TomDac
former MLO owner/operator
both sides are reaching to the bottom of the barrel to try and sway and/or confuse people at the last minute.. It really is disgusting on both parties... Can't wait till it's over.
Thoughts about the FBI reopening it's case against Hillary
- Thread starter stuwee
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Bernard
Well-known member
Would someone please explain to me why Supreme Court Justices are left-leaning or right-leaning. I always thought that judges, despite being human, had to be impartial (call me naive).
Bernard
Well-known member
Touché! I never expected that response
Typically they are chosen by the president based on their history of judgments.
And then the Senate vets them based on their history of judgments which tend to show a political leaning.
Obama handed Mitch the EXACT moderate recommendation that Mitch said was a great candidate that he would never get from Obama. However the GOP had already drawn a line in the sand saying they wouldn't work with Obama. So that bird has flown. The Senate got a great recommendation that they should have taken. BUT they didn't take it so they could make a political statement.
Now that it is likely Hillary will have a Senate majority, they will likely get less moderate candidates selected.
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Mark,
That would be one of the many great ironies of this election if you are correct. Bummer Mitchie.
Reminds me of one of my favorite phrases.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
That would be one of the many great ironies of this election if you are correct. Bummer Mitchie.
Reminds me of one of my favorite phrases.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
Last edited:
Judges are expected to be objective and impartial regarding the parties to a case and the issues to be decided in particular cases. However, part of the job of the Justice is interpreting the laws and the Constitution, and deciding how it should be applied to the facts of a case. In doing so, they will consider legal precedent, but will also use their own base set of morals and policy views to decide how to interpret and apply the law. Some are naturally more conservative and some naturally more liberal, and this will have a large impact on how they interpret and apply the law, which will have a huge effect on the outcome of the case. Liberal Presidents tend to appoint liberal justices; conservatives tend to appoint conservatives. Since there are 9 Justices on a full Supreme Court, the balance of power (from a policy standpoint) tends to swing from conservative to liberal and back again over time. The rulings of the Court tend to reflect the majority viewpoint at the time the ruling is made.
That is pretty ironic, however what bothers me is what it signifies.
What they said is that we are not going to do our jobs AND we are not even willing to do our jobs when it is in our own interests and we get what we wanted because it is more important to flip off the president of the United States.
They painted themselves into a corner and paid for it. As far as I'm concerned they deserve what is coming. They are being obstructionists out of principle when it is not in the best interest of the country.
I have heard this over and over again. Fix Obamacare? No that might actually allow it to work and we can't have that! We need to waste time giving the appearance that we want to repeal Obamacare even though we know it will be veto'd so it is a futile effort. We could do work that helped this country, but it is more important to be obstructionists and make people suffer.
Last edited:
Bernard
Well-known member
Thanks for the explanation Rich.
Kevin
Well-known member
Not a single republican voted for it. Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's senate seat in very liberal Massachusetts, and his whole platform was mainly built around being the vote necessary to block its passage. Polls at the time showed the majority of the American public opposed the law. But still the democrats forced it's passage through after twisting the arms of a couple of their own members as well as using reconciliation to get around the fact that they didn't have the number of votes needed.
Many, myself included on this site, said from the beginning that it was bound to cost way more that we were being told. But still we had a president telling us that the typical family would see $2500 in savings as a result of the law, and people could keep their doctors and insurance plans if they liked them--------- period. And yes, the republicans tried to prevent this mess through many attempts to repeal it. But after all this, the republicans are being blamed for not helping to help "fix Obamacare"?
Kevin. Could we possibly blame the republicans for not being more obstructionist in this case???
. There you go- we got it covered!!
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Kevin,
One of the principal challenges, assuming the ACA is repealed, is what to do with the 12.7 million people who currently have health insurance as a result of the ACA.
Gordon
One of the principal challenges, assuming the ACA is repealed, is what to do with the 12.7 million people who currently have health insurance as a result of the ACA.
Gordon
Kevin
Well-known member
Yes, at this point in time, after years of it having taken root, I don't think repealing it would be possible without also replacing it. That is part of the problem of having haphazardly passed it through, as once an entitlement is in place, it's next to impossible to then take it away.
I don't blame the republicans for not having participated in a "fix" up to this point. However, after the election they would be wise to work on a plan, whether that involves making reforms to the current plan or just starting over with a new one. I don't see where just continuing with the current law, without changes, is much of an option at this point.
I have stayed out of the discussion of the recent FBI investigation, because it involves too much speculation at this point. I don't view Comey favorably now, because in my opinion, the investigation wasn't handled correctly from the beginning. But I don't think his breaking protocol is much of a problem, no one seemed to care much about protocol when Lynch met with Bill on an airplane, in secrecy, to discuss the 'grandkids'. All of this begins with Hillary having set up a private server from the beginning. In my opinion, any blame for all of this both starts and ends with her, to point fingers at anyone else is just once again shifting blame from the true source of the problem.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Kevin,
In total agreement with your insightful, reality based thoughts posted above.
Gordon
In total agreement with your insightful, reality based thoughts posted above.
Gordon
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Stu,
In light of Comeys clarification today, rest assured many folks who support HRC are REALLY pi$$ed off now.
Two thoughts:
1) How does this impact the Congressional elections?
2) If Trump wins, how can he (or his supporters) legitimately say that Comeys intrusion into the election did not impact the results?
Best,
Gordon
Yep, pretty much.
So re your 'legit' question. What are you saying? It was rigged?? Lol.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
It's very clear what I am asking. Sorry you don't want to or can't understand.
It's really quite simple.
If you believe DT when he says the system is rigged, I can't help you with that.
I refuse to accept paranoia or conspiracy theories as a defensible nexus for the results of this election.
It appears you do.
It's really quite simple.
If you believe DT when he says the system is rigged, I can't help you with that.
I refuse to accept paranoia or conspiracy theories as a defensible nexus for the results of this election.
It appears you do.
Last edited:
Wow. I think you are way off base. Your statement regarding the legitimacy of a Trump win in lieu of the FBIs further investigation implies that you think the FBI colluded with the Republican Party to help trump win the election. Hence 'rigged'. I see very clearly Gordon. You find Trumps claim of things being rigged ludicrous yet you are essentially claiming the intent was there to rig the election by the FBI in favor of trump over hillary
Thank goodness it will all be over soon.
Not very likely Mark, there are many folks from both parties that are angry as hell over this corrupt government BS. I include myself in this very angry group, we will be making a huge fuss over all of Hillary's many, many mistakes that she is "very sorry for". Freakin right she's sorry...sorry for not being intelligent enough about technology to understand that all this is traceable and documented.
Loretta Lynch should be up on charges along with the Clinton's...Both of them!
Gordon, my thoughts on Comey now is he was bullied into making his statement of yet again finding 'nothing' that merits further charges! Lynch is behind this along with the Clinton 'foundation'. $$$$$ talks. This foundation 'pay for play' is one of the largest money laundering schemes on the planet and highly treasonist!!
DOJ my a$$hole, department of sold to the highest bidder and a$$ kisser to further your career is more like it. I'm still amazed at how many wonderful intelligent people rally behind this corrupt government BS! I still respect Comey, I feel bad he has been neutered
The election may or may not be over tomorrow night and, no matter what happens, I want Hillary brought up on numerous charges, including Treason against the United States of America...
