PF Chang Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I just spent 10 minutes reading about Bork and I'm pretty sure I hate him. His books sound like the beginning of conservative talk radio -- the world is ending because of liberals and their abortions, rap music, and Jesus-deficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 More revisionist horse**** to rationalize rightwing tantrums. The right said that Obama wouldn't DARE nominate someone like Merrick Garland, and he did and they knew they were caught in their own ****, so they stuck their fingers in their ears and LaLaLaLa'd away the rest of his term. There was no possible reason to oppose Garland, he is a preeminent jurist and doesn't have 1/10th the baggage that Gorsuch does, the Repubs just threw a fit because he was nominated by Obama- plain n simple, no other reason. Make all the excuses and rationalizations and justifications you want, parrot all the Fox bull**** you can stomach, denying the truth of the matter doesn't change the facts. Personally I don't and wouldn't object to any SC judge based on his (or her) personal beliefs as long as I can feel comfortable knowing those things are not going to supersede their responsibilities to adjudicate fairly. The court has a long and storied history of judges that were supposedly left/right/hard/soft that found out that sitting on the SCOTUS challenged them to do the job well and right, and they did to the dismay of the faction that backed them. Judicial competence and integrity should be the standard set for them. If the right was not so damn shortsighted and arrogant they would have tendered up Garland as candidate on day one, but that would have meant admitting that the whole thing was political horse**** from the start. As it is the right has had multiple cases locked at 4-4 that devolved back down to circuit decisions not in their favor, they arguably might have been better off with a full court. Gorsuch could cost them, any particularly overt attempt by him to be the next Scalia, especially as the junior member could well alienate others on the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I wish Dems would pick their fights more carefully. Don't blow your wad on this, we got a long four years ahead of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 21 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: I wish Dems would pick their fights more carefully. Don't blow your wad on this, we got a long four years ahead of us. They really are not smart. Its such a shame because their opportunities will be multiple but they just dont have what it takes to take advantage of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Just now, Llevron said: They really are not smart. Its such a shame because their opportunity will be multiple but they just dont have what it takes to take advantage of them. True that. Bunch of nice guys finish last types. I have no idea what they are shooting for, hope its not the party of no, that's not governing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 **** Schumer Quote New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.” “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: True that. Bunch of nice guys finish last types. I have no idea what they are shooting for, hope its not the party of no, that's not governing. The GOP was shortsighted, politically, with their obstruction of Garland. It worked out because Trump won and they held the Senate. But that end doesnt justify the means. They should have had a hearing, and voted against him. The Dems now though, are being both short AND long sighted. Filibustering Gorsuch hurts them short term and long term. And it wont succeed. And once the filibuster is gone, they wont be able to use it to stop someone that they REALLY dont like (Ted Cruz) in the future. The Dems are betting that they will somehow take over the Senate in 2018, or that no one will leave the Court before 2020. I think the likelihood is that the Dems lose seats in 2018, and that at least 1 more Court opening occurs before 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: I think the likelihood is that the Dems lose seats in 2018, and that at least 1 more Court opening occurs before 2020. Only if RBG has tea w/ a Russian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 1 minute ago, LD0506 said: Only if RBG has tea w/ a Russian She is 84 right now, assuming she doesn't retire in the next 4 years is a risky bet, and if the Dems lose seats in 2018 there will be nothing preventing confirmation. And IF RGB is no longer on the SCOTUS, my bet is Trump nominates Cruz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, LD0506 said: Only if RBG has tea w/ a Russian I think RBG will wait until their is a Dem in the WH and the Ds control the Senate before she leaves. She might be 128 years old, but she wont leave. Kennedy is the next retiree imo. And maybe Thomas towards the end of Trumps term. Which will be a fun fight to watch. The Dems claiming we cant have a nominee in an election year, and the GOP crying about it. 2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: She is 84 right now, assuming she doesn't retire in the next 4 years is a risky bet, and if the Dems lose seats in 2018 there will be nothing preventing confirmation. And IF RGB is no longer on the SCOTUS, my bet is Trump nominates Cruz. I think Ted Cruz is definitely the next pick if Trump is the one picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 I want to see numbers from GOP senators regarding their willingness to nuke it. Has any of them said they will NOT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Hooray politics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 It's only politics when the GOP does it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Feh, it's all politics and its always politics, that is just the language used in this arena, the motivations driving the individuals and those pulling their strings matter more. And yes, just to mollify some, the Dems have strings that get pulled too. But this is it? This is what