|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Basically the Democrats are at best Rorschach shouting DO IT right now. And the Democratic base is the guy Rorshach threw down an elevator shaft.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
So Trump is doing a SCOTUS Apprentice or something because he's inviting both finalists to DC for the announcement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Two-part cliffhanger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So Trump is doing a SCOTUS Apprentice or something because he's inviting both finalists to DC for the announcement. He'll make his final decision at 7:59, and it'll be whichever one he speaks to last.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So Trump is doing a SCOTUS Apprentice or something because he's inviting both finalists to DC for the announcement. He knows how to work the media, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So Trump is doing a SCOTUS Apprentice or something because he's inviting both finalists to DC for the announcement. Trump is going to stab one of the more liberal justices with a knife then install his two then they will rule the constitution allows him to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Trump is going to stab one of the more liberal justices with a knife then install his two then they will rule the constitution allows him to do that. If he literally did that the GOP wouldn't impeach him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCXbib9MahE
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EsotericCD/status/826491920826376198
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
How long before the Court hears a case on this and the executive ignores their ruling? https://twitter.com/CharESilver/status/826447357105491968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How long before the Court hears a case on this and the executive ignores their ruling? OK, holy poo poo, that's a Rubicon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How long before the Court hears a case on this and the executive ignores their ruling? http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/muslim-ban-federal-court Should be noted that the Donnelly court order granting the stay directs the USMS to enforce it so it isn't exactly ambiguous unless "this order" is taken to mean the EO being stayed by the Court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
I think someone screwed up because Judge Hardiman's Twitter account lists him as the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
That's not a verified account and it only has one tweet so who knows.
Javid fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Pretty sure I saw a similar Justice Gorsuch locked Twitter account being discussed morning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Uh oh Gorsuch has not made any sort of ruling on abortion, nor has he commented publicly on the issue. This has lead to some within the pro-life community questioning Gorsuch’s qualifications and saying that he won’t be adequately anti-abortion. Pro-life activist Andy Schlafly, for example, went as far as to say that “Gorsuch is not pro-life. That would break Trump’s pro-life pledge to pick Gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Uh oh Yeah well he also pledged some bullshit about the Constitution and his hand-picked acting attorney general is apparently telling the US Marshals service to ignore court order so who knows anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Yeah well he also pledged some bullshit about the Constitution and his hand-picked acting attorney general is apparently telling the US Marshals service to ignore court order so who knows anymore. Attorneys filed some motions for relief saying the Government is ignoring the ruling as well and have been coercing people to give up their green cards. https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-VA-0004-0004.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Could someone that cried when Scalia died really be pro-choice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Could someone that cried when Scalia died really be pro-choice? They might have mourned his tacky dicta.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Could someone that cried when Scalia died really be pro-choice? Didn't RBG cry?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Didn't RBG cry? Yes, but that was because he owed her $30.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Could someone that cried when Scalia died really be pro-choice? Sure, maybe his killer stubbed his toe in the dark as he was leaving the room.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NRSC/status/826230032725073921 lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Sotomayor comes out from under the stage, baseball bat in hand. Nitrousoxide posted:How long before the Court hears a case on this and the executive ignores their ruling? This isn't surprising at all and even if the SCOTUS were to intervene and say "hey assholes, when a Federal judge orders you to stop doing something, you stop for the time being" I'd fully expect Trump to ignore them and to tell LEOs to ignore them because it's not like people are going to take up arms on behalf of the court and try to face down the feds. If we make it to the State of the Union I can't even begin to imagine how that'll go. Maybe Trump will end the dumb "we'll give the other side our speech in advance so they can do a point by point rebuttal in detail" thing at least? Not that he'd stay on script either way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir NR seems to think it's Gorsuch. This should be filibustered for 4 years. This guy is to the right of Alito and is not even 50 yet. He'll be there for 35 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How long before the Court hears a case on this and the executive