Huskers

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts

Posted 10 November 2016 - 04:31 PM

I think it's a false premise that the absence of third-party candidates would have changed the outcome.

 

I voted for Gary Johnson.  If he hadn't been on the ballot I probably would have left President blank.  If a gun had been held to my head and I was forced to pick between Trump and Hillary I probably would have voted for Trump.  I'm guessing there are at least enough 3rd party voters who would have picked Trump over Hillary that the outcome wouldn't have changed.  Depending on which states, Hillary needed at least two states to change to win.


  • kelley likes this

#127 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 11 November 2016 - 09:44 AM

Last word on the election from our national chair Nicholas Sarwark following the blame for Hillary losing key states being placed on third-party candidates:

"Your tears are delicious and your parties will die."

Not the posture I've taken or the words I would have chosen, but now that he mentions it, yeah.

Folks who try to blame a political loss on the 3rd party candidates just don't get it.
I was watching MSNBC this morning and Michael Moore gave a stunning analysis of the Michigan presidential vote results.
Moore said that in the Detroit area alone, where Democrats represent 75% of the registered voters, there were roughly 90,000 ballots in which votes were cast for every office and every ballot initiative but NO VOTE for the presidential race. That shows a stunning lack of confidence in the candidate that the Democratic party offered.
Clinton only lost Michigan by approximately 13,500 votes. 
If a clip of his appearance shows up on YouTube, I´ll post it.

  • kelley likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users