|
Kloaked00 posted:You know, with the election so recent, and because there's so much you have to learn and become used to when one becomes President, there really shouldn't be any Supreme Court Justice nominations for at least the first two years. You know, that way it can get the full attention it deserves. Cut to two years from now: "You know, with the election only two years away we really should wait and make sure the American people are able to have their voices heard." "gently caress you republicans, you started this poo poo"
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 18:22 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 06:28 |
|
hangedman1984 posted:Cut to two years from now: That would be cool and good if democrats could actually block anything.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 18:27 |
|
McConnell will go nuclear no matter what, it doesn't matter how much the democrats disagree.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 18:44 |
|
Anyone who somehow still hasn't accepted it otherwise, we're getting Justice Thiel or some other analogue whether you like it or not. Trump's SCOTUS nominee is going to the bench and there's no way to actually hold it up.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 18:56 |
|
It'd be nice for the Democrats to at least try, though.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 19:14 |
|
skull mask mcgee posted:It'd be nice for the Democrats to at least try, though. And break character?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 19:16 |
|
But if the Democrats don't go along with it then it won't give Trump and the GOP the veneer of bipartisan legitimacy the country needs! The Dems do need to fight it as loudly as possible but they won't, because deep down many of them simply don't care.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 19:17 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:McConnell will go nuclear no matter what, it doesn't matter how much the democrats disagree. So at least make him do it.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 19:18 |
|
"We think it's best if we do the republicans' job for them as it shows how good we are at administrating the union" You know and not because a significant part of dem congressmen are rent seeking cowards or worse.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 19:20 |
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nominees-trump.htmlquote:One, Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the federal appeals court in Atlanta, is a former Alabama attorney general, a graduate of Tulane’s law school and an outspoken opponent of abortion and gay rights. How bad is this?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 20:59 |
|
Lemming posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nominees-trump.html Pryor is an awful pick Never heard of the other guy
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:03 |
|
Lemming posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nominees-trump.html I just keep telling myself that he's replacing scalia. And praying RBG manages to hold out for at least 4 more years.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:08 |
|
Trump's SC shortlist is down to three. No final choice has been made yet.quote:Thomas Hardiman quote:
quote:Neil Gorsuch
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:08 |
|
Lemming posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nominees-trump.html Both suck. But both are well within the conservative judicial mainstream - they wouldn't have been surprising nominees for a President Cruz or ¡Jeb!. They're not Justice Thiel.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:08 |
|
So "Scalia but worse on 4th Amendment issues," "a raging loving lunatic," and "literally a clone of Scalia grown in a vat." It's gonna be option B, isn't it?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:12 |
|
I'm certainly hoping for Pryor.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:17 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Trump's SC shortlist is down to three. No final choice has been made yet. That reads to me like a typical law and order type, an open and proud moral conservative crusader, and a possible moral conservative crusader who may be merely morally conservative but not actually willing to overturn RvW. No good choice, but holy poo poo is one of those worse than the others.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:25 |
Of those three, I'd choose the Scalia clone. The others both seem worse, if only a little.
|
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:27 |
|
These guys are 50 years old and will be there for 30 years. What a complete disaster.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:37 |
mcmagic posted:So at least make him do it.
|
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:42 |
|
IIRC, Pryor puts activism ahead of law so much he'd make Roberts' views on the VRA seem reasonable. Hardiman would consistently rule that the US can and should be a police state. Gorsouch sounds like your standard business loving prolife rear end in a top hat right winger. If any of the liberals, or even Kennedy, leave the bench in the next 2-8 years the US is going to become a theocratic police state. Not that there isn't already a good chance of that since the midterms are going to take place after tow years of Jeff motherfucking Sessions going after voting right groups and backing nationwide vote suppression in line with what was in place in NC, WI, and other states already. IT's going to be Pyror, considering Trump's gushed about him for almost a year now. gently caress Barack Obama and the Democrats for being worthless garbage who didn't give the slightest gently caress to fight for Garland to get a hearing. Filibuster every single thing in the Senate and veto anything the GOP sneaks through and continue to do so until they give him a hearing? Nah we'll act mature and reasonable because that always works out because our nation isn't full of irrational people.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:49 |
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:I'm certainly hoping for Pryor. 5 to 4 decisions with 2 to 3 join in part concur in part opinions would certainly muddy up what exactly the precedent is.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 21:51 |
|
https://twitter.com/hillhulse/status/824008513680769024
|
# ? Jan 24, 2017 22:45 |
|
is that code
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 00:39 |
|
He hopes the Dems treat Trump's nominee like poo poo because unlike the Dems the GOP actually know how to paint the other side as obstructionist assholes and gosh he was given no choice but to go full nuclear in the Senate.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 01:19 |
|
Why don't the Democrats realize that they will pay no political penalty for obstruction?
