Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[Tiggsy]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

How much respect for the process was afforded Obama's nominee and how much did you protest the c-blocking the cowards in charge provided?

Not saying I support what may happen with Gorsuch but one of the biggest problems we have with R's is they have the memory of a goldfish.

The typical response is that Obama's nominee would have changed the ideology of the court. Trump's won't.

Not saying if I agree with what either side did was right, but I'm sure that won't stop some from ripping me. Enjoy.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The typical response is that Obama's nominee would have changed the ideology of the court. Trump's won't.

Not saying if I agree with what either side did was right, but I'm sure that won't stop some from ripping me. Enjoy.

I think he's asking what your response would be.

IMO, they should have brought Garland to the floor and voted him down. They were cowards and self-serving not to do that.

I'm not all broken up about the end of 60. My instinct is that anti-democratic measures like the high cloture barrier tend to favor the forces of reaction. There are already many mechanisms in Congress for preventing anything from happening, which is why we have been largely unable to undo the terrible damage of 1981-82 that is still driving us towards fiscal Armageddon. Now, at least, the sides will be equal.

 

[BassAle]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

anyone else somewhat hopeful regarding the Kushner vs Bannon fight?
There seems to be a small group of former NY Democrats gaining power in the west wing at the expense of the nationalists. Not that I have high hopes for president Kushner, but he has to be better than president Bannon.

 

[unofan]

The typical response is that Obama's nominee would have changed the ideology of the court. Trump's won't.

So? The seats aren't apportioned by ideology.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

anyone else somewhat hopeful regarding the Kushner vs Bannon fight?
There seems to be a small group of former NY Democrats gaining power in the west wing at the expense of the nationalists. Not that I have high hopes for president Kushner, but he has to be better than president Bannon.

President Kushner probably won't be much different from President Nixon or President Reagan or the other presidents who basically ran the White House as an adjunct department of the Orange County Chamber of Commerce. We'll wind up with the USG guaranteeing real estate speculation and maybe public flogging of troublesome tenants on the National Mall. But President Bannon probably wanted to nuke China and Japan and re-colonize Africa to restore white racial hegemony while criminalizing non-state media and making Breitbart into Voice of America, so this is an improvement.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

So? The seats aren't apportioned by ideology.

It's easier for a politician to cast a yes vote when it maintains the status quo. So even if something isn't truly codified into law, it's not like a Democrat will have to fight tooth and nail to keep Trump from replace someone like Ginsburg or Sotomayor with Gorsuch.

If the ideology of the SCOTUS is going to change, they need a solid 12-year run of holding the office, and it has to be at the right time. This would have been one of those times, but things went awry with a bad candidate from one party and a worse winner from the other.

 

[unofan]

It's easier for a politician to cast a yes vote when it maintains the status quo. So even if something isn't truly codified into law, it's not like a Democrat will have to fight tooth and nail to keep Trump from replace someone like Ginsburg or Sotomayor with Gorsuch.

If the ideology of the SCOTUS is going to change, they need a solid 12-year run of holding the office, and it has to be at the right time. This would have been one of those times, but things went awry with a bad candidate from one party and a worse winner from the other.

And the biggest hypocritical pos ever running the Senate. Don't ever let Turtle off the hook for the shiat he's pulled.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

And the biggest hypocritical pos ever running the Senate. Don't ever let Turtle off the hook for the shiat he's pulled.

How soon they forget. The prior two GOP SML were Bill Frist and Trent Lott. Both of them bigger POS than Mitch. I mean Trent Lott deserves to be on the American Political POS Rushmore.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I know many will blame Harry Reid and the Democrats for this but read the following and tell me it's wrong before you do.

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-...ng-supreme-court-filibusters?cid=sm_fb_maddow

And this, along with Merrick Garland are why we are here today.

 

[unofan]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Dole and Lott have a joint editorial in today's WaPo decrying the filibuster, and they somehow don't mention Garland once. Farkers.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Is bob dole even sentient anymore?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Dole and Lott have a joint editorial in today's WaPo decrying the filibuster, and they somehow don't mention Garland once. Farkers.

