mspart

I'm not sure I would put it that way. There are various pieces of legislation that never get a hearing because it is not allowed to get a hearing, either by committee bosses or by majority leader or Speaker. This is precedented on a wide level. What McConnell did was no different. He held the nomination until a new President was selected. If Clinton had won, he would have moved forward with Garland is my guess. That is not what happened of course. But holding pending legislation in limbo is a time honored activity. It is neither unprecedented nor is it outside the rules. Doing something "precedented" 150 years ago is not even similar. But I think we should agree to disagree here. You have your opinion and think going to 13 justices so you can get your way is a great idea. I think it is sour grapes because you no longer have a liberal court you can count on. Maybe it would be easier to just get abortion legislation though Congress and get a signature, but that appears not to placate you. You want SCOTUS to legislate what you can't legislate. That is the true motivation here really. mspart

When will that be Mike? And you are very welcome. I'm always concerned about my intermat forum buddies. mspart

Mike, Primary to your assertion that the original source was suspect is that you think they misrepresented what the idiot professor said. I am now asking a third time, what did he say that the original source got wrong? Please note all the other sources I supplied. mspart

I love those guys!! They were my favorite on the Muppet Show. mspart

You did not include the detail that I very clearly communicated. You make it sound like the number of justices has been changing recently which is not the case. The number of justices has been static since 1869, which I went to great detail to document for you. But you just cruised right past that like it wasn't even there. Over 150 years of 9 justices. It has served us well. Changing the number will certainly change the rules. Let's say you did this, change the number of justices. What would stop the Rs from making an adjustment such as going back to 9 or upping it to 17 or some other number? And then what would stop the Ds from doing similar? I don't think this is the correct answer to the issue that seems to plague you. But it could be accomplished. But by doing so, I don't think the majority of Americans would accept it as a better way, only that petulant Ds didn't get their way so they are forcing SCOTUS to rule they way they want it to. https://news.yahoo.com/poll-slim-majority-of-americans-support-expanding-supreme-court-as-confidence-wanes-194217399.html In a Marquette Law School poll released Wednesday, 51% of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat favored increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, versus 49% who were strongly or somewhat opposed. Expansion was supported by 51% of independents, 72% of Democrats and just 27% of Republicans. That is a really slim number. I think once done, the number of Independents wishing it different would increase. This could be a make or break deal for the Ds. They might get their 13 but at what cost? Changing the rules that have been in place for a century and a half is not something to trifle with. mspart

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/ Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. Per https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices the rule is written down in the law, The Judiciary Act of 1869. Yes, Congress can change that, but that is a 150+ year rule. Changing that is changing the rules. mspart

Essentially he is the police. The police don't have the authority to say what a reasonable prosecutor would or would not do. Neither did Comey. They are to gather evidence and present that to the DA (in the case of the police) or in this case, the Justice Dept and they decide what they will or will not prosecute. It was presumptive of Comey to do that. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-emails-225124 “It’s not just unusual, it’s unprecedented,” said Matthew Miller, who was director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder and now works at strategic advisory firm Vianovo. “He’s put himself into the middle of a political campaign in a way that will call into question the legitimacy of the office.” “You’ll now have people in the middle of a campaign able to say, ‘Well, the FBI director said Hillary Clinton was careless,’” Miller added. “That’s not the FBI director’s job to do, and the rules are set up to prohibit that kind of behavior.” https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421530-no-glory-in-james-comey-getting-away-with-his-abuse-of-fbi-power/ Consider his conduct during the 2016 presidential election, leading up to his controversial press conference and public announcements, which were widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats. As here, Comey failed to inform the Justice Department or the attorney general of his intended action. In doing so, he was far outside the clear policies and protocols. Indeed, the first public act of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was to issue a memo excoriating Comey for his “serious mistakes” and citing former federal judges, attorneys general, and leading prosecutors who believed that Comey “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and tradition” along with “his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the department and the FBI.” Rosenstein further added that Comey “refused to admit his errors.” So there are those that feel that Comey did not have the authority to do what he did here. mspart

