WWTBAM Bored

tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.

The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.

The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.

silverscreenselect wrote:I am glad to see the filibuster gone, and I hope they get rid of it for legislation as well. I don't know where this notion began that we "needed" 60 votes or 66 votes for a Supreme Court justice, and I question how "long-standing" this tradition is. Clarence Thomas got voted in by a 52-48 vote.

gsabc wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.

The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.

Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.

gsabc wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.

The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.

Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.

Bob78164 wrote:

gsabc wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.

Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.

I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) but I would nonetheless support Donny's impeachment assuming that the investigations show that there really is fire behind all that smoke. --Bob

Bob Juch wrote:

gsabc wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.

Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.

I'd rather have Pence that a loose cannon on the ship of state, but Pence will probably go down with Trump. President Ryan?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.

You do realize why the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, right? Because railroad robber barons were having much too easy a time buying State Legislatures, and through them, Senate seats. Those are the days you want to return to? --Bob

When the 17th Amendment was ratified, it changed the way senators were selected from appointment to popular election. Therefore, senators are now more influenced by lobbyists and payoffs than they are by the constituents they are supposed to serve — hence, the passage of Obamacare and other noxious bills.

During the Constitutional ratifying convention, John Jay, co-author of “The Federalist Papers,” said: “The Senate is to be composed of men appointed by the state legislatures … I presume they will also instruct them, that there will be a constant correspondence between the senators and the state executives.”

In Federalist No. 62, James Madison wrote: “The appointment of senators by the state legislatures … is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former … In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.”

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.

You do realize why the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, right? Because railroad robber barons were having much too easy a time buying State Legislatures, and through them, Senate seats. Those are the days you want to return to? --Bob

Yup, I do. Not too many railroad robber barons left. Today it will be a lot harder to do that. Senators are beholden to no one right now.

When the 17th Amendment was ratified, it changed the way senators were selected from appointment to popular election. Therefore, senators are now more influenced by lobbyists and payoffs than they are by the constituents they are supposed to serve — hence, the passage of Obamacare and other noxious bills.

During the Constitutional ratifying convention, John Jay, co-author of “The Federalist Papers,” said: “The Senate is to be composed of men appointed by the state legislatures … I presume they will also instruct them, that there will be a constant correspondence between the senators and the state executives.”

In Federalist No. 62, James Madison wrote: “The appointment of senators by the state legislatures … is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former … In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.”

http://personalliberty.com/u-s-senators ... t-elected/

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.

You do realize why the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, right? Because railroad robber barons were having much too easy a time buying State Legislatures, and through them, Senate seats. Those are the days you want to return to? --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.

Spock wrote:
We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.

Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.

Appa23 wrote:

Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.

I took Bob #'s post as just being someone who has never held a position of authority, power, or leadership, and hence does not understand the possibility for accusations to be made in a "he said, she said" manner. Now, I do not have a hard and fast rule, but I certainly am cognizant of the possibility for issues when I hold a close door meeting with one of my young, female attorneys (door closed because of the privileged nature of the conversation), or travel with one on a case. With that in mind, I do try to limit the number of times that I am in that situation.

Bob78164 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.

I took Bob #'s post as just being someone who has never held a position of authority, power, or leadership, and hence does not understand the possibility for accusations to be made in a "he said, she said" manner. Now, I do not have a hard and fast rule, but I certainly am cognizant of the possibility for issues when I hold a close door meeting with one of my young, female attorneys (door closed because of the privileged nature of the conversation), or travel with one on a case. With that in mind, I do try to limit the number of times that I am in that situation.

I'm a partner at my law firm and head of our patent litigation practice group.

And there's no reason such accusations couldn't be made by young male attorneys just as well as by young female attorneys. Either you trust the people you work with or you don't. But there's no way I could justify excluding or limiting some attorneys from those opportunities on the basis of their gender. --Bob

Appa23 wrote:Well, I have no young male attorneys right now, so . . . .

Also, I don't think that I said anything about limiting anyone from any opportunities.