ignores their ruling? Not being reported elsewhere yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:From the article: "Preserving the filibuster now could give Democrats more leverage in the future, proponents of this strategy say. But it would enrage the Democratic base that wants a furious Democratic response to Trump's court pick." It is about the idea of using and losing the filibuster on a worse policy or SOCTUS nominee. It has nothing to do with bipartisanship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How long before the Court hears a case on this and the executive ignores their ruling? We discussed this tweet a while ago. The original facebook post has been deleted and there's no other evidence the USMS is refusing to enforce the order thus far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is about the idea of using and losing the filibuster on a worse policy or SOCTUS nominee. It has nothing to do with bipartisanship. Why would ANYONE think that capitulating and letting someone like Gorsuch on the court this time makes it any harder for McConnell to nuke the filibuster on the next nominee? I can't think of a dumber political strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Not being reported elsewhere yet. Uhhhh yeah I'd deffo wait for some confirmation on this because if true  
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:34
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
mcmagic posted:Why would ANYONE think that capitulating and letting someone like Gorsuch on the court this time makes it any harder for McConnell to nuke the filibuster on the next nominee? I can't think of a dumber political strategy. I like how democrats are treating the fillibuster like a megalixer in an RPG and saving it for the final boss. Except we'll have full fascism and they'll still be saving it for that perfect moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Gorsuch is a hill you can die on. He's a 49 year old extremist filling a stolen and illegitimate seat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why would ANYONE think that capitulating and letting someone like Gorsuch on the court this time makes it any harder for McConnell to nuke the filibuster on the next nominee? I can't think of a dumber political strategy. The article from CNN is based on 3 days old news. We'll see how people respond to Gorsuch, since he doesn't meet the mainstream test.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Gorsuch is a hill you can die on. He's a 49 year old extremist filling a stolen and illegitimate seat. You really need to get over yourself mate. There is no illegitimate way laid out in the law for the Senate to not consent or consider a nominee. The majority didn't consent and that was it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why would ANYONE think that capitulating and letting someone like Gorsuch on the court this time makes it any harder for McConnell to nuke the filibuster on the next nominee? I can't think of a dumber political strategy. Because Gorsuch would replace Scalia, so you're not shifting the balance of the court, but the next one might replace RBG. So if they filibuster isn't dead yet they might compromise and nominate a moderate conservative. Much like Obama's offer of that guy whose name I've already forgotten for Scalia's seat. LOL at this scenario, I love it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
The fact that Claire McCaskill and Mancin are ALREADY saying that any Trump nominee deserves a vote is despicable. I hope they both lose. DeusExMachinima posted:You really need to get over yourself mate. There is no illegitimate way laid out in the law for the Senate to not consent or consider a nominee. The majority didn't consent and that was it. It was an unprecedented power grab and the seat was stolen. Period. Number Ten Cocks posted:Because Gorsuch would replace Scalia, so you're not shifting the balance of the court, but the next one might replace RBG. So if they filibuster isn't dead yet they might compromise and nominate a moderate conservative. Much like Obama's offer of that guy whose name I've already forgotten for Scalia's seat. LOL at this scenario, I love it. They might also nominate an actual Unicorn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Because Gorsuch would replace Scalia, so you're not shifting the balance of the court, but the next one might replace RBG. So if they filibuster isn't dead yet they might compromise and nominate a moderate conservative. Much like Obama's offer of that guy whose name I've already forgotten for Scalia's seat. LOL at this scenario, I love it. McConnell is more likely to murder RGB on the steps of the Capitol building during a press conference than he is to nominate a moderate to the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Because Gorsuch would replace Scalia, so you're not shifting the balance of the court, but the next one might replace RBG. So if they filibuster isn't dead yet they might compromise and nominate a moderate conservative. Much like Obama's offer of that guy whose name I've already forgotten for Scalia's seat. LOL at this scenario, I love it. Why would they name a moderate conservative? They own the white house and congress. The Republicans don't want to maintain some balance of power on the court, they want to own it. If they were satisfied by a centrist compromise pick they would have accepted Obama's centrist compromise pick, or at least put it to a vote. They went through the trouble of keeping the seat empty for a year because they wanted to own the seat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:It was an unprecedented power grab and the seat was stolen. Period. The first part doesn't matter in terms of legal power here. They advised the president that the answer was no and then refused to consent. Textbook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:51
|
|