Advise and Consent?

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:04 pm

Corsair wrote:In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nomination of Merrick Garland to the DC Court of Appeals writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated".

So... you like that he stands up for what is right?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:26 pm

Corsair wrote:In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nomination of Merrick Garland to the DC Court of Appeals writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated".


Gorsuch is going to get confirmed, Dems don't have the power to prevent it. Filibustering is a half measure that can be stopped using a tool they created. Imo it won't even come to that, sure there will be some opposition and politics involved. However Gorsuch is guy Dems previously approved and will do well in the hearings. He'll get the 8 Democratic senators required to get the 60 b/c there are atleast 10 democratic senators from heavy red states up for re-election in 2018 and this is not the hill from them to make a stand on. Plus there are few moderate Dems that will endorse Gorsuch already like MB's boy Joe Manchin.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 317 times
Been thanked: 318 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:14 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Corsair wrote:In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nomination of Merrick Garland to the DC Court of Appeals writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated".


Gorsuch is going to get confirmed, Dems don't have the power to prevent it. Filibustering is a half measure that can be stopped using a tool they created. Imo it won't even come to that, sure there will be some opposition and politics involved. However Gorsuch is guy Dems previously approved and will do well in the hearings. He'll get the 8 Democratic senators required to get the 60 b/c there are atleast 10 democratic senators from heavy red states up for re-election in 2018 and this is not the hill from them to make a stand on. Plus there are few moderate Dems that will endorse Gorsuch already like MB's boy Joe Manchin.

Joe is a mountain Democrat. The only difference between him and Shelly Moore Capito is the skirt.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7213
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 425 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Corsair » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:54 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Corsair wrote:In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nomination of Merrick Garland to the DC Court of Appeals writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated".


Gorsuch is going to get confirmed, Dems don't have the power to prevent it. Filibustering is a half measure that can be stopped using a tool they created. Imo it won't even come to that, sure there will be some opposition and politics involved.


I don't see any benefit of the Democrats capitulating to the right and allowing Gorsuch in. The Republicans will use the filibuster either this time, or the next time they nominate a Supreme Court seat. And lets not pretend that the GOP will ever allow another Democrat to nominate a SCJ as long as they have a majority, they flat out refused to fill the chair if Hillary were to be elected.

We've come to a point where the Dems need to fight back. We aren't playing by the same rules anymore. This isn't obstruction for obstructions sake. The game changed when the GOP stole a seat from Obama. Any nominee that comes after that point is illegitimate.

DreadNaught wrote:However Gorsuch is guy Dems previously approved and will do well in the hearings.
So was Merrick Garland, so I'm not going to give that viewpoint much credence.

Either way, Gorsuch is a loyal Republican operative. If he were the neutral, bipartisan, sterling judge he’s supposed to be, he would never have accepted Trump's invitation to usurp another neutral, bipartisan, sterling judge. If he deserves to be on the court, he deserves to be on the court by a 52-48 party-line vote, held over the death of the filibuster. Every decision he signs will come with an “R” next to his name. That’s the job he chose, and that’s the job he’ll get. He will forever live in history as the first illegitimate SCJ on the bench.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4760
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 276 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:10 pm

Corsair wrote: He will forever live in history as the first illegitimate SCJ on the bench.


Lol. This is the saltiest most butt hurt thing I've seen from you. His rulings will be legit and so will he. I'm sure you will bang the not my SCJ drum, but that doesn't matter. Why not just accept it if he's appointed and try to lobby/ fight for changes to prevent what happened to Garland?

I'm fine with Dems filibustering, but if/when he's appointed, it's over. It's subjective whether the seat was stolen. There are logical arguments both ways, but the way things are set up, it can happen again. Pouting and ignoring facts won't solve anything.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 1627
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby RedLeader » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:15 pm

Corsair wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Gorsuch is going to get confirmed, Dems don't have the power to prevent it. Filibustering is a half measure that can be stopped using a tool they created. Imo it won't even come to that, sure there will be some opposition and politics involved.


I don't see any benefit of the Democrats capitulating to the right and allowing Gorsuch in. The Republicans will use the filibuster either this time, or the next time they nominate a Supreme Court seat. And lets not pretend that the GOP will ever allow another Democrat to nominate a SCJ as long as they have a majority, they flat out refused to fill the chair if Hillary were to be elected.

We've come to a point where the Dems need to fight back. We aren't playing by the same rules anymore. This isn't obstruction for obstructions sake. The game changed when the GOP stole a seat from Obama. Any nominee that comes after that point is illegitimate.

DreadNaught wrote:However Gorsuch is guy Dems previously approved and will do well in the hearings.
So was Merrick Garland, so I'm not going to give that viewpoint much credence.

Either way, Gorsuch is a loyal Republican operative. If he were the neutral, bipartisan, sterling judge he’s supposed to be, he would never have accepted Trump's invitation to usurp another neutral, bipartisan, sterling judge. If he deserves to be on the court, he deserves to be on the court by a 52-48 party-line vote, held over the death of the filibuster. Every decision he signs will come with an “R” next to his name. That’s the job he chose, and that’s the job he’ll get. He will forever live in history as the first illegitimate SCJ on the bench.


Dude, step away from the TV, put your Crocs on, go outside, play with your dog, wash your Prius, plant some Quinoa, and take a ****ing break already. Good god, how do you find time for this ****...
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 62 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Wharf Rat » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:16 am

Corsair wrote: But this is a desperate time.


LMFAO
Wharf Rat
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:27 am
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Wharf Rat » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:20 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I get why Democrats are upset. Obama should have had his nominee confirmed. But I'm pretty sure that Democrats would do the same thing Republicans did if they could, and Corsair would have applauded them protecting the court. I could be wrong, of course. But at the end of the day, this is politics as usual, and the people still stuck in the two party system will always call on the other side to take the high road, while adamantly defending their own refusal to do so by claiming 'they did it first/most recently.'


If I remember correctly, the GOP said they were planning on blocking any nominee that Clinton would appoint. Basically, they were afraid the election was going to go the other way and they were already building their stone wall. But, all of the sudden, they're like "What? No. People should play nice."

Meanwhile, Libs were all like "That's insane! You have to confirm a new President's nomination." But...now they're all "Hey, can we borrow those stones?"

Comedy. Gold.


Exactly.
Wharf Rat
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:27 am
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Babeinbucland » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:47 am

So then this happened...Appears Gorsuch founded and led a club called Facist forever. Lol You just can't make this stuff up SMDFH

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... _led_club/
User avatar
Babeinbucland
 
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Corsair » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:50 am

Dailymail is the UK version of the National Enquirer.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 4760
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 276 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Wic14 and 4 guests

cron