Supreme Court Nominee

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Supreme Court Nominee

Post by madhatter »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Nikoli
Poster Child Poster
Posts: 2091
Joined: Apr 17th, '07, 08:49

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by Nikoli »

Isn't he going to tell us on TV tonight apprentice style? Donnie Blowhard.
And the sea will grant each man new hope . . .
-Christopher Columbus
boston_e
Postaholic
Posts: 2979
Joined: May 19th, '07, 21:12

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by boston_e »

Personally I hope neither side ever uses the Nuclear option for the Supreme Court.

Plus the author may want to check his data. John Roberts was confirmed by a much wider margin than either of Obama's picks (Roberts was confirmed 78-22)

Kagan received just 5 republican votes while Alito received just 4 democratic votes.... so not much difference in the partisanship there.

So Democrats have certainly allowed conservative justices with whom they have had philosophical differences with to move forward.
Don't Killington Pico
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by madhatter »

Image
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
boston_e
Postaholic
Posts: 2979
Joined: May 19th, '07, 21:12

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by boston_e »

Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
Don't Killington Pico
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by madhatter »

boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
of course...not gonna stop it from happening though....D's should not filibuster gorsuch...he's about as middle as you are gonna get from an R nomination...this will set the stage for the next nominee to be much further to the right should a vacancy occur in the next 4-8 years...how shumer doesn;t recognize or acknowledge that is beyond reason...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
boston_e
Postaholic
Posts: 2979
Joined: May 19th, '07, 21:12

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by boston_e »

madhatter wrote:
boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
of course...not gonna stop it from happening though....D's should not filibuster gorsuch...he's about as middle as you are gonna get from an R nomination...this will set the stage for the next nominee to be much further to the right should a vacancy occur in the next 4-8 years...how shumer doesn;t recognize or acknowledge that is beyond reason...
I agree that thy should not filibuster Gorsuch. In the same way, the Republicans should have moved forward with hearings and a vote on Garland. Prior to that, Harry Reid should not have used the nuclear option on lower courts and the republicans should not have obstrcted nearly every one of those lower court nominees.

In the race to the bottom, nobody wins.
Don't Killington Pico
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by madhatter »

boston_e wrote:
madhatter wrote:
boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
of course...not gonna stop it from happening though....D's should not filibuster gorsuch...he's about as middle as you are gonna get from an R nomination...this will set the stage for the next nominee to be much further to the right should a vacancy occur in the next 4-8 years...how shumer doesn;t recognize or acknowledge that is beyond reason...
I agree that thy should not filibuster Gorsuch. In the same way, the Republicans should have moved forward with hearings and a vote on Garland. Prior to that, Harry Reid should not have used the nuclear option on lower courts and the republicans should not have obstrcted nearly every one of those lower court nominees.

In the race to the bottom, nobody wins.
agree w the premise of this...from a political standpoint the R's outmaneuvered the D's....ignoring garland was a risky venture but it paid off...I can;t stand judicial activism and legislating from the bench so I'm very happy to see this play out the way it has...the 9th circuit is proof positive that activist judges don't care about the law legal precedent or the constitution...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
boston_e
Postaholic
Posts: 2979
Joined: May 19th, '07, 21:12

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by boston_e »

madhatter wrote:
boston_e wrote:
madhatter wrote:
boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
of course...not gonna stop it from happening though....D's should not filibuster gorsuch...he's about as middle as you are gonna get from an R nomination...this will set the stage for the next nominee to be much further to the right should a vacancy occur in the next 4-8 years...how shumer doesn;t recognize or acknowledge that is beyond reason...
I agree that thy should not filibuster Gorsuch. In the same way, the Republicans should have moved forward with hearings and a vote on Garland. Prior to that, Harry Reid should not have used the nuclear option on lower courts and the republicans should not have obstructed nearly every one of those lower court nominees.

In the race to the bottom, nobody wins.
agree w the premise of this...from a political standpoint the R's outmaneuvered the D's....ignoring garland was a risky venture but it paid off...I can;t stand judicial activism and legislating from the bench so I'm very happy to see this play out the way it has...the 9th circuit is proof positive that activist judges don't care about the law legal precedent or the constitution...
R's definitely outmaneuvered the D's on this one, and it paid off.... for now.... but will you still be happy at some point in the future when a future D president nominates a far left activist and the R's have no filibuster option at their disposal? (I won't be happy then either)

Personally I think this will be a long term loss for all involved.

