Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

Dear Chuck and Harry

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, roswellcoug said:

Notorious RBG is retiring?

 

7 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Kennedy was the speculation I saw on Good Morning America. 

I was making a funny. The only way RGB will resign, with the chance that Trump would name her successor, is if she dies. 

But even at that, I think there we'll see a "Weekend at SCOTUS" starring Kagan and Sotomayor! 

v1.bjsxODE0Njk7ajsxNzI4MjsxMjAwOzIwNDg7MTUzNg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

He's going to appoint Ted Cruz. Watch.

Thanks Dems. 

The Donald: "I'm pleased to announce that I am nominating Lyin' uhm, Senator Ted Cruz as the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States! God bless Canada uhm 'murica"

 

122616_cruz.jpg?itok=rHr_0ks_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

But for the dems' original tomfoolery with creating a nuclear option to begin with, the prospect of the Zodiac Killer on the bench wouldn't be anything more than a bad acid trip. 

That logic is faulty. You could just as easily say if not for the Republicans overuse and abuse of the filibuster, the Dems would have never felt the nuclear option necessary. Or blame McConnell for the Garland process. Or you could blame Republican voters, who will punish any Republican who does not support anyone short of the Zodiac Killer. Or you could go way back and blame the Dems for the original sin of the Bork nomination.

The point is there is plenty of blame to go around. The wheels of dysfunction were set in motion long before Harry pulled the trigger on the nuclear option. The more partisan among us have been celebrating the wins for their side, and wagging their finger at the other side, not realizing just how +++++ed this process has become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, roswellcoug said:

I vote this. 

 

53 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Funny. I'd rather blame people like you ... on both sides.

On second thought, I blame it all on Anita Hill and her craven use of stereotypes about black men to try to kill the nomination of Clarence Thomas. And the Dims that supported that narrative. Racists one and all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, roswellcoug said:

 

On second thought, I blame it all on Anita Hill and her craven use of stereotypes about black men to try to kill the nomination of Clarence Thomas. And the Dims that supported that narrative. Racists one and all!

No, it's people like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NVGiant said:

No anger for McConnell?

McConnell deserves blame for pulling that bullshit with Garland and making the 2016 election, in part, a referendum on the vacancy. I said at the time Garland, and any other nominee, deserved a hearing and a vote, even if the Republicans voted no every time. Unfortunately, the voters agreed with McConnell.

Responsibility for the nuclear option falls on Reid and Schumer. Even though he opposed the nuclear option while in the minority, Reid blew it up for political expediency, despite the fact Obama got appointees to federal appeals courts through at a higher percent than his predecessor and in total had only 1% of his nominees actually blocked from confirmation when called for a vote.

Knowing he didn't have the votes to stop anything, Schumer chose Gorsuch, a superbly qualified choice that aced his hearings, as his hill to die on. The rationale of firing up the base seems pretty illogical to me when the base just had a referendum election on a freakin' Barack Obama nominee and they didn't turn out. Now instead of having the high ground from approving a perfectly mainstream conservative judge and some juice to oppose any looney appointment, Schumer has no bullets left to fight a looney toon Trump nominee. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

McConnell deserves blame for pulling that bullshit with Garland and making the 2016 election, in part, a referendum on the vacancy. I said at the time Garland, and any other nominee, deserved a hearing and a vote, even if the Republicans voted no every time. Unfortunately, the voters agreed with McConnell.

Responsibility for the nuclear option falls on Reid and Schumer. Even though he opposed the nuclear option while in the minority, Reid blew it up for political expediency, despite the fact Obama got appointees to federal appeals courts through at a higher percent than his predecessor and in total had only 1% of his nominees actually blocked from confirmation when called for a vote.

Knowing he didn't have the votes to stop anything, Schumer chose Gorsuch, a superbly qualified choice that aced his hearings, as his hill to die on. The rationale of firing up the base seems pretty illogical to me when the base just had a referendum election on a freakin' Barack Obama nominee and they didn't turn out. Now instead of having the high ground from approving a perfectly mainstream conservative judge and some juice to oppose any looney appointment, Schumer has no bullets left to fight a looney toon Trump nominee. 

Like the GOP gave a shit about the Gorsuch filibuster. They were itching to use the nuclear option. And they would've used it regardless, even for whatever whack job Trump picks. It didn't matter what hill Schumer chose to die on. He was most certainly going to die on some hill. It's not like anyone will hold the senate accountable for either using the nuclear option or confirming a whack job. 

