Politics Thread

[SemajParlor]

A

OUT OF THE COFFEESHOPS AND INTO THE STREETS!!!!

At least it's not a Tea Party...

[X Factor]

Were you my fifth grade teacher? Last time I heard that.

Well, "gorsuck" is something a fifth grader would probably come up with and think it's funny.

[ChicagoX]

[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.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Funny, you defined yourself in the first sentence and provided the evidence you are what you accuse Go of there after. That was pretty fantastic. Well done.

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.

[Juice]

[QUOTE=ChicagoX;576985]

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.

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.

[ChicagoX]

[QUOTE=Juice;576992]

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.

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.

[xubrew]

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.

[SemajParlor]

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.

Democrats have felt that way for a while. Now it's the Republican's turn. And the world keeps spinning

[ArizonaXUGrad]

[QUOTE=ChicagoX;576994]

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.

I am wondering this myself. When was the last time a Garland situation happened? This is a great question.

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.

[Caf]

It's amazing how clear solutions seem to be when you're benefitting from them isn't it.

Democrats have felt that way for a while. Now it's the Republican's turn. And the world keeps spinning

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.