Not that it would ever happen, but I'd rather it have gone the other way... imagine requiring 70 votes to (ala Roberts) get confirmed to the Supreme Court?
Don't Killington Pico
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by madhatter »

boston_e wrote:
madhatter wrote:
boston_e wrote:
madhatter wrote:
boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
of course...not gonna stop it from happening though....D's should not filibuster gorsuch...he's about as middle as you are gonna get from an R nomination...this will set the stage for the next nominee to be much further to the right should a vacancy occur in the next 4-8 years...how shumer doesn;t recognize or acknowledge that is beyond reason...
I agree that thy should not filibuster Gorsuch. In the same way, the Republicans should have moved forward with hearings and a vote on Garland. Prior to that, Harry Reid should not have used the nuclear option on lower courts and the republicans should not have obstructed nearly every one of those lower court nominees.

In the race to the bottom, nobody wins.
agree w the premise of this...from a political standpoint the R's outmaneuvered the D's....ignoring garland was a risky venture but it paid off...I can;t stand judicial activism and legislating from the bench so I'm very happy to see this play out the way it has...the 9th circuit is proof positive that activist judges don't care about the law legal precedent or the constitution...
R's definitely outmaneuvered the D's on this one, and it paid off.... for now.... but will you still be happy at some point in the future when a future D president nominates a far left activist and the R's have no filibuster option at their disposal? (I won't be happy then either)the whole widely radical partisan thing sux...right now though I am very happy that the onslaught of leftwing activism in the federal govt has been virtually negated...I don;t want to see any right wing activism take its place though...particularly in the courts where the letter of the law needs to be as clear, concise and w/o bias, prejudice or emotional influence...

Personally I think this will be a long term loss for all involved.

Not that it would ever happen, but I'd rather it have gone the other way... imagine requiring 70 votes to (ala Roberts) get confirmed to the Supreme Court?
at least now the left has a new found value in states rights, I like that so perhaps there can be some partisanship on that front, leading to some sort of population/ideological realignment/migration so that people can be happy w the govt they have ( ha wishful thinking there I know)...ideally for me we have a strong but limited fed gov that adheres to the Constitution and leaves the rest up to the individual states...( again wishful thinking and oversimplification of a complex issue)
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
freeski
Post Office
Posts: 4699
Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 19:55
Location: Concord, N.H.
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by freeski »

Thanks Harry Reid.
I Belong A Long Way From Here.
boston_e
Postaholic
Posts: 2979
Joined: May 19th, '07, 21:12

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by boston_e »

freeski wrote:Thanks Harry Reid.
Plenty of blame to go around on both sides on this.
Don't Killington Pico
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by madhatter »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-0 ... vote-looms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

so do they still go w gorsuch? or sub in someone else just to spite the D's?
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Dr. NO
Signature Poster
Posts: 21422
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 05:52
Location: In the Baah!

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by Dr. NO »

madhatter wrote:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-0 ... vote-looms

so do they still go w gorsuch? or sub in someone else just to spite the D's?
Done deal, Nuke option goes to a up or down vote and up won. Gorsuch will be sworn in tomorrow evening.

Oops, vote is tomorrow but expected to go forward.
MUST STOP POSTING ! MUST STOP POSTING !

Shut up and Ski!

Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
boston_e
Postaholic
Posts: 2979
Joined: May 19th, '07, 21:12

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Post by boston_e »

freeski wrote:Thanks Harry Reid.
As mentioned... plenty of blame to go around:

I know you will likely blame Harry Reid and the Democrats for this but read the following and tell me it's wrong before you do. (note that I am not a big Rachel Maddow fan either, but there is some truth to this).


In case anyone’s forgotten, there were, at the time, multiple vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the nation’s most important benches, and President Obama nominated three qualified jurists, each of whom enjoyed majority support in the Senate.

Senate Republicans blocked the trio, filibustering each of the nominations.

GOP senators didn’t raise any specific objections to the jurists, but rather, said they didn’t want Obama to appoint anyone to the appellate court, ever. Republicans presented a demand never before heard in American history: the Senate must ignore the vacancies on one of the nation’s most important courts, indefinitely, because a minority of the chamber said so.

When Democrats noted how insane that was, GOP senators effectively dared the majority to do something about it. So, left with no choice, the Democratic majority turned to the “nuclear option” – a strategy Republican senators themselves crafted during the Bush/Cheney era.

GOP senators continue to characterize themselves as the victims of the events in 2013. That’s bonkers; they were the instigators of an ugly and unnecessary fight.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this, along with Merrick Garland are why we are here today.... As mentioned before, I think both sides will end up regretting the day that it came to this.
Don't Killington Pico
Post Reply