Jump to content

Supreme Court pick is Gorsuch


oldschooler

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, cnbengal said:

Yes he's such a controversial pick that he got unanimous support when placed on the court of appeals by many of the same people who voted for him but now are calling him a bad candidate.....interesting. 

 

 

In case you didn't realize, the seat should never had been open. 

When Republicans radically changed the rules, it had a ripple effect.

Plus a Supreme Court pick is for life. And covers the laws of the land. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

In case you didn't realize, the seat should never had been open. 

When Republicans radically changed the rules, it had a ripple effect.

Plus a Supreme Court pick is for life. And covers the laws of the land. 

Not just that but if you look at the link of those rulings they are all after he was appointed, so I'm sure these same people that voted for him then have some buyers remorse.

 

I wish some of the Trump supporters fucking did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamie_B said:

 

I wish some of the Trump supporters fucking did.

 

Eh, I'm sure at least some of them do at this point.  Thing is, when you're swinging from the chandeliers & calling people "LOSERS" it's kind of hard to admit that all you've won is a cause for regret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

Eh, I'm sure at least some of them do at this point.  Thing is, when you're swinging from the chandeliers & calling people "LOSERS" it's kind of hard to admit that all you've won is a cause for regret.

Apparently it is a thing on Twitter...

 

https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

In case you didn't realize, the seat should never had been open. 

When Republicans radically changed the rules, it had a ripple effect.

Plus a Supreme Court pick is for life. And covers the laws of the land. 

Do you mean the Biden rule? The rule the the Democrats made up under George Bush in his last year that wouldn't allow him to place a supreme court nominee in an election year?  Or do you mean the rule that Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate changed to a simple majority when Obama and the Senate had control so they could get judges placed? That one ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, cnbengal said:

Do you mean the Biden rule? The rule the the Democrats made up under George Bush in his last year that wouldn't allow him to place a supreme court nominee in an election year?  Or do you mean the rule that Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate changed to a simple majority when Obama and the Senate had control so they could get judges placed? That one ?

 

 

No I mean this ...

 

In their New York University Law Review article, “The Garland Affair: What History and the Constitution Really Say About President Obama’s Powers to Appoint A Replacement for Justice Scalia,” Robin Bradley Kar and Jason Mazzone comprehensively review virtually every past Supreme Court nominations in our history and compile the data cited below.

“There have been 103 prior cases in which—like the case of President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland—an elected President has faced an actual vacancy on the Supreme Court and began an appointment process prior to the election of a successor,” they write. “In all 103 cases, the President was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement Justice.”

Let’s get down to some numbers that put Senate Republicans’ judicial coup in context.

293: Number of days Republicans stonewalled President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court before the Senate term expired.

103: Number of Supreme Court vacancies filled by elected presidents. That’s right, 103 in a row.

8: Vacancies filled during election year. Eight times in our history, Supreme Court vacancies occurred during an election year and the elected presidents’ nominees were approved.

6: Number of unelected presidential Supreme Court vacancy nominations denied. Supreme Court vacancies were denied when the sitting president was not elected: Vice President John Tyler’s nominations after death of President William Henry Harrison; VP Millard Fillmore’s nominations after the death of President Zachary Taylor; and VP Andrew Johnson’s nominations after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. President Obama was elected by the people, twice.

3: Lame-duck nominations denied. There were also three nominations made by sitting presidents post-election day, after the new president had been elected. John Quincy Adams tried after Andrew Jackson was elected; James Buchanan tried after Lincoln was elected; and President Hayes tried after James Garfield was elected. All were denied. President Obama made his nomination of Garland long before the election of Donald Trump.

84: Years since last election-year nomination. The last time there was a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year, President Hoover’s nomination was approved.

9,498: Average days in the tenure of recent Supreme Court justices (since 1970). That’s right, since 1970, Supreme Court justices who have retired, had tenures averaging 26.1 years. So, this is a quarter-century: a big time decision.

1,461: The number of days Democrats should be willing to wait for the Senate to approve President Obama’s rightful nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

 

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/01/11-important-numbers-to-remember-how-the-gop-stole-barack-obamas-supreme-court-appointment_partner/

 

103 cases in a row until now. 

Merrick Garland was the longest any Supreme Court Justice nominee has ever went without being confirmed.

Obama tried to nominate one of the oldest Justices (63) in history. A fucking Moderate to appease the other side.

Hell, the GOP (no that doesn't mean grabbers of pussy) wouldn't even vote for him.

 

 

On Sunday, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah published an op-ed in Timetitled "Democrats Are SCOTUS Hypocrites." In it, he complained that Democrats have unconscionably delayed judicial nominees for political purposes, but today it's Hatch who is refusing to hold a hearing for a candidate he has called eminently qualified for the job, because Democrats did it first. Who's the hypocrite now?

