s0crates Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 14 hours ago, PokerPacker said: So instead of talking about how nomination that didn't happen, any thoughts on Gorsuch? I don't know much about him, but from what I've read he's no friend of the 4th amendment, having repeatedly ruled in favor of the authorities in search and seizure cases. I wouldn't expect him to view the constitutionality of the surveillance state the way you and I do. There's been a lot of focus on two cases dealing with "qualified immunity," which gives state officials immunity from prosecution when there is doubt about the legality of their actions. He ruled against parents who sued the state when a police officer killed their son for fleeing in a marijuana bust, but he also wrote a dissenting opinion when the court ruled in favor of a police officer who arrested a middle schooler for burping. The implications of his "qualified immunity" opinions could be important in torture cases. From what I've gathered, he's much too authoritarian for my liking. I do like this quote from his opinion in the case involving the middle school kid though, "Indeed, a judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.” http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-key-rulings/ https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-is-a-donald-trump-style-authoritarian/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/02/democrats_need_to_be_careful_with_neil_gorsuch.html Obstruct Gorsuch? The Calculus for Democrats Isn’t So Simple. Beware anyone who tells you that there is an obvious play for Senate Democrats in handling Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. There is no such play. There is barely any play at all. It is an awful situation, because being in the minority is awful, and if they botch their next move, it could be more awful still. Pretty good article detailing the dangers the Dems face with how they treat Gorsuch. If they filibuster, the GOP will nuke it and that paves the way for Justice Cruz next year. If they dont, there base will primary those that didnt fight. And there's no guarentee the GOP wont nuke it the next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 And Redstate Dems will get hit with obstructing if they do much to oppose. Techboy, the Dems gave them a ready excuse with the "rule" to gamble on the election turning out for them. Just politics ....just as going nuclear was and will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 The assumption is that the GOP would use the nuclear router if the Dems filibustered. I'm not sold on that because it's extremely short term politics. It sets precedence for future SCOTUS nominations and I'm not sure the GOP wants the precedence set (long term). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Not confirming O's pick was short term, as well as the Dems going nuclear. Do you feel lucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, twa said: Not confirming O's pick was short term, as well as the Dems going nuclear. Do you feel lucky? The Dems went nuclear on a SCOTUS nom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Wrong psycho Don thread. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said: The assumption is that the GOP would use the nuclear router if the Dems filibustered. I'm not sold on that because it's extremely short term politics. It sets precedence for future SCOTUS nominations and I'm not sure the GOP wants the precedence set (long term). They've already gone semi-nuclear deciding to advance two Cabinet appointees past committee against precedent. I think the GOP is on a power high and think they can do (and get away with) pretty much anything. Sadly, I think they are pretty much correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 15 minutes ago, Burgold said: They've already gone semi-nuclear deciding to advance two Cabinet appointees past committee against precedent. I think the GOP is on a power high and think they can do (and get away with) pretty much anything. Sadly, I think they are pretty much correct. Just remember that the Dems did this in the first two years of Obama's term and it cost them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Just remember that the Dems did this in the first two years of Obama's term and it cost them. Except they didn't. The Dems bent over backwards and did everything in their power to try to get two Republicans to swing so they could claim the ACA was bipartisan. They compromised the hell out of it to try to get Repubs in the boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said: The Dems went nuclear on a SCOTUS nom? They went nuclear on what they felt they needed to. They worked Estrada like they felt they needed to. They Borked Bork like they felt they needed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 12 hours ago, Burgold said: Except they didn't. The Dems bent over backwards and did everything in their power to try to get two Republicans to swing so they could claim the ACA was bipartisan. They compromised the hell out of it to try to get Repubs in the boat. That's not the story they believe. 12 hours ago, twa said: They went nuclear on what they felt they needed to. They worked Estrada like they felt they needed to. They Borked Bork like they felt they needed to. Here's @twa redefining what "going nuclear" means, first it was redefining "lame duck" now it's this. I guess as long as we're living in the age of alternative facts we might as well treat words the same way, "whatever definition is needed to suit my needs in this moment." