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

[ABQCOWBOY]

I hate this.  I hate that you can now just force things through by simple majority in every aspect of our Government.   I believe Gorsuch is as good a candidate as you are going to get at this point.  I didn't like what happened with Garland and I hated the fact that the Dems opened the door to this during the Obama Administration.

 

This totally sucks!   Americans no longer have any say in who gets placed where and that's not how it's supposed to work.  Now, Parties and Politicians run the show and honestly, does anybody really trust those guys to do the right thing for us?

 

I hate this so much......

[TradeTheBeal!]

Is there anything that can't be blamed on Obama?

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Is there anything that can't be blamed on Obama?

 

You know the answer to that one.

 

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

4 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Is there anything that can't be blamed on Obama?

 

Good question.   An equally good one might be, is there anything that Obama didn't blame on GWB? 

[twa]

34 minutes ago, Burgold said:

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.

 

What is there to negotiate or debate?

 

He is clearly qualified and above reproach.

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Good question.   An equally good one might be, is there anything that Obama didn't blame on GWB? 

Are you really going there? You are blaming Obama for the Republicans for filibustering and not even filibustering, but outright refusing to engage in the Constitutional duty to advise and consent and then subsequently refusing to negotiate, debate, or do the work to try to get Gorsuch in via normal means. One vote and go nuclear?

 

I guess you could blame the Democrats for the Republicans refusing to vote on literally hundreds of seats imperiling our judicial system and our personal safety. I didn't like the D's going nuclear because the R's left hundreds of benches unmanned either, but at least they tried to get a judge through for years before their boiling point.

 

Regardless, this is a terrible day if you believe in checks against abuse and corruption. The Supreme Court is now never decided by the qualifications of the candidate, but only by who kisses the majorities ring and promises to be a good ideological lap dog.

[ABQCOWBOY]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

What is there to negotiate or debate?

 

He is clearly qualified and above reproach.

 

Well, I will say this TWA, I wished that the GOP might have gave it another run, to see if we could have passed this through traditional process.  Sounds like we had 5 Dems who were willing to break ranks.  If he GOP gives it another charge up the hill, just to see if we could turn more folks and it fails then, I think you can say that they did all that could be done.   I would have liked to have seen them try that.  I just hate this.  I didn't like it when the Dems did it to us and I don't much like it now that we are in power.  I mean, I don't kid myself.  I know that the minute the Dems are back in power, they would do this because they've already shown a willingness to change the rules in order to get something done but that doesn't really help "we the people", if you know what I mean. 

 

I just hate to see this. 

[Burgold]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

What is there to negotiate or debate?

 

He is clearly qualified and above reproach.

Then they should have been able to make the case. They never even tried.

 

If you believe that human rights should supersede those of corporate rights than Gorsuch is not a good justice. To me, that's a pretty essential question. In his worldview corporations are people with rights. People are not.

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Are you really going there? You are blaming Obama for the Republicans for filibustering and not even filibustering, but outright refusing to engage in the Constitutional duty to advise and consent and then subsequently refusing to negotiate, debate, or do the work to try to get Gorsuch in via normal means. One vote and go nuclear?

 

I guess you could blame the Democrats for the Republicans refusing to vote on literally hundreds of seats imperiling our judicial system and our personal safety. I didn't like the D's going nuclear because the R's left hundreds of benches unmanned either, but at least they tried to get a judge through for years before their boiling point.

 

Regardless, this is a terrible day if you believe in checks against abuse and corruption. The Supreme Court is now never decided by the qualifications of the candidate, but only by who kisses the majorities ring and promises to be a good ideological lap dog.

 

I'm there.   But for the record, I didn't Blame Obama, all though I think you can, if you really want to.  I blamed the Dems for doing it during his administration.  I don't guess that makes any difference?

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

I'm there.   But for the record, I didn't Blame Obama, all though I think you can, if you really want to.  I blamed the Dems for doing it during his administration.  I don't guess that makes any difference?

That's true. Sorry. I was responding to Beal's response/interpretation of what you said.

 

D's laid the groundwork for this. R's took it over the cliff. Bad, bad day for democracy. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

15 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Good question.   An equally good one might be, is there anything that Obama didn't blame on GWB? 

 

Care to illuminate us?

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

That's true. Sorry. I was responding to Beal's response/interpretation of what you said.

 

D's laid the groundwork for this. R's took it over the cliff. Bad, bad day for democracy. 

 

I agree, both are complicit but I don't think the GOP took it over a cliff.  This was coming the minute the Dems used this to force policy during the Obama Administration.  I mean, honestly, I argued endlessly that this would happen then and I was not alone.  Many others did as well.  Now we are here and exactly what we feared has taken place.   This is dangerous.  We could see 4 justices in 8 years and that kind of power is dangerous for the American people, if the wrong kinds of nominees are appointed.  

 

But honestly, do you feel like the Dems would not do this in future if in the same situation?  I mean, I don't see how, even if the GOP avoided this, that this was not the ultimate destination once the can was opened.

 

JMO

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Care to illuminate us?

 

I don't think it requires any illumination.  That would be a waste of everybodies time. 

[Popeman38]

9 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Well, I will say this TWA, I wished that the GOP might have gave it another run, to see if we could have passed this through traditional process.  Sounds like we had 5 Dems who were willing to break ranks.  If he GOP gives it another charge up the hill, just to see if we could turn more folks and it fails then, I think you can say that they did all that could be done.   I would have liked to have seen them try that.  I just hate this.  I didn't like it when the Dems did it to us and I don't much like it now that we are in power.  I mean, I don't kid myself.  I know that the minute the Dems are back in power, they would do this because they've already shown a willingness to change the rules in order to get something done but that doesn't really help "we the people", if you know what I mean. 

