Jump to content
Akkula

Filibuster of Gorsuch

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

You don't get it. I used the Biden example of the rhetoric used. As for actually not have a hearing it absolutely has happened in US history. Just because the dolts at Mother Jones, Vox and Salon never informed you of this doesn't make it not true.

'By far the longest gap – 841 days, or more than two years – came in the mid-1840s. Justice Henry Baldwin died in April 1844, but the mutual antipathy between President John Tyler and the Whig-controlled Senate (the Whigs actually expelled Tyler from their party) made filling the vacancy all but impossible. The Senate declined to act on any of Tyler’s nominations to fill Baldwin’s seat, and it was still open when James Polk took office in May 1845. The Senate rejected Polk’s first nominee, and his second choice declined to accept. Finally, Robert Cooper Grier was confirmed in August 1846.'

To further show you have no idea what you are talking about we will refer to the United States Constitution. I know you libs don't like this document and think it is living and all that other crap but it the foundation of our laws still in this country. Here is the language quoted directly from Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, Paragraph 2 '[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.'

Nowhere there does it say there is a time limit. So not only is there precedent for doing exactly what the GOP did, there is no rule that says they couldn't. 

The rhetoric that Biden used is in the video above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

The rhetoric that Biden used is in the video above.

I honestly can't figure out if you are trolling or are just that partisan. 

Here is the quote I am talking about from that speech :'Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.'

Link with the FULL video and transcript is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I honestly can't figure out if you are trolling or are just that partisan. 

Here is the quote I am talking about from that speech :'Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.'

Link with the FULL video and transcript is here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

That is not the full transcript. He completely leaves out the text in the video I posted.

He also said if the president acted with advise and consent of the senate or nominated a moderate, they would get a full hearing.

thats the part conservatives always leave out. Plus it never happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Yellow Evan said:

As a Democrat, I think this is over the top obstruction, and is partially why I despised the GOP during the Obama era. This is just a waste of political capital, especially since it doesn't change the balance of the court.

It's dumb tactics.

If they filibuster, then the GOP goes nuclear.  Which means the democrats won't even be able to slow down a trump nominee if Ginsberg or another liberal die while trump is in office.

The smart thing is to drag it out as long as possible and eat up senate floor time.  Slowing the GOP agenda.  Then consider filibustering a balance altering pick.

It does no good for the left to die on this hill.  They don't have the votes to stop it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

It's dumb tactics.

If they filibuster, then the GOP goes nuclear.  Which means the democrats won't even be able to slow down a trump nominee if Ginsberg or another liberal die while trump is in office.

The smart thing is to drag it out as long as possible and eat up senate floor time.  Slowing the GOP agenda.  Then consider filibustering a balance altering pick.

It does no good for the left to die on this hill.  They don't have the votes to stop it.

They aren't going to win.  They will just use the nuclear option and the public seeing that Gorsuch is a decent smart guy will support them.

Wait until you get something you can filibuster and win on.  Something where you aren't so obviously partisan.  Then you will get public support and your cries of wolf might not be ignored.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

That is not the full transcript. He completely leaves out the text in the video I posted.

He also said if the president acted with advise and consent of the senate or nominated a moderate, they would get a full hearing.

thats the part conservatives always leave out. Plus it never happened.

You completely leave out my documented example during the Tyler presidency. I wonder, like Joe From Wyo, do you think that never happed either? Do you deny the words directly from the Constitution?

The Biden speech is used because he makes the points of why a confirmation does not need to take place. It doesn't matter if the dems didn't follow through. What matters is the argument. He made the same argument that the GOP did last year.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

You completely leave out my documented example during the Tyler presidency. I wonder, like Joe From Wyo, do you think that never happed either? Do you deny the words directly from the Constitution?

The Biden speech is used because he makes the points of why a confirmation does not need to take place. It doesn't matter if the dems didn't follow through. What matters is the argument. He made the same argument that the GOP did last year.  

 

A lot of things have changed in the last 180 years. 

Biden was simply advising Bush 41. That if he nominated a controversial pick in the closing days of his presidency, it wouldn't be welcomed. He went on to say that a moderate, or a nominee chosen with advice and concent it would be welcomed. 

Garland was all accounts a moderate who was Cinderella well qualified by all, but was given no consideration neatly a year out from the end of Obama's term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

So if there was an 841 day gap in the Tyler Presidency, how was the Garland thing unprecedented? (Not "unpresidented" as you said btw) 

I assume he was mocking Trump's use of the word.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

A lot of things have changed in the last 180 years. 

Biden was simply advising Bush 41. That if he nominated a controversial pick in the closing days of his presidency, it wouldn't be welcomed. He went on to say that a moderate, or a nominee chosen with advice and concent it would be welcomed. 

Garland was all accounts a moderate who was Cinderella well qualified by all, but was given no consideration neatly a year out from the end of Obama's term.

