AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said: I wasn't responding to you. Calm the **** down. Just checking, your post didn't address a specific quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Justice Kennedy was nominated November 30, 1987 and confirmed on Feb 3, 1988. Reagan was out of office the following January (and likely was out of his mind a few years prior). Garland should have at least had a vote. The GOP's refusal to vote on a nomination for 11+ months has set precendent for the opposition party to do the same. It's not right, But nothing usually is in politics. Then he was nominated before Reagan was a lame duck. I agree it sets precedent and that Garland shoulda had a vote , just as Estrada should have of course precedent means little in congress.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 38 minutes ago, twa said: Then he was nominated before Reagan was a lame duck. I agree it sets precedent and that Garland shoulda had a vote , just as Estrada should have of course precedent means little in congress.. Before Reagan was a lame duck?? When precisely do Presidents become lame ducks? (Awaiting the next unwritten rule) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 If only Scalia had died 2 months earlier. Is that the rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Hersh said: There is no unwritten rule. The idea that for a quarter of a POTUS' term he should not have to ability to fill a vacant spot on the SC is ridiculous. Everyone knows that if the GOP controls the Senate during Trumps last year in office and if a seat became available on the court, the GOP will push forward to fill it. The point is that both sides do it; therefore one side can't complain when the other does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 52 minutes ago, twa said: of course precedent means little to Republicans Fixed it... 5 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: The point is that both sides do it; therefore one side can't complain when the other does it. But the Democrats DIDN'T do it...stop with the false equivalency or revisionist history, whatever it is you're doing is just blatantly false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Fixed it... But the Democrats DIDN'T do it...stop with the false equivalency or revisionist history, whatever it is you're doing is just blatantly false. Some have said they will filibuster Gorsuch. It's not the same thing as not allowing a hearing, but since the Dems arent in control, they cant prevent a hearing. The end result is the same though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Some have said they will filibuster Gorsuch. It's not the same thing as not allowing a hearing, but since the Dems arent in control, they cant prevent a hearing. The end result is the same though. Add: The view from the left is that Gorsuch is a fine candidate, they're just really pissed at the GOP. it's just petulance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Some have said they will filibuster Gorsuch. It's not the same thing as not allowing a hearing, but since the Dems arent in control, they cant prevent a hearing. The end result is the same though. Agreed, it's time for a filibuster for the history books. I want a REAL filibuster too, marathon readings from cookbooks and law books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Agreed, it's time for a filibuster for the history books. I want a REAL filibuster too, marathon readings from cookbooks and law books. Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsPassion4Life Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Hersh said: There is no unwritten rule. The idea that for a quarter of a POTUS' term he should not have to ability to fill a vacant spot on the SC is ridiculous. Everyone knows that if the GOP controls the Senate during Trumps last year in office and if a seat became available on the court, the GOP will push forward to fill it. if that happened, I would agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 3 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said: The point is that both sides do it; therefore one side can't complain when the other does it. Let's do this: make your next post in this thread your example that the garland move has precedence on the dem side---apple to apple---with support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Both Taft and Hoover nominated SCOTUS picks and had them approved in their final year. And like Reagan, Ford also had a nominee occur 1 month prior to his last year as President. So please tell us again how the GOPs treatment of Garland isn't anything but normal. https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/there-no-longer-are-any-rules-in-the-supreme-court-nomination-process/2016/02/19/2a56198a-d740-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.41b73158a495 I thought this was a fantastic read. OF course, I guess that makes me naive for expecting Fed and SCOTUS nominees get a vote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Hersh said: Before Reagan was a lame duck?? When precisely do Presidents become lame ducks? (Awaiting the next unwritten rule) It generally refers to the last year of Presidency, though some put it at when campaigning begins for the next election or for POTUS that cannot run again. I go with the former which, Biden used as well ,in saying no nominations should be filled for high courts. they were a few other dem leaders as well if ya need me to find them. There are lots of unwritten rules....most no more binding than opinions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 49 minutes ago, twa said: It generally refers to the last year of Presidency No it doesn't. You are simply wrong. It refers to the period of time between the election and the swearing in of the next President. http://bfy.tw/6Q4D FWIW @twait's no wonder the GOP overlords were able to con their lemmings into believing that denying Obama's appointment was legit. You are what I believe is an informed GOP voter and you STILL don't know what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I took Biden's advice ...sue me no good ever comes from listening to congresscritters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 So instead of talking about how nomination that didn't happen, any thoughts on Gorsuch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 31 minutes ago, PokerPacker said: So instead of talking about how nomination that didn't happen, any thoughts on Gorsuch? Good choice,accomplished and wise. He ain't Catholic is he? ....we need a quota add nope https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuch-belongs-to-a-notably-liberal-church-and-would-be-the-first-protestant-on-the-court-in-years/?utm_term=.c6b99d9408ad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 10 hours ago, PokerPacker said: So instead of talking about how nomination that didn't happen, any thoughts on Gorsuch? Another Scalia? Pass and filibuster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 18 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Agreed, it's time for a filibuster for the history books. I want a REAL filibuster too, marathon readings from cookbooks and law books. Damn...DC is just a wee bit out of my restaurant's delivery range...they're gonna need a lot of pizza! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinssRvA Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 12 hours ago, PokerPacker said: So instead of talking about how nomination that didn't happen, any thoughts on Gorsuch? Good nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 12 hours ago, twa said: I took Biden's advice ...sue me no good ever comes from listening to congresscritters. Not the dem ones anyway. Nobody should freak out too bad if the guy is another Scalia (which I don't know that he is... too busy these last couple of days to do much reading). We had a guy that was exactly like Scalia on the Supreme Court for the last 30 years and the country was progressing just fine. Now if we get a couple Scalias.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 13 hours ago, PokerPacker said: So instead of talking about how nomination that didn't happen, any thoughts on Gorsuch? Not allowed. Instead we have to act outraged, throw temper tantrums, and demand NOTHING gets accomplished fore 4 years. Because that will bring America together, end the hyper-partisan environment, and focus on the issues. You can't comment on ANYTHING related to Trump unless you are destroying him. Everyone wants to live in the safety of their own echo-chamber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 17 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said: FWIW @twait's no wonder the GOP overlords were able to con their lemmings into believing that denying Obama's appointment was legit. You are what I believe is an informed GOP voter and you STILL don't know what it is. I don't know that it was a con... I suspect anyone paying attention knew it was dirty pool. I think twa knows it's dirty pool, and is just yanking your chains, as he always does, and yet you guys continue to let him do it. I think they just (correctly, as it turns out) assumed that: -Democrats would be outraged, but they weren't going to vote Republican anyway. No loss of votes there. -Republicans might be outraged (if they have a conscience), but they probably aren't going to vote for a Democrat because of just that, and it probably energizes the base that wants to get another Scalia type on the Court. -People who don't normally vote one way or the other probably don't have strong enough convictions on Court nominations that they'd change their vote over it. The problem is that there was no way to punish the Republicans short of voting for a Democrat, which is going Nuclear for Republicans, and already happening for Democrats. The only thing it can do is add to the "Republicans suck" file which might eventually add up enough to swing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.