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

[twa]

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

 

One day this will be a brown country. I doubt republicans will be so glib then. You guys are behind the steering wheel for the next 4 years, enjoy.  

 

More mocha really    

I doubt Reps are a one trick pony.or have to rely on color.

 

18 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

If we start down the road that Presidential powers end earlier then it'll soon be cut to nothing.

 

No one said the Presidents powers ended early , the Senate just exercised THEIR Constitutional power and discretion.

 

 

[Hersh]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

.

 

 

No one said the Presidents powers ended early , the Senate just exercised THEIR Constitutional power and discretion.

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't read far enough back because that is precisely what was suggested the solution should be. 

It can be argued the Senate did not do their constitutional duty. Though I'm not interested in rehashing how the Senate advised Obama on whom would be a great choice for the bench then when that person was selected that the Senate didn't act at all. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, twa said:

No one said the Presidents powers ended early , the Senate just exercised THEIR Constitutional power and discretion.

 

 

That's BS and you know it! The whole argument for the obstruction was that it was Obama's last year. Hell, YOU even tried to claim that Obama was a lane duck when he made the nomination, until I corrected your total misunderstanding of what constitutes as a lame duck period.

 

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Okay, Supreme Court Justice Judy

[twa]

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That's BS and you know it! The whole argument for the obstruction was that it was Obama's last year. Hell, YOU even tried to claim that Obama was a lane duck when he made the nomination, until I corrected your total misunderstanding of what constitutes as a lame duck period.

 

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

deciding he was a lame duck as far as considering SCOTUS nominees is within their power....ask Schumer and Reid 

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

deciding he was a lame duck as far as considering SCOTUS nominees is within their power....ask Schumer and Reid 

So you admit that was the reasoning that McConnell et all...(that mean you too) gave for the obstruction, rather than your whole "Oh it's just their constitutional power blah blah blah...." nonsense. The WHOLE point was that they wanted to refuse Obama the ability to seat a SCOTUS nominee. They are obstructionists and ****s and I hope they pay the price for what they did. And I don't give a rats arse how many times you attempt to say that the GOP obstruction of Obama's nominee was the Dems fault...it's a stupid lie and you know it.

[twa]

Well it is the rule , gotta go by the rules.

[AsburySkinsFan]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

Well it is the rule , gotta go by the rules.

Nah, just change them as it's convenient even though you were the one being absolute obstructionists for nearly a decade.

 

I don't get how you can scream at the Dems for the change they made yet embrace the GOP when they do it. If there should EVER be a 60% majority on anything it should be SCOTUS nominees.

 

Buf you don't care, just so long as you get your way. Ends justify the means for you and the GOP.

[sacase]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Nah, just change them as it's convenient even though you were the one being absolute obstructionists for nearly a decade.

 

I don't get how you can scream at the Dems for the change they made yet embrace the GOP when they do it. If there should EVER be a 60% majority on anything it should be SCOTUS nominees.

 

Buf you don't care, just so long as you get your way. Ends justify the means for you and the GOP.

Elections have consequences. Guess the Dems should have won if they wanted to pick a SC justice. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

8 minutes ago, sacase said:

Elections have consequences. Guess the Dems should have won if they wanted to pick a SC justice. 

That's a brain dead answer.

[twa]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That's a brain dead answer.

 

That is reality.

[sacase]

2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That's a brain dead answer.

Why? because its the truth and you don't like it?

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

That is reality.

Another one...you guys are on a roll.

Anything goes as long as it's your guy making the rules. And you wonder why the divisiveness only grows.    

2 minutes ago, sacase said:

Why? because its the truth and you don't like it?

No because it's BS, and it's that exact thinking that has led us to the divisiveness that is rampant. "We won so **** you!" That right there is the statesmanship of a thug.

[DogofWar1]

10 minutes ago, sacase said:

Elections have consequences. Guess the Dems should have won if they wanted to pick a SC justice. 

Except for the fact that many in the GOP were talking about blocking Clinton nominees for 4 years even if she won.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/03/500560120/senate-republicans-could-block-potential-clinton-supreme-court-nominees

 

Cruz even hinted at shrinking the court.

 

So no, even if Dems won, they still wouldn't be allowed to pick a justice.

 

Because whenever the GOP wins and Dems lose, elections have consequences and Dems should have won if you didn't want the GOP to ram our agenda down your throats, but whenever Dems win and the GOP loses, it's a fluke and clearly America made a terrible terrible mistake and the valiant GOP Congressmen must make stands against accursed liberalism until such a time that the rightful heirs of God's kingdom on Earth can take control once more by the grace of pissed off white folks, because Republicans are god's chosen people and Reagan was secretly the 2nd coming and Democrats are godless and/or satan's little helpers.

[sacase]

3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Except for the fact that many in the GOP were talking about blocking Clinton nominees for 4 years even if she won.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/03/500560120/senate-republicans-could-block-potential-clinton-supreme-court-nominees

 

Cruz even hinted at shrinking the court.

 

So no, even if Dems won, they still wouldn't be allowed to pick a justice.

 

Because whenever the GOP wins and Dems lose, elections have consequences and Dems should have won if you didn't want the GOP to ram our agenda down your throats, but whenever Dems win and the GOP loses, it's a fluke and clearly America made a terrible terrible mistake and the valiant GOP Congressmen must make stands against accursed liberalism until such a time that the rightful heirs of God's kingdom on Earth can take control once more by the grace of pissed off white folks, because Republicans are god's chosen people and Reagan was secretly the 2nd coming and Democrats are godless and/or satan's little helpers.

