-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Will Republicans Keep the Senate?
- Thread starter StefanM
- Start date
...and his mouth, don't forget that mouth....
He seems to be getting better. We'll see if it sticks.
You're like a guy who was smoking while standing in a big puddle of gasoline. And, then you say, "Don't worry, it's more like water". With any luck, we won't get to test you theory about the Jew selected by the most Liberal president in US history.
If you don't see the difference between center-left and far left, that's not something I can address.
Orrin Hatch recommended Garland by name. I'm pretty sure that means he's not RBG 2.0.
You think Congress would keep a Supreme Court seat open for four years (they should, but the media would roast them for it). Even if Congress did this, Hillary already has 4 Activists in her pocket, which is enough to stop 100% of constitutional rulings (aside from the broken clock phenomenon), just not enough to overturn the occasional constitutional ruling by the lower courts.
Queen Hillary limited to executive orders? I wish. But, if Congress and Hillary are in stalemate, the media roasts Congress and Congress caves.
We're in this mess because Republicans have let neoconservatives lead the party for decades. Our enemy isn't in the middle-east, it's the Left. And, the Left has been focused on the Right as their enemy for decades.
They wouldn't, but they could insist that the nominee be a centrist and old. It'll be a win-some, lose-some scenario, but that's better than a total defeat.
TCassidy, aren't you still in CA (even if in the southern part)? Aren't you hoping Loretta can take out that communist Kamala Harris? Harris is awful, only hear bad things about her.
Rubio will probably be able to pull it off, even after everything. Toomey is in a bit of trouble, he could sill win another term, it's NH and WI that I'm worried about, and IN only because the Dems are running a Bayh. Hairy Reed's open seat is likely to flip, though.
I don't know - D gain of +4 is my guess at a glance.
This is an iffy strategy, because if Hillary wins, she will be the one to appoint Scalia's successor and that person be able to be confirmed easily, even if the Senate doesn't flip because the GOP has made this appointment a referendum on this one SCOTUS vacancy. Hillary and her MSM can just say she won the election, so she won this ability.
If the Senate does turn, it will probably turn back in 2018 unless amnesty is already in full force. It's not just about Scalia any more, Breyer and RBG are both getting on in years as well.
Rubio will probably be able to pull it off, even after everything. Toomey is in a bit of trouble, he could sill win another term, it's NH and WI that I'm worried about, and IN only because the Dems are running a Bayh. Hairy Reed's open seat is likely to flip, though.
I don't know - D gain of +4 is my guess at a glance.
This is an iffy strategy, because if Hillary wins, she will be the one to appoint Scalia's successor and that person be able to be confirmed easily, even if the Senate doesn't flip because the GOP has made this appointment a referendum on this one SCOTUS vacancy. Hillary and her MSM can just say she won the election, so she won this ability.
If the Senate does turn, it will probably turn back in 2018 unless amnesty is already in full force. It's not just about Scalia any more, Breyer and RBG are both getting on in years as well.
It's hard for Congress to know where a judge stands. Most liberal appellate judges would appear relatively moderate. Unless they're reckless, they don't want to issue ruling that they know will be overturned by the Supreme Court. And, judges like Garland issue rulings with two other judges as a unified block, overriding and concealing any one judge's differing position.
Hillary (or her people) could talk to a number of judges to find out where they really stand. She'd then appoint a Liberal who would sell himself to Congress as a moderate.
100% of the Jewish judges appointed by Democrats to the Supreme Courts have been Liberal Activists. Going by history and and Obama's liberalism, Garland is Mr. Ginsburg.
Congress should demand a Protestant (which have no representation on the Supreme Court), not from a liberal denomination, with a moderate record on the bench. (Yes, I know, no one in Congress would dare suggest "diversity" include Protestants).
While you're on this subject, YES, I'd love to see someone on SCOTUS that wasn't a Jew or a Catholic (not a Muslim, so no Hillary appointing BHO):.
Breyer - Jew
Roberts - Catholic
RBG - Jews
Kennedy - Catholic
Kagan - Jew
Thomas - Catholic
Sotomayor - Catholic
Alito - Catholic
Jimmuh was right years ago, too many Jews (and Catholics).
Breyer - Jew
Roberts - Catholic
RBG - Jews
Kennedy - Catholic
Kagan - Jew
Thomas - Catholic
Sotomayor - Catholic
Alito - Catholic
Jimmuh was right years ago, too many Jews (and Catholics).
Like he said...."Closet Atheist"
Exactly. As polls indicated in the primaries, Americans were more willing to vote for a self-avowed socialist or a homosexual than an atheist. Atheism is a non-starter at the Presidential level.
He may also be agnostic, which would have the same effect. Even if he is a theist, the UCC (to which he belonged) isn't exactly the paragon of orthodox theology. He would likely be a process theist, if a theist at all.
This is all just conjecture, but I think it's a realistic possibility.
I laughed out loud when I read that.
Seriously? He just accused Obama of creating ISIS. When a conservative commentator tried to reframe his comments with him to sound like a sane person - not a lunatic - he rejected the idea that Obama created the conditions for ISIS and claimed that Obama actually formed ISIS.
Trump lost my confidence a long, long time ago, but I know a few Trump supporters who are now reconsidering their choices.
1.) I get quite concerned when someone negatively refers to another human being as "the Jew." What do you mean by that - and I mean, get specific. If you don't like his/her policies, that's fine, but what does being Jewish have to do with anything? The only people I know who talk like that were associated with the KKK in deep Southeast Texas, where I grew up. Are you a member of any sort of Klan, "Patriot" or neo-Nazi group?
2.) I don't think Obama is the most liberal President in US history, but of course, it all depends on what you mean by "liberal." Since you inexplicably capitalized it, I suspect you mean it as an invective, not a reasoned analysis of his ideology and political motivators. Carter, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and possibly FDR were more liberal. From a policy perspective, Nixon was much more "liberal" than most people remember. The Watergate scandal overshadows everything he did as President.
One specific reason they would not demand a "Protestant" or any other religious perspective is that the Constitution specifically forbids it:
From Article Six:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Yes, he is incrementally better than before. It was really, really bad for a while. He has a long way to go, but I do think he has improved some.