Kilmer17 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I think Pryor is pretty far right. The other two not as much. I think it would be pretty funny to see a Dem Senator ask the eventual nominee his/her thoughts on what the GOP did to Garland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 The real fight and change will come if Kennedy retires. Or Ginsberg and Breyer. But I doubt either of them will leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said: The real fight and change will come if Kennedy retires. Or Ginsberg and Breyer. But I doubt either of them will leave I'm sure Bannon will have one or more of them knocked off. And since he seems to only want to watch the world burn, I just care about their positions on guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, TheGreatBuzz said: I'm sure Bannon will have one or more of them knocked off. And since he seems to only want to watch the world burn, I just care about their positions on guns. He appears to be a really awful human being. I'll just leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 On 1/26/2017 at 0:14 PM, HOF44 said: I get what Reid did, but my point was how did it get set up for a simple majority vote to change a rule that would require a super majority on some items. Seems like it should have taken a super majority to change the rule. Seems badly written at the beginning and it was taken advantage of by the Dems, and now the Rep will broaden it more. This is how the 60 vote rule got changed. Senator Reid stated that the Rules would be changed from 60 votes to 51 for all nominations below the Supreme court level. Senator Mcconnell made a point of order that 60 votes were needed. The President pro tem of the senate made a ruling from the chair that Sen Mcconnell was correct. Senator Reid then appealed the ruling of the Chair. It only takes 51 votes to overturn the Ruling of the Chair, The Democrats won and overturned the ruling of the chair, Senator Reid then brought up a nominee saying it only needed 51 votes now. Sen McConnell objected and made a point of order. The Chair ruled that Senator Reid was correct. Senator McConnell then asked for a vote to overturn the ruling The Republicans lost the appeal because the Democrats voted against it. That is the series of events that changed the filibuster. This is the template to do the same procedures to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Yes - but maybe we should all agree that politiciIng the Courts is wrong. It is a travesty that the SC had a vacant seat for so long, voters (like my 50+ year old father) notwithstanding. He voted for Trump due to the SC. Its a dumb reason to vote for a President... Dems allowed HW 2 SC nominees, one was Thomas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 10 hours ago, Gallen5862 said: This is the template to do the same procedures to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices. I get all that. It's just crazy to me a rule requiring a vote of 60 can by rule be overturned by a vote of 51. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Spicer saying that he thinks the Dems understand the need to fill the seat and the importance of having a full, functioning Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ted-cruz-nuclear-option-democrats-filibuster-234432?cmpid=sf Cruz responds to Merkley's shot across the bow by threatening the ultimate Trump card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 56 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ted-cruz-nuclear-option-democrats-filibuster-234432?cmpid=sf Cruz responds to Merkley's shot across the bow by threatening the ultimate Trump card. I'd say go for it, Cruz. Use the "nuclear" option. It'll bite him and the Republicans in the ass quite badly if a wave of liberal populism sweeps up the senate or House next year in response to Trump's buffoonery. Seems like another potential example of Republicans playing the game by the rules when they win, and then changing the rules when they can't win the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 What the ****? Does he think this is the Apprentice? Anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Considering how bad the selection could have been...from what I can tell Gorsuch isn't that bad. I'd defer to Predicto or LKB or any other lawyers for more info though. Seems to be a less combative and slightly less conservative version of Scalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said: I'd say go for it, Cruz. Use the "nuclear" option. It'll bite him and the Republicans in the ass quite badly if a wave of liberal populism sweeps up the senate or House next year in response to Trump's buffoonery. Seems like another potential example of Republicans playing the game by the rules when they win, and then changing the rules when they can't win the game. can't tell if joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 Hmmm, I was hoping for Gorsuch, from what I'd read before, but if he's a big Scalia fan...that's a bit worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandweave Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Okay not trolling, serious question. Afraid to ask this so be gentle please. Saying this out of respect to the many people who do find this to be an issue for them and do care about this issue. Not looking to derail this subject but seeking to understand. All I hear and see about this nomination is the Rowe vs Wade argument and how who ever is voted to the Supreme