| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
If it were a normal situation, i'd be fine with confirming him. what to do in this unusual situation, I'm not sure. I wouldn't filibuster (because I don't like the filibuster in general, at least not the current filibuster system). I might go with an abstention on the vote, arguing illegitimacy. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 02 2017 05:08 Toadesstern wrote: but people don't really care about that unless they're very far left or very far right. Going out of your way to deny anything that could be brought up for potentially what... 1460 days seems like something that people somewhere in the middle will start caring about. The argument wasn't about the particular seat, it was about Obama's term being "almost over" (whatever that means considering the time that was still left) and people seemed to agree with that for whatever reason. So I'll stick with that. I don't think fighting over the specific seat is something people should do but fight over any seats in that "almost over" area I'm center left, and I care about the issue a great deal. because it was a violation of constitutional norms, and an attack on the foundation of a government to function. and it matters on this particular position because it was the one where the violation occurred. other positions where no violation occurred would not have this issue, so I'd be fine with filling them normally. your way seems rather odd and strange to me. why would we fight over other seats rather than the one where the violation occurred? | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 02 2017 05:08 Toadesstern wrote: but people don't really care about that unless they're very far left or very far right. Going out of your way to deny anything that could be brought up for potentially what... 1460 days seems like something that people somewhere in the middle will start caring about. The argument wasn't about the particular seat, it was about Obama's term being "almost over" (whatever that means considering the time that was still left) and people seemed to agree with that for whatever reason. So I'll stick with that. I don't think fighting over the specific seat is something people should do but fight over any seats in that "almost over" area I don't follow at all, I'm proposing that I'd like to see Democrats use a filibuster not to stop the actual nomination indefinitely, but to make a symbolic stand for reasonable congressional proceedings and rules so the potential filling of that seat is irrelevant, but the fact that the seat is the same one that was blocked by Republicans is relevant. I also don't know what "people seemed to agree with that..." is supposed to mean. See: http://www.people-press.org/question-search/?qid=1874411&pid=51&ccid=51#top The majority of people wanted a confirmation hearing to take place and that's WITH the question being loaded to divide on party lines (by referring to this particular vacancy rather than all vacancies). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 02 2017 05:02 Antyee wrote: I read up on the Supreme Court, because I didn't know much if anything about it. I have to say, Scalia's dissent on PGA Tour v. Martin is one of the most amusing things ever. I find it a little offensive that people are calling Gorsuch "Scalia 2.0" because there is almost no chance that we ever again will see someone write with something approaching Scalia's sharp wit. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18156 Posts
Or in other words, there's no point in extending an olive branch if you're only going to get beaten over the head with it. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 02 2017 05:13 Logo wrote: I don't follow at all, I'm proposing that I'd like to see Democrats use a filibuster not to stop the actual nomination indefinitely, but to make a symbolic stand for reasonable congressional proceedings and rules so the potential filling of that seat is irrelevant, but the fact that the seat is the same one that was blocked by Republicans is relevant. I also don't know what "people seemed to agree with that..." is supposed to mean. See: http://www.people-press.org/question-search/?qid=1874411&pid=51&ccid=51#top The majority of people wanted a confirmation hearing to take place and that's WITH the question being loaded to divide on party lines (by referring to this particular vacancy rather than all vacancies). and do you think Trump is the kind of man who would reconsider after getting such a message? Hell no, the man would make a mental kill-list for everyone involved and be the most spiteful person on the globe pushing things further than he would have otherwise (imo). The way I understood it Gorsuch isn't anything the Democrats want but it could be getting plenty worse and if you want to have that fight having it in the first weeks and thus having the results for the rest of Trumps term doesn't seem like something worth it to me. So instead make the fight later in his term if it comes to it, argue "oh they did the same" and don't get as much chaos I guess? But keep in mind I'm just a random onlooker from Germany, so don't take my opinion on it too serious. Chances are you guys know more about it than I do. Just wanted to share my naive thoughts. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 02 2017 05:18 Acrofales wrote: I guess the question is whether you think Republicans will play ball if you decide not to tat for their titles. Or whether they'll just tit again the next chance they get. Or in other words, there's no point in extending an olive branch if you're only going to get beaten over the head with it. If Democrats decide to be hardasses on this, all they will get is a swift smackdown because they have basically zero leverage here. They will obstruct and then also lose. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 02 2017 05:22 Toadesstern wrote: and do you think Trump is the kind of man who would reconsider after getting such a message? Hell no, the man would make a mental kill-list for everyone involved and be the most spiteful person on the globe pushing things further than he would have otherwise (imo). The way I understood it Gorsuch isn't anything the Democrats want but it could be getting plenty worse and if you want to have that fight having it in the first weeks and thus having the results for the rest of Trumps term doesn't seem like something worth it to me. So instead make the fight later in his term if it comes to it, argue "oh they did the same" and don't get as much chaos I guess? What does Trump have to do with it, this is a congressional matter? He's going to be spiteful not matter what, he already hates all the Dems and probably even most of the Republicans. You're talking about a man who couldn't get through a Black History Month speech without lashing out at CNN; his wrath is meaningless because you're going to get hit by it either way. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 02 2017 05:09 mahrgell wrote: Tillerson is now confirmed by the Senate. Have fun with that job. I look forward to seeing how he will pay his dues back to Exxon now. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