And some things haven't changed in 180 years. This process being one of them. You are flat out wrong. This is 100% legal and it has precedent. Bitching about it doesn't change a damn thing. Granted if roles were reversed and a conservative judge was not given a hearing I would be pissed. But at the least I would understand it was legal and has happened before. I certainly wouldn't try to rewrite history, or in your case, never know about the actual history. 

Controversial to you libs is someone like Gorsuch that follows the law and isn't an activist on the bench. Saying Garland was a moderate to a lefty means he is still significantly left of center and he would have shifted the court's median ideology significantly to the left. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/30/new-data-show-how-liberal-merrick-garland-really-is/?utm_term=.8035d3d6d840

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

And some things haven't changed in 180 years. This process being one of them. You are flat out wrong. This is 100% legal and it has precedent. Bitching about it doesn't change a damn thing. Granted if roles were reversed and a conservative judge was not given a hearing I would be pissed. But at the least I would understand it was legal and has happened before. I certainly wouldn't try to rewrite history, or in your case, never know about the actual history. 

Controversial to you libs is someone like Gorsuch that follows the law and isn't an activist on the bench. Saying Garland was a moderate to a lefty means he is still significantly left of center and he would have shifted the court's median ideology significantly to the left. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/30/new-data-show-how-liberal-merrick-garland-really-is/?utm_term=.8035d3d6d840

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

I don't think you get it. The GOP said before there was a nomination they wouldn't hold hearings. Obama nominated a guy that would cause the maximum amount of bad press possible for the GOP. The GOP took a huge chance Hillary would have won and nominated a more liberal judge. Obama made a great political move and the GOP took heat for it. In the end the GOP won but it was unlikely they would have.

Using Orrin Hatch as a barometer of conservative thinking is funny. Hatch is one of the biggest RINO's in the Senate and he is not conservative. Him saying Garland is acceptable just means to conservatives that we would oppose him even more. 

http://conservativeamerica-online.com/the-six-most-powerful-rinos-in-the-united-states-senate-orrin-hatch-4-of-6/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Yellow Evan said:

Keep in mind the geographic distribution of the United States.

GOP tends to do well in smaller states while Dems tends do well in bigger ones, but in the Senate, since each state has 2 Senators, the GOP has a natural long-term advantage if the fillibuster is killed.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  This is why Democrats shouldn't fear the long-term consequences of the filibuster that is designed to be a tool for small states, elites, and monied interests.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jackmormon said:

It is obvious that the only healthcare reform plan republicans ever had was Obamacare. It's a lot easier to repeal something 50 times then it is to pass something once.

Yeah, they are cowards.  They should have just sent the full repeal vote to the Senate, let it get filibustered, and made adjustments from there but at least they would have tried.  The only one that has any credibility with their prior votes is the hard-right.  The moderates couldn't stand by their full repeal votes now that they really counted and tacitly admitted they were just bullshit protest votes before against the black president.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jackmormon said:

It's obvious neither of you watched the video...

 

We are in a post-fact world with the right wing.  It doesn't matter what actually happened, only what you wanted to happen and what feels good to you that happened.  It is kind of like the wire tap claims and birtherism.  But I am sure "people are saying" that they have uncovered so "interesting things":blink:

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elena Kagan, during Senate confirmation hearings:

Ms. Kagan, though, may have inadvertently revealed her personal beliefs when she suggested the Court wrongly decided the Citizens United case. Ms. Kagan argued this case for the government as Solicitor General last September but nonetheless carefully provided the obligatory observation that the Court’s Citizens United opinion – which rejected her own argument on behalf of the government – is established precedent, and, that she would, of course, respect it as such.

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/citizens-united-confirmation

But of course, as soon as she was on SCOTUS, she voted to overturn it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-throws-out-montana-ban-on-corporate-campaign-spending/2012/06/25/gJQAZjUx1V_story.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Akkula said:

We are in a post-fact world with the right wing.  It doesn't matter what actually happened, only what you wanted to happen and what feels good to you that happened.  It is kind of like the wire tap claims and birtherism.  But I am sure "people are saying" that they have uncovered so "interesting things":blink:

The Dims sure thought there was a Thurmond rule back in 2008

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/3/121720/9398/judiciary/Time-to-Invoke-the-Thurmond-Rule-on-Bush-Judicial-Nominees

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

tumblr_ona05jBfcg1rhnukoo1_1280.jpg

Man this metaphor is perfect on so many levels.

Who is going to throw themselves into the lava? And is that rhino Frodo or Isildur? 

13 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

So if there was an 841 day gap in the Tyler Presidency, how was the Garland thing unprecedented? (Not "unpresidented" as you said btw) 

Tyler was boring and sucked. Duh

2 hours ago, Akkula said:

You know you have won when Joe from WY starts flinging the personal insults.  That is twice on this thread now, buddy.

I'm pretty sure that's how you know the argument started, frankly

  • Like 2

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...