1. So now that there are other sources saying the same thing, what does that say about the initial source? You still did not answer my question. You said, and I quote: "If the posted source lies about what the subject of article said, that's kind of a problem, wouldn't you say? It's hard to critique someone's words when the right wing press is flatly lying about what they said." 2. What did the guy actually say that has been misreported? There are two questions here. A response to each would be much appreciated. mspart

Mike, I'll bite. What did the guy actually say that has been misreported? But here are some more links that you might find more credible. I'm pretty sure this is a thing. https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/wayne-state-professor-suspended-after-making-threatening-social-media-post/ https://www.wfmz.com/news/cnn/northeast/mi-wayne-state-university-professor-suspended/video_f75d18bb-acf1-5751-a266-f2b85ad03195.html https://apnews.com/article/wayne-state-university-professor-suspended-threatening-post-34ac52500b64142bc433755addf56568 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wayne-state-university-suspends-professor-over-social-media-post-allegedly-advocating-violence/ar-AA198UOj https://www.woodtv.com/news/michigan/wayne-state-professor-suspended-for-social-media-post-justifying-murder/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wayne-state-professor-suspended-for-saying-it-s-admirable-to-kill-right-wing-speakers/ar-AA19blVB mspart

I have no issue with people chasing their dreams for other countries. Myles Amine did it and has an Oly Bronze to prove it. He couldn't have done that here. He can't make the team. Competition is incredible, yet he has proved he is very elite. Others have done similar. Good for them. Ultimately, they are not competing for the country, but for themselves. They are going for individual glory. mspart

You are correct, it was reported, but taken from the little man's own words. The reporter or news agency did not make that up. Quote: I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shut them down. When right-wing groups invite such speakers to campus, it is precisely because they want to provoke and incident that discredits the left, give more publicity and validation to these reprehensible views than they could otherwise attain. So Plasi, those are his own words. First it is "admirable to kill a racist, homophobic or transphobic speaker". Then he says in the very next sentence that "right-wing groups invite such speakers to campus ... that discredits the left...". He is plainly associating the former with the latter. It was not the reporter that did that, it was this little man that did that. Does t he fact you are semi fighting this mean that you agree with this little man? Or is it something else? He said all this stuff. Is he right or wrong for thinking this way? What should happen to him? mspart

Since when does law enforcement hold back filing and take the opportunity to speak for a prosecutor? If there is no evidence of wrong doing, which Comey admits there is, then no charges are filed. It is not up to the investigators to determine what a prosecutor will or will not do. Just more trying to "not get involved in the election process", while trying to insert yourself completely. Read that statement from Comey again, and using what we know Hillary actually did, and see if there was no intent on her part to do anything untoward. It is obvious she had intent to deceive. But the law was not applied because the investigators presumed to be in the role of a prosecutor and wanted her to win rather than Trump. Keep in mind the words of Strzok. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45173015 A veteran FBI agent who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with a colleague during the election has been fired from the FBI, his lawyer has said. Peter Strzok has been accused by Republicans of being biased against Donald Trump, and seeking to prevent his election victory. Mr Trump has pointed to the text exchanges as evidence of bias in the special counsel's Russia probe. Mr Strzok served on the Russia probe and the Hillary Clinton email inquiry. During the election, Mrs Clinton was investigated by the FBI over her use of a private email server to handle sensitive government documents during her time as secretary of state. Mr Strzok exchanged text messages that disparaged Mr Trump with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair. In one exchange, Ms Page asks: Trump is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Mr Strzok responds: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Everything is on the up and up here. Nothing to see here. It all just goes away. mspart

They aren't changing the rule, because the House won't go there, but as I demonstrated the D Senate wants to change the number of justices from 9 to 13 so they can have a liberal majority like they used to have. That is changing the rules. Do you not agree? mspart

