Supreme Court Nominee
Posted: Jan 31st, '17, 14:26
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Welcome to the Killington Zone Message Board
https://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/
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...boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
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.madhatter wrote: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...boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
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...boston_e wrote: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.madhatter wrote: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...boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
In the race to the bottom, nobody wins.
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)madhatter wrote: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...boston_e wrote: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.madhatter wrote: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...boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
In the race to the bottom, nobody wins.
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)boston_e wrote: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...madhatter wrote: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...boston_e wrote: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.madhatter wrote: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...boston_e wrote:Eventually both sides will end up regretting this. Big mistake.
In the race to the bottom, nobody wins.
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?
Plenty of blame to go around on both sides on this.freeski wrote:Thanks Harry Reid.
Done deal, Nuke option goes to a up or down vote and up won. Gorsuch will be sworn in tomorrow evening.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?
As mentioned... plenty of blame to go around:freeski wrote:Thanks Harry Reid.