you want and how you want, one side just bulldozes the other and gloats while doing it, and then wants to say afterwards "No hard feelings, it's only politics"? That is facile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, LD0506 said: Feh, it's all politics and its always politics, that is just the language used in this arena, the motivations driving the individuals and those pulling their strings matter more. And yes, just to mollify some, the Dems have strings that get pulled too. But this is it? This is what you want and how you want, one side just bulldozes the other and gloats while doing it, and then wants to say afterwards "No hard feelings, it's only politics"? That is facile. Both sides are doing it now when they have the power. But specific to the SCOTUS, right now, the Dems have set a new standard that is designed to force the GOP to nuke the filibuster. I can understand why some on the left feel justified in acting this way, just dont pretend you arent. Sen Merkley was on Morning Joe and said that the Dems will filibuster anyone not named Garland. (Paraphrasing). When pressed on what the obvious GOP response to that, he just shrugged and said that would the GOPs fault. This is where we are. There is no going back. We are now and will forever be in a hyperpartisan everything is war and politics is everything state of government. What's the next step? How about a good ole fashion impeachment for a sitting SCOTUS? Dont think it can happen? You're fooling yourself. Now, we wont see a conviction (that requires 2/3rds of the Senate) but you dont think this guy in the WH won't do what he can to smear his political opponents on the Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Damn Kilmer, you are cynical as all hell, almost as cynical as I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 If Trump had nominated a buffoon for SCOTUS, this would be an acceptable course of action. Gorsuch may not be a liberal judge, but he is qualified, sane, and well reasoned. THIS is the guy you take your stand against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: If Trump had nominated a buffoon for SCOTUS, this would be an acceptable course of action. Gorsuch may not be a liberal judge, but he is qualified, sane, and well reasoned. THIS is the guy you take your stand against? That's the part that makes no sense to me. They are going to HAVE to have this fight eventually. But why now? What good does it do now? If Trump had nominated Bannon to be the next Justice, then yes. By all means fight. They'd still lose the battle, but the optics of it would help them politically. The only people who are excited about them fighting Gorsuch are people that were already excited Dem voters. Fighting HIM hurts them with folks who are tired of the partisan fights on EVERYTHING. 20 minutes ago, LD0506 said: Damn Kilmer, you are cynical as all hell, almost as cynical as I am. When it comes to the political state of our Govt, absolutely. In real life though I'm a happy go lucky whiskey drinking fun time Charley. This keeps me balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 You are not wrong though. Our government is not made up of people that want to work together anymore. Fundamental and critical flaw. And because they are so corrupt and have all the power, it will not change. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 On 3/28/2017 at 11:26 AM, Kilmer17 said: The Dems now though, are being both short AND long sighted. Filibustering Gorsuch hurts them short term and long term. And it wont succeed. And once the filibuster is gone, they wont be able to use it to stop someone that they REALLY dont like (Ted Cruz) in the future. The Dems are betting that they will somehow take over the Senate in 2018, or that no one will leave the Court before 2020. I think the likelihood is that the Dems lose seats in 2018, and that at least 1 more Court opening occurs before 2020. So if they don't filibuster Gorsuch, GOP retains the Senate, and Ted Cruz is nominated in 2019... wouldn't the GOP just get rid of the filibuster then anyway? I guess I don't see how this really matters. If your weapon can be disarmed whenever your opponent wants it really isn't a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 20 minutes ago, PF Chang said: So if they don't filibuster Gorsuch, GOP retains the Senate, and Ted Cruz is nominated in 2019... wouldn't the GOP just get rid of the filibuster then anyway? I guess I don't see how this really matters. If your weapon can be disarmed whenever your opponent wants it really isn't a weapon. Because they are fighting to deny a nominee that at any other time in history would have breezed through the nomination process. The reasons given are shallow and transparent partisanship. Al Franken waxed poetic about his one decision (Trans Am) for seemingly hours. Those who disagree with the decision admit the reasoning used was sound, but they disagree with the conclusion. Is that now grounds to deny an appointment? Because you disagree wit the conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I don't even remember the deal with Gorsuch beyond that he had a hand in the whole Hobby Lobby 'Businesses can have religions and therefore disregard laws on providing for healthcare' bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 53 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: Because they are fighting to deny a nominee that at any other time in history would have breezed through the nomination process. The reasons given are shallow and transparent partisanship. This applies exactly to Merrick Garland. The point of my post was that the filibuster is irrelevant. Gorsuch will be seated whether or not the Dems filibuster. A theoretical 2019 Ted Cruz nomination will succeed even if they don't get rid of the filibuster now -- they'll just get rid of it at that time. All of this is true even without the assumption that there are no issues whatsoever with Gorsuch as a judge, such as his almost comical tendency to favor business over labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.