Please explain how Trump could charge her with anything? Barr is another matter. He could have moved that direction. I have no idea why it wasn't pursued. He probably didn't want to be next on the hit list. Anyone that did what Hillary did would be rotting in jail right now. What she did is no conspiracy, it is on the web for all to see. I need to amend that, it was a conspiracy that she wishes never came to light. As a result the details are on the web for all to see. Classified information in unclassified areas, without knowledge of oversight, she kept vital government records on a server outside of government control for the purpose of not having them searched, and she tried to eliminate the data with bleachbit software to hide her tracks which is destruction of evidence. Who doesn't go to prison for these things? Hillary, that's who. mspart

They would never do that. mspart

No one ever said it was a lease. It has always not been a lease. Why try to change the topic here? If he is living in Joe's house and monthly rent is 49.9K, who else was getting that money. Oh yeah, it was for some other property not listed on this form and it was a quarterly rent. Uh huh. It came as a result of info on his laptop that wasn't his laptop but was a Russian disinformation program that turned out not to be Russian disinformation but was indeed from the laptop that now is conceded to be his. I hope you could follow that. Please show, based on this form, how it is quarterly rent for some place in DC. Is it logical to conclude this explanation based on this form? mspart

I don't think this is correct. This is not according to lifenews.com, it is the professor's own words that make the equivalency. It was only reported by lifenews.com. Below is the idiot's complete statement: So he is strongly advocating murdering right wing speakers by citing a previous case in some other country to justify this insane position. Yep, just murder anyone you disagree with. Pretty soon we'll all be dead, except the last man standing. This just reinforces that the left do not want to discuss. They want to shout down, and if that doesn't work, just kill them. They do not want to discuss the merits of their own positions because that would make them defend the indefensible which might put them in a place where they are not safe and cozy. Best just to rid society of these people so they can feel safe in their safe spaces. This is adult reasoning from the left on perfect display. It has come to the logical conclusion that Marxist authoritarianism has always resorted to and why Communist countries are known for slaughtering their own citizens. Dissent is not to be tolerated. Free speach is a wonderful thing unless it goes beyond what "we" think is acceptable. This guy needs to lose his ability to teach at any institution of learning. Just a hateful resentful little man who no doubt has been spreading his venom for years now to his students. mspart

There is more than being broken hearted that you didn't get your 4th NCAA championship. Just to name a few: McIlravy lost a heart breaker in the 2000 Olympics in the semis. He came back to beat the Belarussian guy for 3rd. Terry Brands same deal. They were heartbroken yet came back. My feeling is Lee is saving his knees for Senior Wrestling competition. Based on his "toughness" and "relentlessness" that is the only thing I can think of that makes sense to me. Giving up is just not in his nature. It must have been for future reasons. Just my $0.02. mspart

San Marino got a good deal with Signore Amine. mspart

Oh yes, I understand that completely. Hence the reason I called it tit for tat. McConnell changed no rules, but I admit he changed decorum on the topic, but worked within the rules. But you are suggesting a wholesale change of the rules so you can have your way. Like I said it is a little like the kid who takes his ball home because he didn't get his way and regardless of your poll, I don't think it would be looked well upon by the majority of voters. It would not end up like Israel, but I don't think Ds would be held in high esteem the next go around. mspart

That west point move doesn't look like much but it puts a lot of pressure there and people submit on their back quite readily. mspart