Court is expected to overthrow that. I honestly do not care about that issue. Again not being an ahole hear me out please. I am a man, I'm well in my 40s and lucky to not have to take blue pills yet, and think the furthest thing on my mind is having babies. Not being a misogynistic person either because I don't know anyone that might want to do that either. I'm sorry if this offends you but I just don't care about Abortion rights. That is not my issue. If I had my way people could get abortions if they wanted them. I'm like that with everything pretty much. If you want to do something I say you should be able to do it as long as it doesn't infringe on other people like child molestation, I do not support that. I don't care what other people do to themselves. Want to put a stupid hole in your earlobe that's 3 foot wide? Go for it. I've always been like that, if it floats your boat float on. To me the Government in lots of ways already tells us what we can and can't do to our bodies - Illegal drugs for example the Gov says we can't do them - so the "I don't want my Government telling me what I can't do with my body" argument doesn't resonate with me.The Gov tells us all what we can and can't do with our bodies already and that never stopped anyone from doing whatever they wanted to anyway right? Does any one think that abortions go away with a nomination to the court? So now to the point of this. Are there other issues the supreme court is looking to over turn with a Trump nominated judge other then the Abortion one? Not sure what I should think about Donald Trump's Supreme Court nomination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Just now, bobandweave said: To me the Government in lots of ways already tells us what we can and can't do to our bodies - Illegal drugs for example the Gov says we can't do them - so the "I don't want my Government telling me what I can't do with my body" argument doesn't resonate with me.The Gov tells us all what we can and can't do with our bodies already and that never stopped anyone from doing whatever they wanted to anyway right? Well, I'm not a fan of black market, underground abortions, for obvious reasons. Overturning or undermined abortion rights would be a ****ing social nightmare for women's rights as far as I'm concerned. Just now, bobandweave said: So now to the point of this. Are there other issues the supreme court is looking to over turn with a Trump nominated judge other then the Abortion one? Not sure what I should think about Donald Trump's Supreme Court nomination The ACA comes to mind. Gay rights and marriage quality might be thrown out the window. I have little hope Trump would do anything with Citizens United, which was a colossal screw up. I'm not sure if this would affect the medicinal marijuana debate, as I think that's more up to the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandweave Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said: Well, I'm not a fan of black market, underground abortions, for obvious reasons. Overturning or undermined abortion rights would be a ****ing social nightmare for women's rights as far as I'm concerned. - Neither am I but I thought the only thing that could happen with that was the decision handed back to the states. I was not under the impression that the SCOTUS could declare that illegal. I thought it would go the way that Marijuana laws went, if the states want it they can have it. Can they deem that illegal? If so I've officially changed my mind about that issue. Even if they made it illegal people are still gonna do that anyway so why make it harder for them? The ACA comes to mind. Gay rights and marriage quality might be thrown out the window. I have little hope Trump would do anything with Citizens United, which was a colossal screw up. I'm not sure if this would affect the medicinal marijuana debate, as I think that's more up to the states. - The mary jane debnate to me - I thought Trump came out saying he was for Gay marriage? Man I can't keep up with this stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 The GOP has nominated something like 13 out of the last 17 justices. And Roe is still the Law. That's not going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Just now, Kilmer17 said: The GOP has nominated something like 13 out of the last 17 justices. And Roe is still the Law. That's not going to change. Maybe. Today's political climate isn't like it has been in previous decades. Tea party and alt-right loons are quickly becoming the norm in today's Trumpland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 39 minutes ago, visionary said: Hmmm, I was hoping for Gorsuch, from what I'd read before, but if he's a big Scalia fan...that's a bit worrying. The last Justice admitted was a Scalia fan...The man was good at his job. 6 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said: Maybe. Today's political climate isn't like it has been in previous decades. Tea party and alt-right loons are quickly becoming the norm in today's Trumpland. Advances in science will have more to do with Roe changes than Justices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 It really is a bunch of **** that the GOP blocked Obama's nominee for 11 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCB Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Agreed, Hersh. Cheating and gaming the system is where you go when you know you'll lose the battle of actual ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.