At least it's not a Tea Party...Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Printable View
At least it's not a Tea Party...Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Well, "gorsuck" is something a fifth grader would probably come up with and think it's funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
[QUOTE=Juice;576948]1) This whole process is now f*cked because of what the Dems did during Bork
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bork get both a hearing and a vote, and then was voted down by the Senate? Mitch McConnell set a completely different precedent moving forward in that presidents now can only nominate SCOTUS justices for three of the four years of a term if the opposition party controls the Senate.
A perfectly qualified Merrick Garland didn't even get a hearing with almost a full year left in Obama's term. I fail to see how that correlates to Bork. One person received a hearing and a vote, and was not confirmed with a half-dozen Republicans also voting against him. The other, who was very moderate and qualified, couldn't even get a hearing.
Yeah well except I actually took some time to read up on Gorsuch's opinions from previous important cases, so yeah there was that which I actually mentioned in a previous post. Fantastic, good post Strange would read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
[QUOTE=ChicagoX;576985]No, he didn't. Chuck Schumer said in 2007 that Bush shouldn't get to pick his candidate, except Schumer wasn't successful. Schumer also blocked nominees for lower court positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
[QUOTE=Juice;576992]Was a SCOTUS nominee blocked from receiving a hearing and vote? I can't ever remember a time when this actually happened up until last year. It's hard to say the precedent was set to prevent a nomination from moving forward when that never actually happened in 2007. A politician simply saying something doesn't actually set precedent. In this case, actions literally speak louder than words.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoX
Oh wow, this is great.
People agree that the process is fucked up because of recent nominees that have been blocked, but can't quite agree on who is most at fault for fucking it up.
Question: If it's fucked up, then why continue to do the very thing that you think is fucking it up??
Actually, I already know the answer to that. Carry on.
It's amazing how clear solutions seem to be when you're benefitting from them isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Democrats have felt that way for a while. Now it's the Republican's turn. And the world keeps spinning
[QUOTE=ChicagoX;576994]I am wondering this myself. When was the last time a Garland situation happened? This is a great question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
Side note, the pushing through of Tump's cabinet members is also something I am not sure I agree with here especially the ones who either lied to the panels or the ones who failed to answer questions fully. The other side of that is to just give Trump these people, but be forced to answer for what they do.
Seriously. This is part of the game folks. Get used to it (if you somehow haven't been able to from your lifetime of it being this way). No one has a moral or ethical high ground in terms of civic procedure.Quote:
Originally Posted by SemajParlor