AP: Trump intends to announce his Supreme Court pick on Feb. 2

[Bozo the kKklown]

On 4/4/2017 at 0:40 PM, Gamebreaker said:

Where do I go to vent about Sessions undoing the very little progress being made towards police corruption/brutality? 

not this forum, lol.

[nonniey]

28 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The argument for filibustering Gorsuch is very simple.

 

Trump is potentially going to get impeached.  I know things feel slow moving now, but we are movjng at comparative light speeds.  Until the investigation has concluded with no indictment, no nominee should go through.

 

If I were a Senate Dem, I would hammer this point home everywhere, and say that I would be willing to compromise on a nominee after the Russkies have been ousted by not filibustering said nominee, provided, of course, they received a "highly qualified" rating from the ABA.

You are deluding yourself if you think Trump is going to get impeached. 

[visionary]

 

[DogofWar1]

Hahahahaha

 

The true delusional ones here are those who are writing off the possibility.

 

Look at everything that has happened.  Flynn, Page, Prince, Manafort.  The Steele Dossier has gone from considered crazy in mid-last year to sufficiently corroborated that high ranking officials are viewing the whole thing as likely true/credible.  The FBI just expanded the team on the matter.

 

You're gonna sit here and tell me it's not a possibility?

 

It absolutely is.

 

Now sure, the House COULD obstruct impeachment in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, but I doubt it.  There will come a point where their obstruction will hurt them in their races.  If we get there, they will flip.  The backup plan, Pence, is too good to keep the Trumpatross around their neck (this is assuming Pence isn't also in on it).

 

There's also the constitutional school of thought that says the President can be indicted criminally separately from impeachment proceedings, that he need not leave office before that happens (so technically a criminal convict president is a possibility).

 

Anyways, point is, it's delusional to think there is no possibility of this, or that it's sufficiently remote that we shouldn't consider it in these matters.

 

And if such a thing is possible, and that possibility is not remote, then no SCOTUS nominee should go forward.

 

2 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

And what rating did Neil Gorsuch get from the ABA?

 

Hint, the highest possible.

 

 

I know he did, and hence if Pence were to re-nominate Gorsuch, I would not suggest a filibuster.

 

But Pence isn't President.  Kremlin Don is.  SCOTUS is too important for someone under active FBI investigation for being compromised by a foreign power to be allowed to make a lifetime appointment.

 

 

And someone mentioned Clinton and his appointments.

 

Clinton's situation is radically different than Trump's.  That's obvious on its face.  No one ever thought Clinton was compromised by a foreign power.  They thought he liked to get blowjobs from interns and then lied about it.

 

Which frankly really highlights how absurd the present situation is here. The GOP spent years and years and untold millions to barely get a perjury charge about getting a blowjob from an intern, and yet here today they've got this wonderful "nothing to see here, move along" attitude towards Trump.

 

You'll have to excuse me if I don't equate the two situations.

[twa]

So if Pence simply affirms he would be the nominee the BS argument goes away? 

 

Desperation....got some? 

[Burgold]

2 hours ago, nonniey said:

You are deluding yourself if you think Trump is going to get impeached. 

I tend to agree that the likelihood of Trump being impeached by this Congress is minuscule. They wouldn't take that step even if they found out that he handed over our nuclear codes to ISIS, they'd ignore it. They would probably ignore it if he hand delivered nukes to our enemies. There's no level of bad that likely can be risen to that this GOP won't overlook.

 

The better question is should he be impeached. I'd say based on what we know right now the answer is much closer to "yes" than "no"

[DogofWar1]

20 minutes ago, twa said:

So if Pence simply affirms he would be the nominee the BS argument goes away? 

 

Desperation....got some? 

It's the rule.

[twa]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

It's the rule.

 

w/o the votes to enforce it 

[DogofWar1]

35 minutes ago, twa said:

 

w/o the votes to enforce it 

Last I heard they had the 41.

[twa]

3 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Last I heard they had the 41.

 

that won't help with a new rule.

[Larry]

7 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

The reason he hasn't sailed through the process is because of Garland and Trump. End of story.

 

You keep making that assertion.  

 

Granted, I suspect that it's at least partially right.  It's certainly a factor, for a lot of the Dems who are doing it.  