 

I just hate to see this. 

The problem with where we are is that these 5 Dems will be punished for breaking ranks (and the same holds true if the GOP broke ranks).

[twa]

Did someone say De Facto dead? 

[ABQCOWBOY]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

The problem with where we are is that these 5 Dems will be punished for breaking ranks (and the same holds true if the GOP broke ranks).

 

Absolutely true.

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

 

 

I don't think it requires any illumination.  That would be a waste of everybodies time. 

 

Compelling arguement.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Compelling arguement.

 

Not really trying to argue the point.  I mean, everybody knows the score there and this thread is about the SCJ, not rehashing Obama/GWB.

 

It is what it is.  If you don't wish to accept it, that's fine.

[Burgold]

5 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

 

But honestly, do you feel like the Dems would not do this in future if in the same situation?  I mean, I don't see how, even if the GOP avoided this, that this was not the ultimate destination once the can was opened.

I'd like to think not.

 

There's an old rule in theater that if there's a gun on the stage it has to go off by the third act. Most playwrights live and die by this rule. However, in real life, there are many times where the gun is not fired. How many  biological or chemical weapons has the United States developed that never got used in theater? How many times have we had the option to seriously hinder a right (pick one... freedom of speech, press, privacy) and it has survived despite the discomfort it has given to the majority.

 

There is something fudamentally different about Trumpism and the new GOP. The Press is the enemy. Privacy is being attacked in a way never seen before. I'd like to think that we don't have to fall down this cliff and that men of reason and conscience can slam the brakes. John McCain said we should, but voted for Hell anyway. Kennedy did too. There's something new and more wrong today than what we've experienced before.

 

Just because one side jay walked does not make serial killing inevitable.

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Not really trying to argue the point.  I mean, everybody knows the score there and this thread is about the SCJ, not rehashing Obama/GWB.

 

It is what it is.  If you don't wish to accept it, that's fine.

 

You brought up Obama.  You brought up W.

 

Fall back if you ain't got nothing but hot air.

[ABQCOWBOY]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I'd like to think not.

 

There's an old rule in theater that if there's a gun on the stage it has to go off by the third act. Most playwrights live and die by this rule. However, in real life, there are many times where the gun is not fired. How many  biological or chemical weapons has the United States developed that never got used in theater? How many times have we had the option to seriously hinder a right (pick one... freedom of speech, press, privacy) and it has survived despite the discomfort it has given to the majority.

 

There is something fudamentally different about Trumpism and the new GOP. The Press is the enemy. Privacy is being attacked in a way never seen before. I'd like to think that we don't have to fall down this cliff and that men of reason and conscience can slam the brakes. John McCain said we should, but voted for Hell anyway. Kennedy did too. There's something new and more wrong today than what we've experienced before.

 

Just because one side jay walked does not make serial killing inevitable.

 

Perhaps, but recent history doesn't support that IMO.  I don't think this is really about Trump.  I mean, I've heard the left say, at almost every turn, that he is dumb as a box of rocks.  Well, if he's truly, that dumb, how does he come up with this? 

 

Honestly, and to me it goes back to this, who is going to get nominated that is a better option then Gorsuch, for the left?  I get being pissed off over Garland but you can't take that to the next level and expect to get anything out of the deal.  Gorsuch is a good candidate, with respects to what the Left might see in the way of a nomination.  

[FanboyOf91]

Thank God the racist filibuster is one step closer to the ash heap of history.

 

[skinny21]

Messed up situation.  

 

Personally, I think it started from the Republican stance towards Obama and the fear he'd stack the (lower) courts (and a general hatred towards him).  I don't think we've seen the same level of obstruction from the Dems (in general).  I'd argue that the Dems have been more consistent about playing toward the middle of the ideological spectrum.  The nominees they have fought the hardest have had major faults/flaws.  Schumer made a good point that in the past, it's been typical that President's have consulted with the opposite party regarding SCJs.  Trump consulted the Heritage Foundation.

 

With that said, while the Right built the slope and greased it up, the Dems are the one that took the first step.  Burgold makes a good point that the Right has essentially re-made itself in Fox's image, and Trump has upped the ante (with vileness, animosity, and craziness) to such a degree, that it's hard for me to blame the Dems too much for trying to pump the brakes.

 

Obviously, Gorsuch skews more right than I'd like, but my issue with him are more about the peripheral stuff - the Russian connection, the way he was picked, the idea that 60 votes has been the norm and the Right's BS regarding Garland.  I guess I do take issue with his plagiarism and non answers, but personal scandal, questionable integrity and deflection/avoidance are pretty much what I expect in today's politics (particularly from the Right).

 

 

 

Calling BS that Obama blamed everything on GWB.

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Vote happening now.

 

Filibuster is dead.  52-48

I want to throw up.

Our government is disgusting, full of shills and whores. I can only hope that McConnell lives long enough to regret this.

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

What is there to negotiate or debate?

 

He is clearly qualified and above reproach.

Tell me about it!!!

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Lets all hope Sandra Day O'Connor can hang on ... Im not outraged, you knew this was coming whether or not a R or D won the POTUS election. 

 

Republicans will rue the day power swings back to Dems bc once that happens, this will be a Dem country for a long long time. 

 

Unprecendented times.

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Lets all hope Sandra Day O'Connor can hang on

Sandra Day O'Connor retired at least 10 years ago.

 

You meant Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I believe.