fighting this one to the ends of the earth would give them an issue around which to unite. it's mainly foreign policy stuff that's at stake though, so not sure how much that would be worth compared to the benefits of fighting this one. i'm obviously not a fan though because originalism/textualism is, in the best version, not originalism and in most versions incomplete | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On February 02 2017 05:26 LegalLord wrote: I look forward to seeing how he will pay his dues back to Exxon now. Russian northpole oil deal with Exxon after lifting sanctions in 3 2 1 | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
well spoken hypocrites and children are predominant in capitol hill, and interestingly we have a president who speaks at about 3rd grade level english to lead them. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:27 biology]major wrote: Just shows how pitifully emotional these congressmen/women are over past grievances. If a republican wins the white house, do the dems expect anything other than a conservative justice? They should give this guy a fair hearing and pass him because he is clearly qualified and knows how to be a judge. If HRC won, and dems had control over senate and house, then the republicans in that scenario should also just accept a liberal justice and give a fair hearing and pass him/her through. I have no faith in these politicians to execute anything outside of their already existing partyline thinking. Do the dems really think that if there was a vacancy in Trumps 7th year as a president that they would accept his nomination??No one cares about holding a pseudofake hearing if the end result is going to be the same, and the upcoming election is a referendum on which justice is to be placed into the court. well spoken hypocrites and children are predominant in capitol hill, and interestingly we have a president who speaks at about 3rd grade level english to lead them. The republicans should have given Garland a fair hearing and passed him because he is clearly qualified. they did not. if there was a vacancy in trumps 7th year they would've accepted his nomination, becaues that's what has been done consistetnyl throughout the ENTIRE history of the nation, and that's what both parties had done in the past. It was only republicans who did this thing now for the first time in blocking garland. so your anger at the dems is misplaced and unjustified. why woudl you be angry at the dems so much when ti's the republicans who committed the violation? when it is they who started the problem and tore down our institutions? I can understand disliking the dems doing as they are now if you have even greater vitriol for the violations of the republicans, but you are not expressing so. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18156 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:27 biology]major wrote: Just shows how pitifully emotional these congressmen/women are over past grievances. If a republican wins the white house, do the dems expect anything other than a conservative justice? They should give this guy a fair hearing and pass him because he is clearly qualified and knows how to be a judge. If HRC won, and dems had control over senate and house, then the republicans in that scenario should also just accept a liberal justice and give a fair hearing and pass him/her through. I have no faith in these politicians to execute anything outside of their already existing partyline thinking. Do the dems really think that if there was a vacancy in Trumps 7th year as a president that they would accept his nomination??No one cares about holding a pseudofake hearing if the end result is going to be the same, and the upcoming election is a referendum on which justice is to be placed into the court. well spoken hypocrites and children are predominant in capitol hill, and interestingly we have a president who speaks at about 3rd grade level english to lead them. Let me replace everything you wrote with democrat and liberal, and the same applied to Merrick Garland. Why should Democrats cooperate? They can't actually do anything about it, that's fine. But why do you think they should roll over? For the record: I mentioned some reasons, in particular, to keep the country governable. But seeing as how DC has turned into a place where it is more important to stick it to the other party than do what's good for the country, that doesn't seem to be a concern right now. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:27 biology]major wrote: Just shows how pitifully emotional these congressmen/women are over past grievances. If a republican wins the white house, do the dems expect anything other than a conservative justice? They should give this guy a fair hearing and pass him because he is clearly qualified and knows how to be a judge. If HRC won, and dems had control over senate and house, then the republicans in that scenario should also just accept a liberal justice and give a fair hearing and pass him/her through. I have no faith in these politicians to execute anything outside of their already existing partyline thinking. Do the dems really think that if there was a vacancy in Trumps 7th year as a president that they would accept his nomination??No one cares about holding a pseudofake hearing if the end result is going to be the same, and the upcoming election is a referendum on which justice is to be placed into the court. well spoken hypocrites and children are predominant in capitol hill, and interestingly we have a president who speaks at about 3rd grade level english to lead them. Why do I find it hard to believe you were voicing this same view when Obama's nominee was being blocked? Historically Dems/Republicans have accepted nominations even late into a president's term so you'd need evidence that they *would* do it rather than evidence they wouldn't. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:31 zlefin wrote: The republicans should have given Garland a fair hearing and passed him because he is clearly qualified. they did not. if there was a vacancy in trumps 7th year they would've accepted his nomination, becaues that's what has been done consistetnyl throughout the ENTIRE history of the nation, and that's what both parties had done in the past. It was only republicans who did this thing now for the first time in blocking garland. so your anger at the dems is misplaced and unjustified. why woudl you be angry at the dems so much when ti's the republicans who committed the violation? my anger is at both the dems and the republicans. I have little faith that if HRC won with a senate and house majority, that the republicans would have stopped being obstructionists. They were the inventors of obstructionism with Obama. You really think the dems would have allowed Trump to nominate a justice in his final year if an opening appeared? That is delusional. Which other justice was appointed in the final year? I honestly don't know, it seems wrong just intuitively. The people should have a voice in those kinds of HUGE 30 - 40 year lasting decisions. | ||
|
ThaddeusK
United States233 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
