Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

MeMen2_MoRi_

Reap what you sow

MeMen2_MoRi_

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That was one seat.
Democrats want to increase the number of judges by 4 from 9 to 13.
Changing a 150 year precedent basically because they want to pack the court.
Not very Democratic.

What is the timeline for a justice that was put forward and not heard?

MeMen2_MoRi_

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That was one seat.
Democrats want to increase the number of judges by 4 from 9 to 13.
Changing a 150 year precedent basically because they want to pack the court.
Not very Democratic.

You are not a democratic person.. you are anti PC. Heads up, being PC is democratic.

Edit.. And you have a newbie thank whore on your tail, happy days.

eagle eye

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote:

You are not a democratic person.. you are anti PC. Heads up, being PC is democratic.

I know loads of Democrats who don't like the PC brigade.

Manic Moran

Tell me how wrote: »

Why was it changed 150 years ago?

For the record, here's the 411 on changes.

Originally SCOTUS was six judges, four was required for a quorum.
In 1800 after losing an election, and with the resignation of the Chief Justice, John Adams nominated his replacement, then the congress (also getting thrown out) reduced the size of the court to 5, effective after the next resignation/death so Jefferson couldn't appoint anyone.

This was immediately repealed by the Jefferson administration and Congress a couple of months later, and since nobody had died or resigned, the number remained at 6.

As federal court circuits were added, first to seven, then to nine, the amount of judges was increased accordingly, by Jefferson and his Congress, then Jackson and his.

Lincoln added a tenth circuit in 1863, and with it a 10th justice, convenient for him as he wanted to overturn Dredd Scott (notorious even today slavery case). It didn't last long. After Lincoln was killed, Congress and Johnson were not seeing eye to eye, and they dropped the number back down to seven to make sure he couldn't appoint anyone. Again, as the judges were appointed for life, they couldn't be fired or forced to resign.

After Johnson was voted out and replaced by Grant, the number was returned to nine again.

Cody montana

I see a few people are angry at Joey for picking a dandelion.
I’m not joking btw.

rossie1977

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Its kind of hard to get on with trying to enact policy when you have a mainstream media out to spin every Trump story in a negative manner.

Spinning... lol

Media went extremely easy on Trump considering the amount of scandals that occurred.

Anyone else found to be paying off a porn star wouldn't last a week in the job.. imagine it was the Taoiseach. Trump the news broke and media moved onto something else few days later.

Trump also didnt seem to have any policies according to some posters on here, despite alot of his policies being similar to Democratic ones as Trump himself wasnt a real Republican.

Only a few days ago this hyperbole was posted on here

Trump certainly had no policies for his second term.

You are right though, Trump would have been relected but for Covid.
It stalled the economy and Trumps handling of it was poor, all he had to do was act Presidential but his ego prevented that.

Funny how such a useless President was so close to being relected, it took a once in a lifetime pandemic to stop him.

Actually a time of crisis usually strengthens the people's belief in the President and makes it much harder to unseat them...

weisses

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The American left was on Trumps case before he got into office.
.

You are right ... Just look at the example below...

“You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell. He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn’t represent my party. He doesn’t represents the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for. … He’s the ISIL man of the year.”

Oohhh wait ..

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

I know loads of Democrats who don't like the PC brigade.

The “PC Brigade” don’t exist.

rossie1977

Brian? wrote: »

The “PC Brigade” don’t exist.

Or cancel culture.

briany

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Its kind of hard to get on with trying to enact policy when you have a mainstream media out to spin every Trump story in a negative manner.

Hard for Trump, because he couldn't have been 100 percent focused on being president when he spent so much time on Twitter complaining about CNN and the New York Times. It wasn't all mainstream media, of course, because Trump was quite complementary about Fox News, much of the time, up until the end of Trump's term when Fox had the absolute gall to question Trump's ravings about electoral fraud.

And Trump, because he just could not keep his mouth shut, made an enemy of John McCain with needless comments about McCain's war record, and then McCain as the deciding Senate vote, scuppered Trump's health bill.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

You are right though, Trump would have been relected but for Covid.
It stalled the economy and Trumps handling of it was poor, all he had to do was act Presidential but his ego prevented that.

Funny how such a useless President was so close to being relected, it took a once in a lifetime pandemic to stop him.

If the captain of a ship unnecessarily goes to pieces when a storm is encountered, instead of just getting on the wheel, then they're not really a good captain.

Melanchthon

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Rubbish article. Par for the course for The Telegraph. The policies Murray decries aren't socialist, they are simply fairness. Rebalancing the Supreme Court - fair. Taxing the rich - fair. To point out how slavery has woven itself into white supremacy - fair. As for Biden preferring victory over calm just as Trump did, well that's just horsesh1t.