 

But I also have to observe that what you're doing is the traditional activity when the R's nominate a SC justice, too.  

 

That's also part of the dance.  The R's pick somebody, the D's announce that he's the end of civilization, and the R's announce what an incredible moderate he is.  

 

Makes it kinda hard to take either side at face value.  

 

So I try to apply some reasoning to the subject.  

 

In this case, I find it hard to believe that when the Federalist Society (a group founded for the purpose of getting conservative judges on the federal bench) gets told by a Republican President who's pretty clueless, himself (and, uncharacteristically, is willing to admit it), to pick a SC justice who will be signed off on by a distracted Republican President, and then be sent to a Republican Senate, that they picked a complete and total moderate.  

 

In summary, I think it's a pretty safe bet that the guy has been thoroughly scoped out, and is one of the most conservative judges that a conservative group with a stated agenda of partisanship could pick, given a blank check.  

 

 

---

 

Now, I also think that gee, that's fair.  The fact of the matter is that we do have a Republican President and a Republican Senate.  Tough noogies, Dems.  That's the only kind of nominee you're going to get.  Your bargaining position sucks.  (And not just because of the number of seats in the Senate, but also because the American public isn;t going to approve of y'all making a big symbolic publicity stunt, over this particular nominee.  Doing this is gonna cost y'all political capital, and you'll deserve it.)  

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

In summary, I think it's a pretty safe bet that the guy has been thoroughly scoped out, and is one of the most conservative judges that a conservative group with a stated agenda of partisanship could pick, given a blank check.  

 

 

 

 nah, not near the most.

those come next after they blow this.

[DogofWar1]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 (And not just because of the number of seats in the Senate, but also because the American public isn;t going to approve of y'all making a big symbolic publicity stunt, over this particular nominee.  Doing this is gonna cost y'all political capital, and you'll deserve it.)  

 

Hey, it worked for the GOP.  Why not?  Maybe a little bit of a killer instinct would be good for the Dems.  I mean jeebus, the GOP filibustered hundreds of times before the Dems went nuclear in a very LIMITED manner, and the GOP has been screaming bloody murder ever since.

 

They need to taste their own medicine.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

Hey, it worked for the GOP.  Why not?  Maybe a little bit of a killer instinct would be good for the Dems.  I mean jeebus, the GOP filibustered hundreds of times before the Dems went nuclear in a very LIMITED manner, and the GOP has been screaming bloody murder ever since.

 

They need to taste their own medicine.

 

This is not a nominee who's worth a filibuster over.  (Or at least,. if he is, they haven't found it, yet.)  

 

This, in turn, hands the "hey, they're simply obstructing because they're sore losers" card to the R's.  

 

And "hey, they did it" isn't a justification, either.  It's an admission that you're doing something wrong.  

[DogofWar1]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

This is not a nominee who's worth a filibuster over.  (Or at least,. if he is, they haven't found it, yet.)  

 

This, in turn, hands the "hey, they're simply obstructing because they're sore losers" card to the R's.  

 

And "hey, they did it" isn't a justification, either.  It's an admission that you're doing something wrong.  

 

It's a President worth a filibuster over though.  This is the United States of America.  Hammer home that point.  Kremlin Don gets nobody without a hard fight until the FBI gives his Russian-loving anus the green light.

 

I mean, shoot, that argument worked pretty well for the GOP last November, why the hell not use it now?  All them there blue collar guys in the rust belt chanting "lock her up" and such.  Change the pronoun and let Trump's failing job policies...well, fail, and boom, they'll come crawling back.

 

 

Further, that something is "wrong" would be a lot stronger of a non-justification if doing wrong things didn't keep winning elections.

 

Might makes right.  The GOP has lived by this mantra for 25 years and it's kept them not just relevant, but often in power.  What are the consequences for gerrymandering?  What are the consequences for voter suppression?  What are the consequences for filibustering in the Senate SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR TIMES during the Democratic Senates from 2007-Jan2015?  What are the consequences for doing something unprecedented in not giving a President's SCOTUS nominee even a hearing for a year, and lying about the justifications for said unprecedented acts?

 

There haven't been any.  There probably won't be any anytime soon either.

 

80+% of the people up for grabs in any given election have the memories of goldfish and have an understanding of policy to the depth of a plastic kiddie pool.  They are emotionally and slogan driven.  You win the heart you win the vote, the mind is too busy with other things.