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Here's ASF ignoring the Dems have gone nuclear. tis a progression, not a list of going nuclear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 17 hours ago, The Evil Genius said: The Dems went nuclear on a SCOTUS nom? He is just pointing out the elephant in the room. The precedence has already been set. I just don't get why you can't see that. You say the Republicans should fear that the Dems would be able to run the table when they get the majority again if the filibuster is gone, but the Dems have already demonstrated they will eliminate filibusters and later Reid outright stated that they are going to eliminate the remaining filibusters and then run over the Republicans when they get the majority in the Senate along with the Presidency. So why should the Republicans hesitate on this? Your position just doesn't make sense. Edit ASF yeah the Dems already went nuclear so that Genie is out of it's bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 15 hours ago, Burgold said: Except they didn't. The Dems bent over backwards and did everything in their power to try to get two Republicans to swing so they could claim the ACA was bipartisan. They compromised the hell out of it to try to get Repubs in the boat. This is complete nonsense. The Republicans were completely cut out of input into the ACA every one of their amendments and proposals were rejected (Especially the key one Tort reform). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 14 minutes ago, nonniey said: This is complete nonsense. The Republicans were completely cut out of input into the ACA every one of their amendments and proposals were rejected (Especially the key one Tort reform). Nope. That's pure revisionism. They changed huge sections, added, struck, and modified just to create the illusion of bipartisanship. Eventually, they did enough to finally get a few defectors. Those compromises in many respects account for many of the failings of the ACA. It became an unwieldy Frankenstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, twa said: Here's ASF ignoring the Dems have gone nuclear. tis a progression, not a list of going nuclear Apparently going nuclear now means, "hey, they did something we didn't like so we're going to do something unprecedented in US history." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Apparently going nuclear now means, "hey, they did something we didn't like so we're going to do something unprecedented in US history." In possible fairness, the Dems did go nuclear when it came to lower court judges, but that was only after the Republicans kept literally over a hundred benches empty for more than two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 17 minutes ago, Burgold said: In possible fairness, the Dems did go nuclear when it came to lower court judges, but that was only after the Republicans kept literally over a hundred benches empty for more than two years. You mean to tell me that Republicans tried to steal hundreds of lower court seats? Shocker......no not really #IHateTheGOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Apparently going nuclear now means, "hey, they did something we didn't like so we're going to do something unprecedented in US history." What is unprecedented? Not filling a court seat has been done repeatedly, as has changing congressional rules. specifics vary,concepts remain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share Posted February 4, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Burgold said: Nope. That's pure revisionism. They changed huge sections, added, struck, and modified just to create the illusion of bipartisanship. Eventually, they did enough to finally get a few defectors. Those compromises in many respects account for many of the failings of the ACA. It became an unwieldy Frankenstein. Really? This article accurately lays who the revisionists are and not just in this subject (One Term President timeline). http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Blaming-Obamacare-on-the-GOP-4933316.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, twa said: What is unprecedented? Not filling a court seat has been done repeatedly, as has changing congressional rules. specifics vary,concepts remain Not filling a SCOTUS seat for nearly a year because the GOP wanted to steal the nomination for their guy. Don't EVEN try and feed some BS sbout how the Dems did it first or deserved it. We know it's BS and you do too, the problem is that you don't care bevause now you get a Scalia clone on the bench. Typical short-sighted utilitarianism. I am sooo utterly sick of the Right preaching morals to everyone else while completely forgetting to hold themselves to any moral standard other than what it takes to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 2 hours ago, nonniey said: Really? This article accurately lays who the revisionists are and not just in this subject (One Term President timeline). http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Blaming-Obamacare-on-the-GOP-4933316.php LOL, did you read the entire article??? The guy admits in the last couple of sentences that the individual mandate came from the Heritage foundation. Of course he intentionally fails to expand on the fact that this was talked about by the GOP in 1993. Good try though. 5 hours ago, nonniey said: He is just pointing out the elephant in the room. The precedence has already been set. I just don't get why you can't see that. You say the Republicans should fear that the Dems would be able to run the table when they get the majority again if the filibuster is gone, but the Dems have already demonstrated they will eliminate filibusters and later Reid outright stated that they are going to eliminate the remaining filibusters and then run over the Republicans when they get the majority in the Senate along with the Presidency. So why should the Republicans hesitate on this? Your position just doesn't make sense. Edit ASF yeah the Dems already went nuclear so that Genie is out of it's bottle. Why did the Dems go nuclear? Please explain why you think they did and what caused them to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Not filling a SCOTUS seat for nearly a year because the GOP wanted to steal the nomination for their guy. Stealing is it? Taking a position Dem leaders endorsed before and the electorate preferring another party in power is stealing? You could say the voters stole it when the GOP offered them the option. ....but is is not stealing to take what is yours by right, I understand losing sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.