Popeman38 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 28 minutes ago, justice98 said: The lifetime appointment deal needs to go in the trash with the electoral college. No. If it weren't lifetime, it would become a political issue. Everyone claiming they know how he will vote is full of ****. Everyone knew how Roberts would vote, and then he not once, but twice, was the deciding vote on upholding the ACA. Judges do what judges do, regardless of what the POTUS, Senate, or Congress wants based on what party nominated them. The GOP shouldn't have played politics with Obamas nominee. The Dems shouldn't play politics with this nominee. But I expect to be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Lifetime appoints are fine but we should have a culling program every decade if none die/retire just to keep it fresh. Send em to a island to determine among themselves who gets cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, twa said: Lifetime appoints are fine but we should have a culling program every decade if none die/retire just to keep it fresh. Send em to a island to determine among themselves who gets cut. UFC 300: FIGHT TO BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: The GOP shouldn't have played politics with Obamas nominee. The Dems shouldn't play politics with this nominee. But I expect to be disappointed. Dems should absolutely politic this nominee. Stall, delay, fillibuster, deny. All of the above. The GOP stole this nomination and to think the Dems should just roll over is absurd. If they do roll over and play dead then they deserve to fade into irrelevance. They have ONE shot to send a message to Agent Marmalade and this should be it. Line in the sand.... Deny this nominee. And if Drumpf nominates another like him then deny that one too. We owe Trump or the GOP NOTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Dems should absolutely politic this nominee. Stall, delay, fillibuster, deny. All of the above. The GOP stole this nomination and to think the Dems should just roll over is absurd. If they do roll over and play dead then they deserve to fade into irrelevance. They have ONE shot to send a message to Agent Marmalade and this should be it. Line in the sand.... Deny this nominee. And if Drumpf nominates another like him then deny that one too. We owe Trump or the GOP NOTHING. "WE"? ASF, proud advocate of the "they did it FIRST" childish political stunt. Please don't ever complain about TWA again. This is political hackish ****. This nominee had no problem being confirmed for the federal bench. I thought the general consensus was that if they can breeze through that confirmation process then getting confirmed for SCOTUS was a foregone conclusion? Or is that just the standard when the Dems nominate someone? EDIT: "nominates another like him then deny that one too" means what? Deny any judge that isn't a Dem nominee? WTF man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 59 minutes ago, justice98 said: The lifetime appointment deal needs to go in the trash with the electoral college. It's probably the part that keeps scotus from being more political than it is. they can't be removed because politicians in power disagree with them. they (political groups that push things through court) can't simply wait 6 months for someone to get kicked off from a time limit so they think they can be replaced with someone friendly to their cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 16 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: "WE"? ASF, proud advocate of the "they did it FIRST" childish political stunt. Please don't ever complain about TWA again. This is political hackish ****. This nominee had no problem being confirmed for the federal bench. I thought the general consensus was that if they can breeze through that confirmation process then getting confirmed for SCOTUS was a foregone conclusion? Or is that just the standard when the Dems nominate someone? EDIT: "nominates another like him then deny that one too" means what? Deny any judge that isn't a Dem nominee? WTF man? Merrick Garland breezed through the confirmation process for the Federal bench too. What did that get him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Dan T. said: Merrick Garland breezed through the confirmation process for the Federal bench too. What did that get him? A bull**** political move by the GOP, as I said previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 30 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Dems should absolutely politic this nominee. Stall, delay, fillibuster, deny. All of the above. The GOP stole this nomination and to think the Dems should just roll over is absurd. If they do roll over and play dead then they deserve to fade into irrelevance. They have ONE shot to send a message to Agent Marmalade and this should be it. Line in the sand.... Deny this nominee. And if Drumpf nominates another like him then deny that one too. We owe Trump or the GOP NOTHING. Asbury temper tantrums aside, right now they do not have the power to stop his nomination (ie they have no shot to send a message to Agent Marmalade). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: A bull**** political move by the GOP, as I said previously. Noted. So they'll get a taste of the bull**** too. They deserve it doubly, for stealing the Supreme Court seat and for foisting Donald ****ing Trump upon us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, Dan T. said: Noted. So they'll get a taste of the bull**** too. They deserve it doubly, for stealing the Supreme Court seat and for foisting Donald ****ing Trump upon us. Actually no they won't get a taste of it. The big difference between what the Republicans did and what you want the Democrats to do is that the Republicans had the power to do it. The Democrats don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, nonniey said: Asbury tamper tantrums aside, right now they do not have the power to stop his nomination. Plus the fact that Obama didn't put up a real fight and for good reason. He knew that it was in the best interest of the SC and his political legacy to let the right replace Scalia. He had done his part and put 2 women on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, Dan T. said: Noted. So they'll get a taste of the bull**** too. They deserve it doubly, for stealing the Supreme Court seat and for foisting Donald ****ing Trump upon us. So more with the "they did it first" nonsense? What does that accomplish? How does that help this country? All opposing every appointment will do is drive home that the Dems only care about regaining power for themselves. Pelosi and Schumer have "serious concerns" about the SCOTUS nominee all of a sudden? Bull****, its pure politics. 