I was actually referring to winning the house and senate. If they had maintained both of those Garland would be sitting on the bech right now. But they lost them after their supermajority. 

[DogofWar1]

2 minutes ago, sacase said:

I was actually referring to winning the house and senate. If they had maintained both of those Garland would be sitting on the bech right now. But they lost them after their supermajority. 

Except then the GOP would have filibustered the Dem nominee...for 4 years.

 

And unlike Republicans who went nuclear on SCOTUS with about as much thought on it as goes into picking which pair of underwear to wear in the morning, Dems would have been much slower to use said option, if they used it at all.

 

Remember, it took almost 5 years into Obama's Presidency, and 644 Republican filibusters since Dems took the Senate in 2006, for Dems to finally be fed up enough to go nuclear in an extremely limited manner, on a matter much less important than SCOTUS nominees.

 

So essentially, Dems should just win all their elections by Supermajorities, I suppose.

 

Maybe Dems should just collude with China to steal 2018 and 2020.  I mean, foreign influence in elections is totally fair game now, right?

[AsburySkinsFan]

9 minutes ago, sacase said:

I was actually referring to winning the house and senate. If they had maintained both of those Garland would be sitting on the bech right now. But they lost them after their supermajority. 

Name a SINGLE other time in our nation's long history when that lame ass excuse was used with a SCOTUS nominee...Oh that's right NEVER. Ya'll just made that trash up.

6 years of nothing but purely partisan obstructionism and it shows no signs of ending. And people wonder why I hate the GOP.

And trust me, if they weren't absolute freaking trolls they MIGHT have gotten me to vote for a moderate GOP Presidential candidate, but no. Ya'll choose the way of the troll.

[sacase]

6 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Except then the GOP would have filibustered the Dem nominee...for 4 years.

 

And unlike Republicans who went nuclear on SCOTUS with about as much thought on it as goes into picking which pair of underwear to wear in the morning, Dems would have been much slower to use said option, if they used it at all.

 

Remember, it took almost 5 years into Obama's Presidency, and 644 Republican filibusters since Dems took the Senate in 2006, for Dems to finally be fed up enough to go nuclear in an extremely limited manner, on a matter much less important than SCOTUS nominees.

 

So essentially, Dems should just win all their elections by Supermajorities, I suppose.

 

Maybe Dems should just collude with China to steal 2018 and 2020.  I mean, foreign influence in elections is totally fair game now, right?

Oh please, Harry Ried started it. Ya'll just mad about the consequences of the original actions. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 minutes ago, sacase said:

Oh please, Harry Ried started it. Ya'll just mad about the consequences of the original actions. 

 

[DogofWar1]

13 minutes ago, sacase said:

I was actually referring to winning the house and senate. If they had maintained both of those Garland would be sitting on the bech right now. But they lost them after their supermajority. 

Also, this goes against the spirit of advise and consent, requiring that all three branches be consolidated before the President can use their powers.

 

 

Just now, sacase said:

Oh please, Harry Ried started it. Ya'll just mad about the consequences of the original actions. 

No I'm mad that Bob Dole started it.  I'm also mad no one ever yells at him for it.

 

The biggest modern escalation of filibuster use started once Clinton took the Presidency.  Highly popular bills just died in the Senate because of the filibuster.  The filibuster as a tool, which had become easier to use in the 70's with the change in the requirement from people actually having to stand and speak to just being able to say they're filibustering and that's it caused minor increases over the years* but starting with Clinton the numbers jumped considerably.

 

Interestingly enough filibuster numbers receded somewhat from 1997 to 2006, including during the years of democratic minority under W (which is why the often trotted out 2005 point is mostly garbage), though it never quite dropped to pre-1990's levels.

 

Then Democrats won the senate, and the number of filibusters skyrocketed.  They doubled the previous Congress and beat the previous record for filibusters in a single Congressional term by about 75%.

 

This blockade continued throughout the first 6 years of Obama with little abatement.

 

 

So no, Harry Reid did not start it.  That much is blatantly obvious if you even glance at the increase in filibusters over the years.

 

 

*I also suspect some combination of people who were young when Mr. Smith Goes to Washington came out growing up with a romanticized concept of the filibuster and anti-civil rights activity (biggest example being Strom Thurmond's famous filibuster) popularized its use more leading to increasing numbers.

[AsburySkinsFan]

@DogofWar1you gotta stop pointing out facts, they don't care.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

@DogofWar1you gotta stop pointing out facts, they don't care.

 

Absolutely. 

 

Today, Harry Reid and the Democrats used the nuclear option to end the possibility of a Supreme Court nominee being filibustered. 

 

Which, I guess, they should have anticipated when the Democrats decided that Presidents can't appoint Supreme Court justices in the final year of their administration. 

[Burgold]

4 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Absolutely. 

The other key part of this is that the Republicans are never responsible for anything. It's part of the 5 year old's "They started it." mentality. Right now, the Republicans control all three branches of government and yet somehow in their mindset the Democrats are responsible for what the Republicans do? 

 

Give me a break. For good or bad own what you do. If you can't own it don't do it.

[visionary]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I heard on the radio the other day they are expecting another Justice to retire.  Cant remember who they said though.