|
DeusExMachinima posted: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. They actually didn't give Garland a down vote, so they never answered no.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
The answer is already no until they vote otherwise. Stop flailing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:02
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
so for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth it's realistically pretty much 100% certain that whoever is nominated will get confirmed, right
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted: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. Yeah, a lot of people would have to die for him to become president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
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. No, one person refused consent. The head of the Judiciary committee refused to bring the nomination to the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Levitate posted:so for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth it's realistically pretty much 100% certain that whoever is nominated will get confirmed, right Yes. There's nothing that can stop Trump's nominee from being confirmed because you'd have to get GOP senators to flip and good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
duz posted:No, one person refused consent. The head of the Judiciary committee refused to bring the nomination to the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Levitate posted:so for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth it's realistically pretty much 100% certain that whoever is nominated will get confirmed, right Yes he will get confirmed but hopefully it's only after McConnell has to nuke the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:And the Senate created their own rules such that the head of the Judiciary Committee doesn't need to bring the nomination to the Senate. Like I agree that it's bad for the Senate to not vote on this stuff, but it's clearly within their power. Well, it's also within the power of the Democrats to filibuster, at least for now. "They had the power to say no" is a trivializing the argument because if we're arguing power politics and nothing else there's never any reason to say yes to the other side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, it's also within the power of the Democrats to filibuster, at least for now. "They had the power to say no" is a trivializing the argument because if we're arguing power politics and nothing else there's never any reason to say yes to the other side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
twodot posted:And the Senate created their own rules such that the head of the Judiciary Committee doesn't need to bring the nomination to the Senate. Like I agree that it's bad for the Senate to not vote on this stuff, but it's clearly within their power. I'm not agreeing with the guy that said it was illegitimate, I'm disagreeing with the guy that said the majority said no. One guy said no, no one else was asked (because a majority would most likely say yes).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's good, just, or legitimate. Thank you you for your time
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's good, just, or legitimate. Thank you you for your time Trump's presidency for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Well, Gorsuch it is
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
So how hosed are we with this Neil guy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
gohmak posted:So how hosed are we with this Neil guy? He's Scalia without the blatant racist. He's a horror.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He's Scalia without the blatant racist. He's a horror. I've no doubts about this statement because this admin doesn't pick good people, but what are the particulars of this horror we now face?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
zxqv8 posted:I've no doubts about this statement because this admin doesn't pick good people, but what are the particulars of this horror we now face? Well he's at least 95% Scalia so thats horror enough
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
The really hosed up thing will be when Thomas resigns and Trump replaces him with some 50-year-old.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Today is where all the republicans who ignored Trump's racism, sexual assault, and bigotry get paid back with this evil gently caress on the court for 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
This Gor-sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
I'm not tired of winning yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
it could be worse, this guy is apparently a libertarian and while i am ideologically opposed to libertarians, i prefer them in judge positions over neocons any day at least libertarians respect civil liberties
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He's Scalia without the blatant racist. He's a horror.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Given that nobody I would find ideal was ever going to be picked, I don't think he's laughably terrible. It's not like Trump picked an old time lawyer friend, which if he was less desperate for a public victory he might have. I'd get mad about his "religious freedom" rulings, except I can't get mad at him when I could get mad at Chuck Schumer for introducing the Religious Freedom Act and Bill Clinton for signing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Are we even sure about that? I doubt anyone this admin would pick isn't blatantly racist. He's probably not a blatant racist but it won't matter in the context of how he'll rule. Just like Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
He's fully expected to toe the party line on "religious liberty" so Obergefell and Lawrence are still sunk if one of the Justices in favor of those decisions dies/retires.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:it could be worse, this guy is apparently a libertarian and while i am ideologically opposed to libertarians, i prefer them in judge positions over neocons any day He's an originalist though which means his libertarianism probably amounts to "civil liberties for everyone, no minorities or women"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Given that nobody I would find ideal was ever going to be picked, I don't think he's laughably terrible. It's not like Trump picked an old time lawyer friend, which if he was less desperate for a public victory he might have. The federal law wasn't that bad tho, and was largely designed to protect native America religions. Not their fault the republicans coopted them into gay hate bills
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:The federal law wasn't that bad tho, and was largely designed to protect native America religions. Not their fault the republicans coopted them into gay hate bills They should have knew they would because in 1993 the national mood towards gays was closer to Phyllis Schlafy than Harvey Milk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Yes he will get confirmed but hopefully it's only after McConnell has to nuke the filibuster. This. If you are a Democratic Senator, why do you not force them to do this? The moment this happens, Republicans own literally everything that happens until the next election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Interesting note: he clerked for Kennedy. He would be the first ever justice to serve alongside a justice he clerked for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/charliespiering/status/826606862304964608
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
B B posted:This. If you are a Democratic Senator, why do you not force them to do this? The moment this happens, Republicans own literally everything that happens until the next election. And if you're too afraid to ever use it, then its the same as not having it
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:And if you're too afraid to ever use it, then its the same as not having it Yeah, there's no point in saving it because they'll get rid of it the first time it's used. Might as well get it over with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Gonna be funny when the Republicans sell off that land behind them and it's oil pumps and mines as far as the eye can see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
If Democrats had balls they would say that they're opposing Gorsuch because, as McConnell stated repeatedly last year, he was following the precedent set by Joe Biden in 1992 that said presidents shouldn't nominate Supreme Court justices during an election campaign, and since Trump already filed his reelection paperwork that means America is already in an election campaign and therefore Trump can't nominate a judge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Given that nobody I would find ideal was ever going to be picked, I don't think he's laughably terrible. It's not like Trump picked an old time lawyer friend, which if he was less desperate for a public victory he might have. That would have been better, though. For one thing, Trump’s old‐time lawyer friends are in their sixties and seventies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Gonna be funny when the Republicans sell off that land behind them and it's oil pumps and mines as far as the eye can see. I think that's the land that Obama's EPA flooded with toxic waste and then refused to pay compensation for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:The really hosed up thing will be when Thomas resigns and Trump replaces him with some 50-year-old. That's still vastly, vastly preferable Kennedy or one of the liberals. If any of those 5 go with the GOP having one party rule then I hope you're ready for abortion to be outlawed and likely made a felony, in addition to SSM being a state-level thing at best, and with copious amounts of Federal-level protection for anyone who wants to discriminate against gays. Some things, like labor unions, are already on borrowed time since nationwide Right to gently caress You is going to be passed and signed in to law within the next few months at most. Considering things like the DHS's current behavior, or that Trump's pretty much gutting the government and what positions he fills are with yes men, things are going to get really loving dark regardless. Commie NedFlanders posted:at least libertarians respect civil liberties For white people maybe. For anyone else? I guess if you consider a tweet or Facebook post while voting straight ticket-R to be respect, sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 02:58
|
|