I am curious if you think this situation is fair? Isn't this the government endorsing racism?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/white-farmers-sue-seeking-government-loan-forgiveness-77397183

Professor Moriarty

Melanchthon wrote: »

I am curious if you think this situation is fair? Isn't this the government endorsing racism?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/white-farmers-sue-seeking-government-loan-forgiveness-77397183

That's racism. Good to see that they are reviewing it.

duploelabs

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Jim Acosta calling Fox News the bs factory.
The pot calling the kettle black.
People in glasshouses shouldnt throw stones.

I like the way that you acknowledged the bias of the mainstream media though.

Identify a retracted story by Jim Acosta, there are many from fox

hotmail.com

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That was one seat.
Democrats want to increase the number of judges by 4 from 9 to 13.
Changing a 150 year precedent basically because they want to pack the court.
Not very Democratic.

The amount of time in American politics and the media discussing the US Supreme Court is beyond belief.

I'm certain most ordinary Americans couldn't care less who is on the Supreme Court. It's a Washington/media/identity story that excites the extremes and ensures lots of clicks and anger. Meanwhile, ordinary people just struggling to pay their bills.

And both parties are guilty of using it as a distraction from day to day politics.

salmocab

hotmail.com wrote: »

The amount of time in American politics and the media discussing the US Supreme Court is beyond belief.

I'm certain most ordinary Americans couldn't care less who is on the Supreme Court. It's a Washington/media/identity story that excites the extremes and ensures lots of clicks and anger. Meanwhile, ordinary people just struggling to pay their bills.

And both parties are guilty of using it as a distraction from day to day politics.

For a person who used to constantly question why Irish people had an interest in talking about American politics you seem to have quite the interest yourself, it’s like you had an agenda in wanting people to not talk about the administration at that stage but now want the current one to be talked about.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record, here's the 411 on changes.

Originally SCOTUS was six judges, four was required for a quorum.
In 1800 after losing an election, and with the resignation of the Chief Justice, John Adams nominated his replacement, then the congress (also getting thrown out) reduced the size of the court to 5, effective after the next resignation/death so Jefferson couldn't appoint anyone.

This was immediately repealed by the Jefferson administration and Congress a couple of months later, and since nobody had died or resigned, the number remained at 6.

As federal court circuits were added, first to seven, then to nine, the amount of judges was increased accordingly, by Jefferson and his Congress, then Jackson and his.

Lincoln added a tenth circuit in 1863, and with it a 10th justice, convenient for him as he wanted to overturn Dredd Scott (notorious even today slavery case). It didn't last long. After Lincoln was killed, Congress and Johnson were not seeing eye to eye, and they dropped the number back down to seven to make sure he couldn't appoint anyone. Again, as the judges were appointed for life, they couldn't be fired or forced to resign.

After Johnson was voted out and replaced by Grant, the number was returned to nine again.

Yep. And right now there are 13 Federal Court circuits...

Faugheen

hotmail.com wrote: »

The amount of time in American politics and the media discussing the US Supreme Court is beyond belief.

I'm certain most ordinary Americans couldn't care less who is on the Supreme Court. It's a Washington/media/identity story that excites the extremes and ensures lots of clicks and anger. Meanwhile, ordinary people just struggling to pay their bills.

And both parties are guilty of using it as a distraction from day to day politics.

Actually ordinary Americans care a lot about the SCOTUS

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Or cancel culture.

Cancel culture absolutely exists. Mostly in America, but it has been seeping its way ever so slightly into Europe.. Mainly Britain.

salmocab

Hhhhh wrote: »

Cancel culture absolutely exists. Mostly in America, but it has been seeping its way ever so slightly into Europe.. Mainly Britain.

The phrase is so broad it’s almost meaningless. Anyone that objects to things others are objecting to, shout cancel culture without a drop of self awareness

salmocab

salmocab wrote: »

The phrase is so broad it’s almost meaningless. Anyone that objects to things others are objecting to, shout cancel culture without a drop of self awareness

It may an over used phrase yes, but it still exists. No different to how racism, homophobia, and other such terms are over used. These things still exist however.

Tell me how

Hhhhh wrote: »

Cancel culture absolutely exists. Mostly in America, but it has been seeping its way ever so slightly into Europe.. Mainly Britain.

It probably started long before the Romans tried to shut down Jesus's social media platforms, the Vikings cancelled the monks in various locations around Ireland. Henry the VIII canceled Pope Clement VII (who had tried to cancel him), Padraig Pearse and his mates cancelled the Brits and Hitler had his own cancelling agenda.

But that's not cancel culture you might say, cancel culture is when snowflake liberals in America decide they don't like something and to that I would say that George Bush tried to cancel Eminem, flag flying patriots tried to cancel French Fries, Donald Trump tried to cancel Jim Acosta and right now, Tucker Carlson is trying to cancel the wearing of masks.

It's free speech when you agree with it, 'cancel culture' when you don't.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

It probably started long before the Romans tried to shut down Jesus's social media platforms, the Vikings cancelled the monks in various locations around Ireland. Henry the VIII canceled Pope Clement VII (who had tried to cancel him), Padraig Pearse and his mates cancelled the Brits and Hitler had his own cancelling agenda.