https://www.lifenews.com/2023/03/27/liberal-professor-suspended-after-saying-its-admirable-to-kill-conservative-speakers/ A Wayne State University (WSU) professor was suspended with pay after writing on Facebook that it is more “admirable” to kill a right-wing speaker than it is to shout them down on a college campus, The New Guard reported. Steven Shaviro, a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences professor, wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday that while he does not “advocating violating federal and state criminal codes,” it is “far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down,” according to the New Guard. The professor was reportedly placed on leave and the incident was reported to law enforcement agencies for review. They don't call it the luny left for nothing. Here is a college professor saying murder is better than verbal engagement. But only if the target is a right wing speaker. I assume murder of a left wing speaker would be unspeakably wrong and beyond the pale and the murderer should be hanged by their toenails until dead. This is the illogical logic that is found in universities and other echo chambers. Here is another with the Wayne State U's President's statement. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2023/03/27/wayne-state-professor-suspended-for-saying-protestors-should-kill-speakers-they-disagree-with/ The president of Wayne State, M. Roy Wilson, sent a statement to the Warrior community on Monday morning regarding the social media post, which was made by a professor in the English department. The post said that protestors would be justified in murdering speakers they disagree with, rather than just “shouting them down.” Wilson announced that law enforcement is involved in this situation. The professor has been suspended immediately from the university due to the incident. You can read Wilson’s statement that he sent out on Monday morning below: Dear campus community, This morning, I was made aware of a social media post by a Wayne State University professor in our Department of English. The post stated that rather than “shouting down” those with whom we disagree, one would be justified to commit murder to silence them. We have on many occasions defended the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we feel this post far exceeds the bounds of reasonable or protected speech. It is, at best, morally reprehensible and, at worst, criminal. We have referred this to law enforcement agencies for further review and investigation. Pending their review, we have suspended the professor with pay, effective immediately. M. Roy Wilson, March 27, 2023 I am grateful Roy Wilson saw through the politics of this and sees it for what it is. The professor should have been fired outright, not placed on paid leave. mspart

Why is Pelosi explicitly allowed to do this but McConnell was not? As far as I know they didn't. The issue is that you folks are really upset that the Ds did not think of this earlier. If Donald Trump were President right now, and in early 2024 Kavanaugh croaked, would you be concerned in the least if Schumer did not hold a vote on Trump's nominee? Of course not, you would voice no concern whatsoever but would applaud the move, regardless if McConnell did this first or not. I expect it this to happen again in the future. The collegiality of the Senate dissolved a long time ago. McConnell was the first to do something that you would applaud if Schumer did instead. Or would you be screaming that Schumer can't do this, it is against the rules, like you are with McConnell? Honestly, I can't see this happening. This is the definition of hypocrisy. This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. And to remedy the situation, you want to do what Bibi N is trying to do in Israel, change the judiciary by legislation. Based on your arguments, I'm sure you were yelling, you go Bibi!! You go Bibi!! mspart

https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-false-claim-hunter-195204651.html This in an article trying to say this is a false claim and isn't what it is. So the question is how is this a declaration of a payment every three months for some office space not at Joe Biden's home? From the above article: 1.3k The claim: Hunter Biden paid Joe Biden $50,000 a month in rent for home with classified documents A Jan. 16 Instagram post (direct link, archived link) from conservative commentator Carl Higbie shows a screenshot of his tweet about President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. "Hunter Biden paid his dad $50,000 a MONTH in rent for the home that housed classified documents," reads the tweet. "During the same time frame, @JoeBiden only claimed less than $20,000 in rent payments PER YEAR." The post generated over 7,000 likes in less than a month. Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert shared a similar claim to Twitter on Jan. 15, where it accumulated over 67,000 likes. Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks Our rating: False The claim stems from a misinterpretation of a form Hunter Biden signed in 2018. The form actually shows quarterly payments he made for office space in the House of Sweden, a building in Washington, D.C., according to a spokesperson for Sweden's National Property Board. The payment was not rent paid to Joe Biden for the use of his Delaware home. So the payment was for quarterly payments for office space in DC in the line that clearly says monthly rent, And monthly rent was $49.9K. I've read the article and it makes no sense based on the above signed form. Maybe this is an extremely complicated form that I am not able to interpret, but it really doesn't appear to be that complicated. For instance, the form says MONTHLY RENT and a number is written in there. The entry "Monthly rent" is not crossed out and handwritten in with "QUARTERLY Rent". Which makes you wonder what the fact checkers are looking at. Maybe someone on here can explain this. mspart

3. No I'm saying the Ds should play by the rules that have been established and used for decades. 4. No, if you can't see the similarity here, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I was correct that you were in agreement with the makeup of the Jan 6 committee, which Pelosi did by changing the rules in the middle. So this is an example you accepting it in one case and not in another. So much for consistency. mspart