Jump to content
Akkula

Filibuster of Gorsuch

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mugtang said:

And they approved his two other nominees without any issues.  What's your point?

They violated the constitution by making up a non existent rule.and not even having a committee hearing for almost a year. So why should the dems play nice with assholes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

They violated the constitution by making up a non existent rule.and not even having a committee hearing for almost a year. So why should the dems play nice with assholes?

Please explain how the Republicans violated the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say they have to hold a hearing within a set time frame. 

What happened to "when they go low, we go high?"   Democrats new slogan should be "when they go low, we go lower!" 

  • Like 4

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

They violated the constitution by making up a non existent rule.and not even having a committee hearing for almost a year. So why should the dems play nice with assholes?

What the republicans did with Garland pissed me off.  It pissed off a lot of conservatives here.

Why should the dems play nice?  For the good of the American citizenship.  At some point somebody needs to take the high road and set a new precedent.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

What the republicans did with Garland pissed me off.  It pissed off a lot of conservatives here.

Why should the dems play nice?  For the good of the American citizenship.  At some point somebody needs to take the high road and set a new precedent.   

Yeah, but when you are playing with someone one who never plays nice, and hasn't since at least Newt, every time you do, you lose ground. At some point, you have to draw a line and quit being the party of pussies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jackmormon said:

Yeah, but when you are playing with someone one who never plays nice, and hasn't since at least Newt, every time you do, you lose ground. At some point, you have to draw a line and quit being the party of pussies.

So where was the violation of the Constitution?

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

The whole advise and consent thing. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is unpresidented.

It could be argued they did advise the President that they weren't going to give consent to Garland being the nominee.  Unprecedented, maybe, but hardly a violation of the Constitution.  I disagreed with it then but we can't go back and change the past.  So I guess we have only bickering children on both sides of the aisle. Both parties are as useful as an asshole on your elbow.  

  • Like 3

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jackmormon said:

Yeah, but when you are playing with someone one who never plays nice, and hasn't since at least Newt, every time you do, you lose ground. At some point, you have to draw a line and quit being the party of pussies.

I guess I am just worried this will screw us all over.  There is a time to show balls.  Ideally that would not be now.  As was said, the Trump administration and our lady handed president are still pretty unknown, for lack of a better word.  His nomination of Gorsuch was a good move.  I am concerned Trump, being Trump, will take this as an insult and do something really vindictive.  We can't change the fact Trump is POTUS, congress has a responsibility to the American people to limit damage done.  That responsibility should come before the party.

I have some serious issues with Republicans right now as well but that is for another discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

The whole advise and consent thing. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is unpresidented.

You are wrong and it is not umprecedented. Have you not heard of the Biden Rule when in 1992 he advocated for doing exactly what the GOP Did? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

Historically there is no timetable set that a judge has to be sat in the court. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/

The problem when most people today talk about US history they only go back a few years and have no clue what is or isn't unprecedented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Yeah, WFT?  If they don't want a filibuster they should have come up with a consensus candidate that was vetted and agreed to in advance.  They stole the seat and then basically said they were going to ram someone down our throats and we were going to like it or they would go nuclear.  If the filibuster has no meaning we might as well get rid of it.  

A lot of Democrats already wanted to get rid of the filibuster, this is the opportunity to have them do the dirty work or they will respect the filibuster.  Gorsuch needs to go down as the collateral damage in this Garland treachery they did to Obama and Trump needs to nominate someone else who can get Democratic votes or go nuclear...ball is in their court.  They are going to get the same treatment they give here eventually so I hope they choose wisely.

The funny thing, though, is it is all the trumpians who are clutching their pearls over losing the filibuster.  

Here's the problem with this argument. Gorsuch said in his hearings that he rules based on the law and the law only. His personal feelings don't go into it at all. That is what conservatives want. Libs want judges that rule based on someones status whether that is economic, racial, etc. When we can't even agree on the rule of law how can come up with a consensus? 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

The whole advise and consent thing. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is unpresidented.

You're a supporter of the party that created the term "Borked",  and started the whole problem with nominees being forced to do more then just be qualified.     It is actually quite funny to see your tears.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You're a supporter of the party that created the term "Borked",  and started the whole problem with nominees being forced to do more then just be qualified.     It is actually quite funny to see your tears.

I am actually laughing at you bumbling fools inability to advance your healthcare legislation you've promised for 7 years.  We don't need the filibuster because you idiots will just filibuster yourselves the whole time anyway.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Akkula said:

I am actually laughing at you bumbling fools inability to advance your healthcare legislation.  We don't need the filibuster because you idiots will just filibuster yourselves the whole time anyway.

Republicans actually allow independent thought.  It must be very confusing for you.  Those tea party guys actually have moral and ethical positions, something totally foreign to a socialist like you.  

 Not to mention the democrats wasted 2.5 years on healthcare without passing anything else totally blowing away their advantage of a filibuster proof congress.  

You are laughing the laugh of the ignorant.  The best thing that could happen to health care int he country is the repeal of medicare, medicaid and obamacare and no replacement.  You think that would be a disaster and you are right, it would be a disaster for socialists like you when medical costs dropped by 80% as the inefficiencies mandated by government fell away.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Republicans actually allow independent thought.  It must be very confusing for you.  Those tea party guys actually have moral and ethical positions, something totally foreign to a socialist like you.  

 Not to mention the democrats wasted 2.5 years on healthcare without passing anything else totally blowing away their advantage of a filibuster proof congress.  

You are laughing the laugh of the ignorant.  The best thing that could happen to health care int he country is the repeal of medicare, medicaid and obamacare and no replacement.  You think that would be a disaster and you are right, it would be a disaster for socialists like you when medical costs dropped by 80% as the inefficiencies mandated by government fell away.

But government is the only one that can solve problems created by government. :rolleyes: 

  • Like 3

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

You are wrong and it is not umprecedented. Have you not heard of the Biden Rule when in 1992 he advocated for doing exactly what the GOP Did? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

Historically there is no timetable set that a judge has to be sat in the court. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/

The problem when most people today talk about US history they only go back a few years and have no clue what is or isn't unprecedented. 

No, I am right. there is no Biden Rule. And no hearings were ever blocked. Here is the part of Biden's remarks conservatives conviensntly leave out..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Akkula said:

I am actually laughing at you bumbling fools inability to advance your healthcare legislation you've promised for 7 years.  We don't need the filibuster because you idiots will just filibuster yourselves the whole time anyway.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

No, I am right. there is no Biden Rule. And no hearings were ever blocked. Here is the part of Biden's remarks conservatives conviensntly leave out..

 

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

7 hours ago, ph90702 said:

If you’re such a UNLV fan, why did you go elsewhere?

 

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...