Jump to content
halfmanhalfbronco

The Amygeddon!

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, retrofade said:

The GOP are, in fact, the ones who most recently utilized the "nuclear option" to remove the filibuster. 

After winning an election that delivered them the presidency, house, and senate; where the Democrats couldn’t accept the result regardless of who was put forth, with Neil Gorsuch being pretty widely agreed upon then as now as a supreme nominee. Sorry pal, it was clown shoes in the moment and only looks more so as time passes.

  • Like 1

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 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

After winning an election that delivered them the presidency, house, and senate; where the Democrats couldn’t accept the result regardless of who was put forth, with Neil Gorsuch being pretty widely agreed upon then as now as a supreme nominee. Sorry pal, it was clown shoes in the moment and only looks more so as time passes.

Okay? I didn't argue with the reasoning behind it. I simply stated the the GOP were the latest to eliminate the filibuster. For better or worse, the Democratic response to Gorsuch was due 100% to the fact that McConnell refused to even let Garland's nomination go to committee. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Okay? I didn't argue with the reasoning behind it. I simply stated the the GOP were the latest to eliminate the filibuster. For better or worse, the Democratic response to Gorsuch was due 100% to the fact that McConnell refused to even let Garland's nomination go to committee. 

And 100% due to the electorate choosing the exact opposite of what the Democrats wanted. 

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

2 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

And 100% due to the electorate choosing the exact opposite of what they wanted. 

I mean, use whatever means you'd like to justify the reasoning for it. My ONLY point is that your assertion was incorrect. Your team eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. The reasoning for it is irrelevant as it pertains to particular topic. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I mean, use whatever means you'd like to justify the reasoning for it. My ONLY point is that your assertion was incorrect. Your team eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. The reasoning for it is irrelevant as it pertains to particular topic. 

Yeah no sorry, not my team and not my position. Unlike others I haven’t slithered and wriggled myself into a corner here. And the reasoning did matter to me. I believe in the constitution, I also believe in good faith compromise, which is why I have glorious receipts to dunk on for days.

 

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

Just now, thelawlorfaithful said:

Yeah no sorry, not my team and not my position. Unlike others I haven’t slithered and wriggled myself into a corner here. And the reasoning did matter to me. I believe in the constitution, I also believe in good faith compromise, which is why I have glorious receipts to dunk on for days.

 

If I'm not mistaken, you've said that you're a Republican. 

In any event, the filibuster has nothing to do with the Constitution, and is instead a creation of the Senate rules. The House even had a filibuster at one point as well until they jettisoned it as the size of that body increased significantly, and they implemented rules for the length of speeches. 

Enjoy dunking though, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FresnoFacts said:

Historically, In the 1800s, Congress was increasing the size of the Supreme Court to match the increasing number of federal judicial districts being created. There is historical precedent for changing the SCOTUS size along with the more recent tradition of only 9 members.

There are currently 12 federal judicial districts (11 covering the states plus a separate district for DC). A change to 12 associate justices plus a chief justice might be historically supported.

Great find.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next 100+ days are going to be fun.

Pelosi won't rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-doesnt-rule-out-using-impeachment-as-option-to-stop-trump-supreme-court-pick

 

:popcorn:

  • Angry 1

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, retrofade said:

If I'm not mistaken, you've said that you're a Republican. 

In any event, the filibuster has nothing to do with the Constitution, and is instead a creation of the Senate rules. The House even had a filibuster at one point as well until they jettisoned it as the size of that body increased significantly, and they implemented rules for the length of speeches. 

Enjoy dunking though, I suppose.

You’re quite mistaken.

You’re right that the filibuster isn’t in the constitution, but it has for hundreds of years been an important part of fair compromise. Not that either of those things matters to some people, and I will enjoy my dunking.

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

15 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Fixed for accuracy. :thumbsup:

They kept the senate and the house, and expanded that senate majority during a wave election. Electoral college didn’t have anything to do with that.

  • Like 2

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 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

You’re quite mistaken.

You’re right that the filibuster isn’t in the constitution, but it has for hundreds of years been an important part of fair compromise. Not that either of those things matters to some people, and I will enjoy my dunking.

Got it. I remembered that you were a Republican at one point at least. :P

I'm not arguing over whether or not the filibuster should exist, be removed, or anything else. I merely interjected that it was the GOP who last removed it, and no the Democrats. Their reasoning behind the decision is irrelevant, because they were still the ones who did it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

They kept the senate and the house, and expanded that senate majority during a wave election. Electoral college didn’t have anything to do with that.

No. But that’s not exactly the whole picture either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Spaztecs said:

The next 100+ days are going to be fun.

Pelosi won't rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-doesnt-rule-out-using-impeachment-as-option-to-stop-trump-supreme-court-pick

 

:popcorn:

We have become a banana republic. It’s time to break up the band. We can’t go on like this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, retrofade said:

Got it. I remembered that you were a Republican at one point at least. :P

I'm not arguing over whether or not the filibuster should exist, be removed, or anything else. I merely interjected that it was the GOP who last removed it, and no the Democrats. Their reasoning behind the decision is irrelevant, because they were still the ones who did it. 

Why they did it is not irrelevant. They just did what had already been done. And when that happened smart people said it was a dumb thing to do, bad for the republic, and those that didn’t listen should be wary. They should’ve been wary in 2013, should’ve been wary in 2017 after they lost emphatically, should’ve been wary in 2018 before they squandered any good will left, and ought to be wary now. 

  • Like 2

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

30 minutes ago, Spaztecs said:

The next 100+ days are going to be fun.

Pelosi won't rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-doesnt-rule-out-using-impeachment-as-option-to-stop-trump-supreme-court-pick

 

:popcorn:

Double impeachment!!!

  • Haha 1

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

11 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Why they did it is not irrelevant. They just did what had already been done. And when that happened smart people said it was a dumb thing to do, bad for the republic, and those that didn’t listen should be wary. They should’ve been wary in 2013, should’ve been wary in 2017 after they lost emphatically, should’ve been wary in 2018 before they squandered any good will left, and ought to be wary now. 

It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. You claimed that they were the ones who got rid of the filibuster this last time. That isn't true. Period. Jesus man, are you that intent on being right? In any event, I'm out. This is getting pointless now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Spaztecs said:

The next 100+ days are going to be fun.

Pelosi won't rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-doesnt-rule-out-using-impeachment-as-option-to-stop-trump-supreme-court-pick

 

:popcorn:

9Uemdvx.jpg

  • Haha 3
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...