But that's not cancel culture you might say, cancel culture is when snowflake liberals in America decide they don't like something and to that I would say that George Bush tried to cancel Eminem, flag flying patriots tried to cancel French Fries and right now, Tucker Carlson is trying to cancel the wearing of masks.

It's free speech when you agree with it, 'cancel culture' when you don't.

Indeed cancel culture in its modern form started with McCarthyism in the 60's, and in the 90s there were attempts 'cancel' Eminem and Marilyn Manson by, in particular, the religious right.

Unfortunately, in even more recent times the progressive left have taken up the mantra and have been far more successful then they're 90's counterparts, and are making a good go at taking McCarthyists crown.

Tell me how

Hhhhh wrote: »

Indeed cancel culture in its modern form standard with McCarthyism in the 60's, and in the 90s there were attempts 'cancel' Eminem and Marilyn Manson by, in particular, the religious right.

Unfortunately, in even more recent times the progressive left have taken up the mantra and have been far more successful then they're 90's counterparts, and are making a good go at taking McCarthyists crown.

Can you give examples of cancel culture by the progressive left that you think are ridiculous.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you give examples of cancel culture by the progressive left that you think are ridiculous.

I can, but I suspect no matter how many examples will be given, there will still be a denial that it is a thing or endless excuses.

Donald McNeill is a recent example. Excuse away

Cody montana

Tell me how wrote: »

It probably started long before the Romans tried to shut down Jesus's social media platforms, the Vikings cancelled the monks in various locations around Ireland. Henry the VIII canceled Pope Clement VII (who had tried to cancel him), Padraig Pearse and his mates cancelled the Brits and Hitler had his own cancelling agenda.

But that's not cancel culture you might say, cancel culture is when snowflake liberals in America decide they don't like something and to that I would say that George Bush tried to cancel Eminem, flag flying patriots tried to cancel French Fries, Donald Trump tried to cancel Jim Acosta and right now, Tucker Carlson is trying to cancel the wearing of masks.

It's free speech when you agree with it, 'cancel culture' when you don't.

It’s the right that seems to be trying to cancel ever from Starbucks to Goodyear tyres.

briany

Cancel Culture would have been around in the 80s if smartphones had been invented by then. The smartphone and social networking apps have made it effortless to express outrage. There used to be a time where if you were annoyed by a TV show or something, you'd have to write a letter, and then post it off, with only a slim chance it would even be read on a programme like Right to Replay. Nowadays, you can do it from the bog. You can do it sat in from of the TV, when your annoyance is still at its freshest, and you can easily network and agree with people of the same opinion which amplifies the whole thing exponentially.

In the 80s, the 'woke' student type, now blamed for driving this phenomenon, was hilariously lampooned through the character of Rik from the Young Ones.

"Neil! Are these lentils South African???!!!!"

Neil: "Uh..."

Rik: "YOU BAST*RD!!! YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER BAST*RD!!!! Why dont you just go out and become a Policeman? Become a Pig? there's no difference you know?! I suppose you hate gay people too! Hippie!"

If you want to solve Cancel Culture, I have a very simple solution - ignore it, and also realise that the celebrities being cancelled has little to do with any altruistic intentions and much more to do with advertisers being terrified of seeing their bottom line drop even a little bit.

extra gravy

Cody montana wrote: »

It’s the right that seems to be trying to cancel ever from Starbucks to Goodyear tyres.

https://twitter.com/lindyli/status/1388675644003921922?s=19

They'll be cancelling Joe next. Such a strange, hypocritical bunch.

Overheal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That was one seat.
Democrats want to increase the number of judges by 4 from 9 to 13.
Changing a 150 year precedent basically because they want to pack the court. it’s already recently been packed, once by keeping open a court seat for almost a year, hindering the work of the Supreme Court, and still in another notable case where they rammed through a religious fundamentalist onto the court within days of a vacancy and while as many as 50 million votes were already cast, despite defending the need for the first year long vacancy because ‘we simply can’t support filling the seat in an election year’


Not very Democratic.

Fixed your post. Took a lot of fixing.

Faugheen

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

That was one seat.
Democrats want to increase the number of judges by 4 from 9 to 13.
Changing a 150 year precedent basically because they want to pack the court.
Not very Democratic.

It wasn’t one seat.

They blocked any hearings for Merrick Garland because it was the seat of an ultra-conservative. They did so on the guise of it being an election year and that the people should decide.

Then 4 and a half years later, when a liberal Justice dies after 50 million people have voted for President. The same people who blocked Garland rushed through a protege of the previously mentioned ultra-conservative.

So the Republicans made up the rules to suit themselves and then broke the same rules to suit themselves. About time they got it back to them. They’ve already packed the court through their sh*thousery.

You know this, but hey it’s ‘democracy’ when it suits you.