Jump to content
GoDuBois.com

Vader

Members
  • Content Count

    2,858
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Vader last won the day on September 23

Vader had the most liked content!

About Vader

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Greater DuBois Megalopolis

Recent Profile Visitors

15,411 profile views
  1. Normally, I'd say you're correct but, we heard about it four years ago, too. This actually isn't even a Trump thing. This is the spawn of Mitch McConnell.
  2. Actually, I expect worse things to happen when the tables are turned. And then worse when the pendulum swings back again, etc., etc. The unfortunate reality is that politics are becoming more and more partisan which feeds the extremists on both sides.
  3. I see the guy with the sign seems to have taken some offense with the complaint. His "Honk for Trump" sign now reads "Lay On The Horn For Trump". HAHAHA
  4. With a majority in the Senate, how could it have been an undesirable outcome? Or was it simply undesirable to McConnell and a minority in the majority? As I said earlier, I had no issue with the premise of that decision when it was made then and I have no issue with doing the same here. If they'd like both sides to push forth a couple of nominees to get the process going, so be it. But digging in their heels and saying that something they wanted then is bad now is simply preposterous.
  5. Nope. But there are such things as precedents. That’s primarily, and unfortunately in some cases, how law is interpreted when those who have written it are no longer around to say ‘this is what was meant’. As to the the importance of filling a vacancy that is open now and not in ‘x’ amount of days or months from now, the only person I can suggest you ask for an answer is Mitch McConnell. He’s the one that pulled the trigger on it when he had a majority in the Senate. In fact, also ask why it’s imperative now but could be put off before.
  6. Perhaps, but it has absolutely no bearing on what is taking place or took place in 2016. Republicans controlled the Senate then and could have simply voted him down. Instead, they chose to take the stance that the American people deserved to have the next President choose the nominee. I had no problem with that then and I have no problem with it now. Sliding lifetime appointments forward in what may be the last days of any administration isn’t a terribly great idea.
  7. But, you're mistaken. They didn't say "nay" - they said nothing and refused to bring it to a vote. While they may have used Biden's words, it was their inactions that set the precedent.
  8. To a point, yes. However, those that acted on it would be the ones guilty of rewriting it.
  9. Very true. However, don't forget that the Senate at that time cited what was referred to as the "Biden rule" by refusing to even bring it to a vote under the guise of Biden's quote as a senator that "once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." So, yes, the President can nominate a candidate but, that should be the extent of it. As I said a few years ago, don't be surprised when a poor choice comes back to bite you in the behind. Once a precedent is set, it's a hard thing to get around.
  10. As to precedents, I'd look to the last one. It's usually the most relevant.
  11. No. The words you were looking for were assumption and speculation.
  12. Are you sure that's safe?
  13. You'd have to go a long way to find someone canvased for a poll. Keep in mind, typically those polls are based on 1,000 'random' people and their methodology differs greatly - not just from the types of questions asked but by the way the info is gathered (calls vs. online, etc.). I trust a poll about as much as a clairvoyant.
  14. Vader

    school

    I don't disagree but that's what happens when parents are involved. Some will take it as it's intended, others...not so much.
  15. Vader

    school

    I think you'll be surprised. Keep in mind that athletic directors are also district committee members as well as PIAA representatives. I don't think any of them would relish the idea of having to explain to the others why they made a decision to ignore rules they had all agreed upon. If that means that the easiest way to ensure full compliance is to keep the gates locked and admit only players and officials - expect it.
×
×
  • Create New...