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 01:23 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:McConnell will go nuclear no matter what, it doesn't matter how much the democrats disagree. If true, then the filibuster is worthless so best to make the Republicans get rid of it now rather than hand-wring about tradition and consensus and bipartisanship next time Democrats control congress.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 01:50 |
|
mcmagic posted:Why don't the Democrats realize that they will pay no political penalty for obstruction? because theyre all spineless fucks
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 01:51 |
|
mcmagic posted:Why don't the Democrats realize that they will pay no political penalty for obstruction? Because when they go low, we go high, all the way out of office.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 02:43 |
|
Filibuster the poo poo out of everything and say it's because you expect the next president to take office before 2020 given the ongoing investigations, then after 2018 claim you're blocking that poo poo to give America a chance to have a say.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 02:53 |
|
Would McConnell have the guts to actually nuke the fillibuster? Man this is loving nuclear level brinkmanship.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 02:58 |
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Would McConnell have the guts to actually nuke the fillibuster? Man this is loving nuclear level brinkmanship. He had the loving balls to go and act like the Dems owed these fuckers any respect and cooperation at all, let alone the "compromise by rendering your soul unto me for I am legion" line of garbage he shot off. Congressional Dems owe them two government shutdowns, a half-empty federal judiciary, several lawsuits, countless hearings, and one filibustered-for-years judge. If they nuke the filibuster then deny them a quorum if possible.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 03:17 |
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Would McConnell have the guts to actually nuke the fillibuster? Man this is loving nuclear level brinkmanship. Who is the average Republican or independent voter who cares about the filibuster?
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 03:18 |
|
My Guess: The conversation today between Senate Dems and Trump went "if you pick the still strong conservative but not the crazy person we won't do a major meltdown, which means you get an easy win in your bumpy first days and we don't get royally hosed." Making a super big showdown about basically a Scalia replacement (Gorsuch) means you don't have the same nuclear-option spectacle when, say, Ginsburg kicks the bucket in two years and you're staring down a solid conservative 6-3 majority for the next 20 years. I'm thinking Schumer is trying to get away from Pryor. Don't know about Hardiman, but I'm thinking he's a sudden option as a third option to Gorsuch and Pryor. I've read that Sykes is being held in the wings if Ginsburg dies. Query whether Democrats will actually throw a shitfit in the future hypothetical scenario. But Democrats usual MO of treating things like normal and make things work + in a weakened position, this is my best guess about current thinking.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 03:24 |
|
FAUXTON posted:He had the loving balls to go and act like the Dems owed these fuckers any respect and cooperation at all, let alone the "compromise by rendering your soul unto me for I am legion" line of garbage he shot off. You can't deny the majority a quorum. You also can't shut down the government or prevent judges from being appointed.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 07:32 |
|
Kalman posted:You can't deny the majority a quorum. Well, you can, but maybe you shouldn't
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 07:50 |
|
EwokEntourage posted:Well, you can, but maybe you shouldn't No, you can't. Majority can override you.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 07:55 |
|
Kalman posted:No, you can't. Majority can override you. Oh I didn't know that's what you meant
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 08:03 |
|
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/824229586091307008
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 14:12 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 06:28 |
honestly tempted to bet money he just nominates his sister
|
|
# ? Jan 25, 2017 14:16 |