Hate to see Dole covering for these stooges. Dole believed dumb things, but he wasn't evil.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Hate to see Dole covering for these stooges. Dole believed dumb things, but he wasn't evil.

But he was as big a sellout as anyone. Remember when he tried to convince people smoking wasnt linked to cancer (cause Big Tobacco was a donor for his campaign)

Scooby,

We dont even need to get into what you posted...just remember that before Obama liked Garland his name was first brought up publicly by Orrin Hatch. The GOP loved Garland until Blacky McMuslimName nominated him. Then he wasnt fit for the position once he did.

I honestly think if Obama said "Republicans are the greatest men in the world" they would all quit the party and become Democrats. That is how stupid and ideological they are.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

He's confirmed.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The US Constitution is a living document that needs to be updated from time to time, due to technological change or a widespread change in what most people believe to be right and proper.

I don't think very many people would disagree with that statement.


A key question remains: how many people do we want to have the power to determine what those changes should be? A mere five people out of 235 million? or a larger number than that?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Some people might observe that the distribution of votes in the last election indicated that a majority of voters in 30 states decided that they want more than five people to make that determination for the rest of us.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Some people might observe that the distribution of votes in the last election indicated that a majority of voters in 30 states decided that they want more than five people to make that determination for the rest of us.

And some people might observe that despite these affectations you're just promoting your personal opinion with all the intellectual honesty of a Dartmouth Review editor at a Maureen Dowd poetry slam.

 

[Rover]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I know many will blame Harry Reid and the Democrats for this but read the following and tell me it's wrong before you do.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ng-supreme-court-filibusters?cid=sm_fb_maddow

And this, along with Merrick Garland are why we are here today.

This is correct. Had Senate Dems not take the action they did, it would have been 4 years of no judges being confirmed, and then the GOP + Trump would have changed the rules anyway once elected and filled all those seats with nutters.

But I keep coming back to it. Anybody who didn't vote Dem up and down the ballot because you thought there was no difference between the parties, do you really think Gorsuch would be on the SCOTUS if either Hillary had won or the Dems have won the Senate? Nothing like striking a blow against a corporate takeover of politics by.....letting the corporations get one of their own on the highest court in the land?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

This is correct. Had Senate Dems not take the action they did, it would have been 4 years of no judges being confirmed, and then the GOP + Trump would have changed the rules anyway once elected and filled all those seats with nutters.

But I keep coming back to it. Anybody who didn't vote Dem up and down the ballot because you thought there was no difference between the parties, do you really think Gorsuch would be on the SCOTUS if either Hillary had won or the Dems have won the Senate? Nothing like striking a blow against a corporate takeover of politics by.....letting the corporations get one of their own on the highest court in the land?

That appears to be the one thing we know for sure about Gorsuch. He loves Big Money and Big Business. Loves it.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I didn't vote a straight D ticket, but I came pretty dang close. My state Rep was the incumbent generic R, and I voted to leave him in because his D opponent was a retired PhD engineer with too much time and money to blow, and a lot of kooky, overthought ideas. I also voted for another country club R in one of the county positions.

 

[joecct]

This is correct. Had Senate Dems not take the action they did, it would have been 4 years of no judges being confirmed, and then the GOP + Trump would have changed the rules anyway once elected and filled all those seats with nutters.

But I keep coming back to it. Anybody who didn't vote Dem up and down the ballot because you thought there was no difference between the parties, do you really think Gorsuch would be on the SCOTUS if either Hillary had won or the Dems have won the Senate? Nothing like striking a blow against a corporate takeover of politics by.....letting the corporations get one of their own on the highest court in the land?

Geez Rover,

Of course not. If Harry was herding the Senate last year, Garland would have been seated after the nuclear option was invoked.

At some point We the People are going to say enough is enough and there will be hell to pay. Though I wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime.