What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

Kepler said:
The Court is gone because the DNC ran a lump of feces for president. Dump is so bad the lump of feces still nearly won.

But the Court is really gone because we haven't done what was necessary to end the plutocracy, now going on for 38 years -- that means run them out of the party and then run them out of politics completely by hammering money out of politics. We can either have gross inequality or democratic government; there is no way to have both.
Click to expand...

The Court is gone because Obama didn't have the balls to fight for it in the first place. It's his fault. Along with no public option. And now that the mandate is gone, what they call entitlements is not far behind.

Lump of Feces. Yep. And so was Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Meanwhile Bush Sr. W, and Trump weren't feces. They were rock stars.
 
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

bronconick said:
We're next
Click to expand...

A federal appeals court upheld the verdict, concluding there was probable cause to believe that Lozman was violating or was about to violate a Florida law that makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to disturb a lawful assembly.
Click to expand...

So now you can be charged with a crime because you MIGHT commit one? What is this The Minority Report?
 
Kepler said:
The Court is gone because the DNC ran a lump of feces for president.
Click to expand...

Don't absolve McConnell and Grassley for their part in that heist. The voters may have ratified it a year later, but that seat should've been filled long before the election.

And for once, I agree with Scooby. Obama should've gone to the mats for that court seat. Letting McConnell dictate that process has all the earmarkings of a stereotypical 1980's limp-wristed Dem.

And I'll never understand why the Court as a singular issue brings out GOP voters but not Dems.
 
Last edited:
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

unofan said:
Don't absolve McConnell and Grassley for their part in that heist. The voters may have ratified it a year later, but that seat should've been filled long before the election.

And for once, I agree with Scooby. Obama should've gone to the mats for that court seat. Letting McConnell dictate that process has all the earmarkings of a stereotypical 1980's limp-wristed Dem.

And I'll never understand why the Court as a singular issue brings out GOP voters but not Dems.
Click to expand...

I have sympathy with your position but what could Obama have done?
 
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

Kepler said:
I have sympathy with your position but what could Obama have done?
Click to expand...

He needed to speak out about it more. He needed to rile up the base about it. He needed to start campaigning on it immediately. He was pretty hush about it after it was stolen. He had the bully pulpit. Use it.
 
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

Kepler said:
I have sympathy with your position but what could Obama have done?
Click to expand...

Nominated him and when they stalled nominate someone else and when they stall nominate more. Then every day rake them over the coals in the Press. Obama was way too nice.
 
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

Handyman said:
Nominated him and when they stalled nominate someone else and when they stall nominate more. Then every day rake them over the coals in the Press. Obama was way too nice.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
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

ScoobyDoo said:
He needed to speak out about it more. He needed to rile up the base about it. He needed to start campaigning on it immediately. He was pretty hush about it after it was stolen. He had the bully pulpit. Use it.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

What would a GOPer do if the Dems pulled that move? They would have spent every PC talking about it, they would have had everyone up for office talking about it, they would have made sure it was on the voters minds. Obama basically shook his head at their stupidity and crossed his fingers people would care and vote. They didnt.

The Party failed and he failed as the head of the Party.
 
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

unofan said:
And I'll never understand why the Court as a singular issue brings out GOP voters but not Dems.
Click to expand...

Because too many Sanders voters bought the notion that somehow there was no difference between the candidates so apparently Trump would have nominated a liberal or Hillary would have nominated Gorsuch. :rolleyes: I know we keep hearing that pot isn't bad for us, but logic like this makes me wonder....

Every time the court rules in favor of plutocrats and corporations, I want all those Bernouts who voted Trump or stayed home to give themselves a pat on the back. You made this happen.
 
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

Rover said:
Because too many Sanders voters bought the notion that somehow there was no difference between the candidates so apparently Trump would have nominated a liberal or Hillary would have nominated Gorsuch. :rolleyes: I know we keep hearing that pot isn't bad for us, but logic like this makes me wonder....

Every time the court rules in favor of plutocrats and corporations, I want all those Bernouts who voted Trump or stayed home to give themselves a pat on the back. You made this happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that ****es me off. Democrats when running against other Democrats always say the parties are the same and eat their own young by doing it.
 
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

Rover said:
Every time the court rules in favor of plutocrats and corporations, I want all those Bernouts who voted Trump or stayed home to give themselves a pat on the back. You made this happen.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you blat this. It's false. Your product sucked. Sell something that doesn't suck.
 
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

unofan said:
Don't absolve McConnell and Grassley for their part in that heist. The voters may have ratified it a year later, but that seat should've been filled long before the election.

And for once, I agree with Scooby. Obama should've gone to the mats for that court seat. Letting McConnell dictate that process has all the earmarkings of a stereotypical 1980's limp-wristed Dem.

And I'll never understand why the Court as a singular issue brings out GOP voters but not Dems.
Click to expand...

Dems react to the Court on social issues only and probably needed an economic version of abortion to die on the wall like R's.

Of course, give Trump 8 years and they might finally pay attention to the ashes of our nation.
 
Kepler said:
I have sympathy with your position but what could Obama have done?
Click to expand...

In order of how much trouble he wanted to cause:

Bully pulpit, hammer it, rile up the base. Instead he took the high ground and got no where with it.

Recess appointment on January 3, 2017, when the new Congressional session began. Force the GOP to kick Garland out.

Claim that by not acting, the Senate has given its consent to Garland. Put him on the Court anyway.
 
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

It shouldnt have mattered if it sucked Kep...most medicines suck but better to take them than to just cross your fingers and pray. The Bernie Wing (of which I was a part of) proved the right point at the wrong time and while Rover is over the top about it the truth is if they vote in the swing states she wins.

The Dems forgot the cardinal rule...you stay center to win and go left after in office. The Bernie Bros wanted the agenda to be uber Progressive because they knew they were on the right side of history on the issues. The problem is not everyone is there yet and they screwed us all with their "Anyone but Hillary" rhetoric.
 
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

unofan said:
In order of how much trouble he wanted to cause:

Bully pulpit, hammer it, rile up the base. Instead he took the high ground and got no where with it.

Recess appointment on January 3, 2017, when the new Congressional session began. Force the GOP to kick Garland out.

Claim that by not acting, the Senate has given its consent to Garland. Put him on the Court anyway.
Click to expand...

Obama was a good man who cared more about process than partisan advantage. It was unfortunate that he happened to come along when the GOP was a terror cell. But I'm still glad to have had one president in my lifetime who I respect.
 
Kepler said:
Obama was a good man who cared more about process than partisan advantage. It was unfortunate that he happened to come along when the GOP was a terror cell. But I'm still glad to have had one president in my lifetime who I respect.
Click to expand...

And this is why we haven't had a liberal court in two generations. Because the GOP fights to win and the Dems don't.
 
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

unofan said:
And this is why we haven't had a liberal court in two generations. Because the GOP fights to win and the Dems don't.
Click to expand...

Obama was an exception and there's nothing he could have done about the GOP strong arm routine.

The real reason we're in the position we are in now is we gave up on economic liberalism for 30 years and lost presidencies to GOP thieves and thugs. A party that stands for stuff people want wins elections. A party that makes with liberal rhetoric and then does nothing to challenge the plutes is, rightly, seen as a fraud.
 
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

We've been bent over waiting for this one since Nov. 2016, but it's still gonna hurt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top