Orrin Hatch

In 1995, on the Senate floor: "Now I would like to state, for all of my colleagues here, that he is a very good nominee — I commend the administration for being willing to nominate Merrick Garland... I hope, since he is a good nominee — I think almost everybody would have to admit he's a good nominee — that we will vote him out next week. I understand the argument against that, there is no argument against Merrick Garland at all, and perhaps we can solve that problem in the future."

In 1997, on the Senate floor: "To my knowledge, no one, absolutely no one disputes the following: Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the D.C. circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned... I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the court. I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list... Opposition to this nomination will only serve to undermine the credibility of our legitimate goal of keeping proven activists off the bench."

"This is an important nomination. I believe Merrick Garland will go on to distinction... I want to thank my colleagues who voted for Judge Merrick Garland. I believe they did what was right."

In 2010, to Reuters: "A consensus nominee... I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of votes. And I will do my best to help him get them… He would be very well supported by all sides and the president knows that."

In 2016, to News Max:  "[President Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man."

Jeff Sessions

In 1997, on the Senate floor: "I respect the legal ability of Mr. Garland... We are not here in any way to impugn the integrity of Mr. Garland. By all accounts, he is a fine person and an able lawyer. He does have a very good job with the U.S. Department of Justice... I would feel comfortable supporting him for another judgeship."

In 1997, on the Senate floor: "But I think it is important to say that there is not a stall, that I or other Senators could have delayed the vote on Merrick Garland for longer periods of time had we chosen to do so. We want to have a vote on it. We want to have a debate on it. We want this Senate to consider whether or not this vacancy should be filled."

Chuck Grassley

In 1997, on the Senate floor: "Mr. Garland seems to be well qualified and would probably make a good judge — in some other court."

Most of those kind words were uttered during a 1997 hearing on whether Garland should be appointed to the DC circuit court. Hatch was joined in his support for Garland that year by six other still-sitting Republican senators: Dan Coats of Indiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Roberts of Kansas. Collins and Grassley have said they would meet with Garland.

Legislators are not alone in making an about-face on Garland. The conservative Judicial Crisis Network, whose policy director once calledthe judge "the best scenario we could hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city down a notch," has now committed $2 million in ads railing against him.  

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/republicans-are-huge-hypocrites-about-merrick-garland-20160321

 

 

 

The Republicans did what they did the entire 8 years Obama was President, they obstructed him. 

And now that a guy who lost the popular vote is in charge, you all act like you should be given the courtesy and respect 

you weren't willing to give. Fuck you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, i never asked for or expected courtesy and respect from the left as they haven't shown any since Bill was in the white house. I do find it ironic that they now find themselves in a scenario that they help create. Right or wrong that's where we are. BTW keep up the posts I find them entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, cnbengal said:

Wow, i never asked for or expected courtesy and respect from the left as they haven't shown any since Bill was in the white house. I do find it ironic that they now find themselves in a scenario that they help create. Right or wrong that's where we are. BTW keep up the posts I find them entertaining.

 

Kinda funny blaming "the Left" (another imaginary bogeyman) instead of, say, the people who actually voted for this cretin.. But you know what? I honestly don't give a shit whose fault it is right now.  This fucker is committing treason and attempting to destroy our nation & everything we stand for as a people. This is not a theocracy nor some 2nd world dictatorship. The only question worth asking is how do we get him out of there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, cnbengal said:

Wow, i never asked for or expected courtesy and respect from the left as they haven't shown any since Bill was in the white house. I do find it ironic that they now find themselves in a scenario that they help create. Right or wrong that's where we are. BTW keep up the posts I find them entertaining.

 

 You did ask.  And you acted like Gorsuch was confirmed before and  he should be now. Nothing interesting about it.

 

And what you state does not in anyway equate to what they have done. It's called the Supreme Court for a reason.

 By the way, I used to be a Right leaning Independent. The GOP has went so far Right (as should be noted by the Bush-Reagan video)

that they left me sitting. And unless you're a Corporation, or all you care about are guns and abortions, I don't see the appeal towards them anymore.

 

Image result for trump supreme court memes

 

Hope this kept you entertained 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

that they left me sitting. And unless you're a Corporation, or all you care about are guns and abortions, I don't see the appeal towards them anymore

 

 

You forgot white supremacy.  Although I think it's more a combination of all that plus a healthy amount of general discontent + apathy.

(Not at all an accusation against cnbengal, for the record)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, T-Dub said:

 

You forgot white supremacy.  Although I think it's more a combination of all that plus a healthy amount of general discontent + apathy.

(Not at all an accusation against cnbengal, for the record)

 

My bad. I can't believe I forgot white supremacy was on the ballot this past election.

But I am not a fan of any of those things. And I can't think of anything I am a fan of that would make me vote for 

anything that resembles a conservative, even more so Trumplethinskin. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...