None of this stuff happened in a vacuum. Not even Harry's nuclear option. It's a nonstop tit for tat that has created a downward spiral for decades. (For instance, why are you angry with Reid for using the nuclear option, and not McConnell? Nobody forced that turtle-faced clown to use it this time around. And don't say because it was the Dems' unreasonable filibuster. Because that is the same rationale Reid used.)

The looney tunes president that was elected in 2016 will pick a looney tunes judge who will then be confirmed by a looney tunes senate, and the collection of looney tunes who voted for these people will be in utter ecstasy. Sounds to me like the voters are getting exactly what they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Like the GOP gave a shit about the Gorsuch filibuster. They were itching to use the nuclear option. And they would've used it regardless, even for whatever whack job Trump picks. It didn't matter what hill Schumer chose to die on. He was most certainly going to die on some hill. It's not like anyone will hold the senate accountable for either using the nuclear option or confirming a whack job. 

None of this stuff happened in a vacuum. Not even Harry's nuclear option. It's a nonstop tit for tat that has created a downward spiral for decades. (For instance, why are you angry with Reid for using the nuclear option, and not McConnell? Nobody forced that turtle-faced clown to use it this time around. And don't say because it was the Dems' unreasonable filibuster. Because that is the same rationale Reid used.)

The looney tunes president that was elected in 2016 will pick a looney tunes judge who will then be confirmed by a looney tunes senate, and the collection of looney tunes who voted for these people will be in utter ecstasy. Sounds to me like the voters are getting exactly what they wanted.

Reid opened the floodgates. The Republicans considered using the nuclear option in 2006, but they took the high road in the face of Democrat obstruction, because it's important for the Senate not to become a glorified House. At least, that was Reid's position in 2006. So yes, while McConnell might have went tit for tat, it was Reid who took the egregious step.

And you can't say the filibuster was done had Schumer not gone full retard. McConnell didn't wan't it to come to that, he likes the parliamentary rules that used to elevate the Senate above the House. That's why we still have the legislative filibuster when it could just have easily been done away with. Schumer bit our nose to spite our face. So yeah, when we are forced to eat William Pryor he is at fault.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Reid opened the floodgates. The Republicans considered using the nuclear option in 2006, but they took the high road in the face of Democrat obstruction, because it's important for the Senate not to become a glorified House. At least, that was Reid's position in 2006. So yes, while McConnell might have went tit for tat, it was Reid who took the egregious step.

And you can't say the filibuster was done had Schumer not gone full retard. McConnell didn't wan't it to come to that, he likes the parliamentary rules that used to elevate the Senate above the House. That's why we still have the legislative filibuster when it could just have easily been done away with. Schumer bit our nose to spite our face. So yeah, when we are forced to eat William Pryor he is at fault.

Not sure Pryor gets 51 votes.   Lots of people could vote for Gorsuch whom may also have an issue voting for Pryor if he tips the balance of the court.   

I don't see Murkowski or Collins voting for Pryor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Not sure Pryor gets 51 votes.   Lots of people could vote for Gorsuch whom may also have an issue voting for Pryor if he tips the balance of the court.   

I don't see Murkowski or Collins voting for Pryor.

I hope not, but you never know if the whip gets cracked. I'd feel a lot better if it still took 60 votes, he'd never come close.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Reid opened the floodgates. The Republicans considered using the nuclear option in 2006, but they took the high road in the face of Democrat obstruction, because it's important for the Senate not to become a glorified House. At least, that was Reid's position in 2006. So yes, while McConnell might have went tit for tat, it was Reid who took the egregious step.

And you can't say the filibuster was done had Schumer not gone full retard. McConnell didn't wan't it to come to that, he likes the parliamentary rules that used to elevate the Senate above the House. That's why we still have the legislative filibuster when it could just have easily been done away with. Schumer bit our nose to spite our face. So yeah, when we are forced to eat William Pryor he is at fault.

Under McConnell/Obama the filibuster rate more doubled from the Reid/Bush era. And doing away with the legislative filibuster is next. 

You're not wrong, but you're not right either. Trying to put the blame solely on one side is ludicrous and exactly how these assholes get away with it.

we were going to get nut jobs because that's who we're voting for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I hope not, but you never know if the whip gets cracked. I'd feel a lot better if it still took 60 votes, he'd never come close.

Except if McConnell was willing to kill it now he would have killed it later.   The 60 was a charade that offered no protection.  Better to make that clear to voters now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...