1 minute ago, TimmySmith said: Plus the fact that Obama didn't put up a real fight and for good reason. He knew that it was in the best interest of the SC and his political legacy to let the right replace Scalia. He had done his part and put 2 women on there. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. If a judge dies or retires from SCOTUS during a presidency, that President has the right to nominate the replacement. The Senate then has an obligation to consider the nomination. If Obamam wanted to let the right replace Scalia, he wouldn't have nominated his replacement. It was bull**** when the GOP didn't debate the nominee, and it will be bull**** if the Dems try the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, nonniey said: Asbury temper tantrums aside, right now they do not have the power to stop his nomination. That's actually not true. They can absolutely filibuster. And McConnell can kill the filibuster. Then they won't be able to stop it. Should they? Well you can argue that they shouldn't give GOP a reason to kill the filibuster, but it will either happen now or whenever the GOP needs it to later so it doesn't really matter in the end. But the ultimate question for them is whether it's good politics to try. Probably is in the current environment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, nonniey said: Actually no they won't get a taste of it. The big difference between what the Republicans did and what you want the Democrats to do is that the Republicans had the power to do it. The Democrats don't. They should make it as rocky for Donald Trump as they can. Period, to quote alternative fact guy Sean Spicer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, TimmySmith said: Plus the fact that Obama didn't put up a real fight and for good reason. He knew that it was in the best interest of the SC and his political legacy to let the right replace Scalia. He had done his part and put 2 women on there. This is pretty hilarious. Obama wanted his legacy to be Donald Trump nominating Scalia's replacement. You should do standup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, TimmySmith said: Plus the fact that Obama didn't put up a real fight and for good reason. He knew that it was in the best interest of the SC and his political legacy to let the right replace Scalia. He had done his part and put 2 women on there. That really doesn't make any sense imo. Obama changing the balance of the Supreme Court would have been a key component of his legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, Dan T. said: Noted. So they'll get a taste of the bull**** too. They deserve it doubly, for stealing the Supreme Court seat and for foisting Donald ****ing Trump upon us. "he started it" and working out of revenge is a dangerous game. i'm not saying you're wrong for being angry, or that at least on some level you're right about the GOP deserving it. it's just a dangerous game and i'm not so sure it leads to a good place for us as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcunning15 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: So more with the "they did it first" nonsense? What does that accomplish? How does that help this country? All opposing every appointment will do is drive home that the Dems only care about regaining power for themselves. Pelosi and Schumer have "serious concerns" about the SCOTUS nominee all of a sudden? Bull****, its pure politics. Obstruction seemed to work for the R's. Why do you think it will not work for the D's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: That's actually not true. They can absolutely filibuster. And McConnell can kill the filibuster. Then they won't be able to stop it. Should they? Well you can argue that they shouldn't give GOP a reason to kill the filibuster, but it will either happen now or whenever the GOP needs it to later so it doesn't really matter in the end. But the ultimate question for them is whether it's good politics to try. Probably is in the current environment We've had this discussion before Reid effectively killed the filibuster so yes the Republicans (or any party) will do away with it the minute it is used to stop any Supreme Court nominations or key legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, nonniey said: We've had this discussion before Reid effectively killed the filibuster so yes the Republicans (or any party) will do away with it the minute it is used to stop any Supreme Court nominations or key legislation. Yes we've had this discussion before but it doesn't mean you are any more correct now than you were before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Just now, skinsfan_1215 said: This is pretty hilarious. Obama wanted his legacy to be Donald Trump nominating Scalia's replacement. You should do standup. Let me rephrase, Obama had no choice and he didn't fight. Could have been Hillary or the right's candidate. But it wasn't going to be Obama that forced the issue, he nominated 2 people (1 of which is basically the left's Clarence Thomas), replacing Scalia is a delicate matter that he didn't want to touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 There's enough blame and bull**** to go around, both sides play this. A SCOTUS nominee/judge ought not be considered based on some supposed political bias, in fact IMO that alone would probably disqualify them from the bench. Their competence as a jurist, that's the standard required, because the lifetime appointment means they will sit through a range of administrations, a range of decisions growing out of situations we cannot foresee. Of course, that's too pragmatic a view to garner more than lip service these days, I'm still waiting for the swelling to subside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, mrcunning15 said: Obstruction seemed to work for the R's. Why do you think it will not work for the D's? Because the GOP controls the House, the Senate, and the WH. They don't need the Dems to do anything, for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, tshile said: i'm not saying you're wrong for being angry, or that at least on some level you're right about the GOP deserving it. it's just a dangerous game and i'm not so sure it leads to a good place for us as a whole. Oh, we've been led to a not-good place already, my friend. Donald ****ing Trump is President of these United States. He's alienating allies and playing kissy-face with Vladimir Putin. Steve Bannon sits on the National Security Council. All bets are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.