 

Not a one will remember anything about this nominee battle by September 2018 without being expressly reminded.

 

And they will think exactly what they're told to think about said nominee battle by whoever they find more compelling.  And being compelling has approximately zilch to do with being "right" or "wrong," it has to do with winning the hearts of people (the mind just rubber stamps the heart).

 

 

Filibuster Gorsuch, and then think up an eloquent, emotionally driven argument why the filibuster was good.  It won't be that hard, frankly, there's a dozen arguments ready made for it.  Do a good enough job, and no one will think you were "wrong."

 

 

That's another thing, it's not an admission of wrongdoing.  Nothing is ever an admission of wrongdoing.  Nothing is ever wrong.  That's a lesson from the GOP.  You're never wrong.  They're wrong.  And lock them up for it, or something.

 

Also, this is fun:

 

[RedskinsMayne]

personally, i think that if Jen Bush had of made the same nomination he would already be confirmed, but trump decided to go out of his way to be an asshole to every politician he encounter and now is paying the price. 

 

Personally, i'm fine changing the rules to a simple majority. A government has become too beurocratic and slow. Anything that speeds up the process i'm for.

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Personally, i'm fine changing the rules to a simple majority. A government has become too beurocratic and slow. Anything that speeds up the process i'm for.

The Senate has always been the deliberative body and the fillibuster rules were always in place to force a consensus, they weren't intentionally built as an eff-you mechanism but that's what they've turned into. On that note the fillibuster was there to intentionally slow down the process, simple majority is tyranny of half plus one and that is no way to govern well. So sure it speeds up the process but is the legislative process something that should be sped up? Right now GOPers say yes, until the Dems hold 51 votes. Everyone always wants the process sped up until the other guy is driving.

 

That said, it looks like some real fillibustering is taking place. Good for them! I love the old school marathon speeches.!!

[RedskinsMayne]

yea, but i'd support the simple majority regardless of who was in power. There are so many latersand chances to vote and do overs to the voting process, the majority isn't the majority long enough to result in tyranny.

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, RedskinsMayne said:

yea, but i'd support the simple majority regardless of who was in power. There are so many latersand chances to vote and do overs to the voting process, the majority isn't the majority long enough to result in tyranny.

There are do-overs when it comes to life time appointments? More importantly, the whole idea of a Supreme Court ruling is that their decisions are absolute. They are the final decision. There are no do-overs on their rulings.

 

Anthony Kennedy-- Appointed in 1988

Clarence Thomas-- Appointed in 1991

Ruth Bader Ginsberg-- Appointed in 1993

Steven Breyer-- Appointed in 1994

John Roberts-- Appointed in 2005

Samuel Alito-- Appointed in 2006

Sonia Sotomayor-- Appointed in 2009

Elena Kagan --Appointed 2010

 

So, we are looking at an appointment that lasts for decades.

 

John Paul Stevens did retire after serving for 35 years. Likewise, Sandra Day O'Connor retired after serving a meager 25 years. David Souter barely served at all. He retired after only nineteen years.

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

 More importantly, the whole idea of a Supreme Court ruling is that their decisions are absolute. They are the final decision. There are no do-overs on their rulings.

 

 

 

Their rulings are limited by laws and the Constitution though.....and obviously there have been do-overs.

Ain't nothing final 

[Burgold]

53 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Their rulings are limited by laws and the Constitution though.....and obviously there have been do-overs.

Ain't nothing final 

And who is the final arbiter of the Constitution? Who is the final judge of whether a law can stand?

 

A bad Supreme Court creates damage that lasts for decades if not longer. We all know this. 

[Kilmer17]

http://data.rollcall.com/media/senate_on_gorsuch/

 

Where the Senate Stands on Gorsuch

 

I have looked all over, but cant find info on GOPers support for voting to end the Filibuster.  I think it's a 52 vote consensus, but I could be wrong.

[Kilmer17]

Vote happening now.

 

Filibuster is dead.  52-48

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Vote happening now.

 

Filibuster is dead.  52-48

This is unfortunate. Not just because of Trump, but in general.

How quick we are to go nuclear. How slow we are to negotiate and debate.

[Kilmer17]

There are no statesmen anymore