• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:53
CEST 08:53
KST 15:53
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic3Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47
Community News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0
StarCraft 2
General
Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Official Replay Pack BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 2 - RO8 - Group A RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals NA Team League 6/8/2025 [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 28068 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6734

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6732 6733 6734 6735 6736 10093 Next
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
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
February 01 2017 20:11 GMT
#134661
From what I've seen so far, Gorsuch is fit for the post and a decent pick; not as fit as garland was of course.

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.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
February 01 2017 20:12 GMT
#134662
I'd just suck it up as a failure and confirm him. The Dems have no leverage here at all.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 20:13:39
February 01 2017 20:12 GMT
#134663
On February 02 2017 05:08 Toadesstern wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 02 2017 05:03 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 05:02 Toadesstern wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:58 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:50 TheYango wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.

I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.


I think it is? Not for just "a better nominee" or "vague political points", but I think the dems should set a clear achievable procedural goal that dissuades the Republican obstructionism in the future. Though I don't know enough about congressional procedures to indicate what that sort of thing should be.

But even if that bar is too high like a "We will stop the filibuster in exchange for a public admission of wrong doing in blocking Obama's nominee, and a denouncement of the Biden Rule" type of deal would be well worth it. Even though such an admission isn't worth jack it would at least be usable going forward politically and/or would dissuade people (including Dems) from invoking such obstructionist behavior later on.

We can't just confirm Gorsuch here and then go on like nothing happened, the playing field needs to be leveled and the obstructionist wrongs need to be righted.

perhaps, but doing that from day1 won't do any good. Maybe if another seat neats to be filled you start the same but not before that imo


That's make no sense? Any other nominee isn't the position that was obscenely obstructed by the Republicans.

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?
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 20:15:03
February 01 2017 20:13 GMT
#134664
On February 02 2017 05:08 Toadesstern wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 02 2017 05:03 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 05:02 Toadesstern wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:58 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:50 TheYango wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.

I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.


I think it is? Not for just "a better nominee" or "vague political points", but I think the dems should set a clear achievable procedural goal that dissuades the Republican obstructionism in the future. Though I don't know enough about congressional procedures to indicate what that sort of thing should be.

But even if that bar is too high like a "We will stop the filibuster in exchange for a public admission of wrong doing in blocking Obama's nominee, and a denouncement of the Biden Rule" type of deal would be well worth it. Even though such an admission isn't worth jack it would at least be usable going forward politically and/or would dissuade people (including Dems) from invoking such obstructionist behavior later on.

We can't just confirm Gorsuch here and then go on like nothing happened, the playing field needs to be leveled and the obstructionist wrongs need to be righted.

perhaps, but doing that from day1 won't do any good. Maybe if another seat neats to be filled you start the same but not before that imo


That's make no sense? Any other nominee isn't the position that was obscenely obstructed by the Republicans.

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).
Logo
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
February 01 2017 20:16 GMT
#134665
On February 02 2017 05:02 Antyee wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote:
On February 02 2017 03:59 Buckyman wrote:
On February 01 2017 10:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So this Neil Gorsuch fellow doesn't sound that bad. ... is that why nobody is discussing him?

Just some cursory reading but he sounds reasonable?


The main controversy I see about him is his concurrence with this statement in Hobby Lobby v Sebelius
the government has given us no persuasive reason to think
that Congress meant “person” in RFRA to mean anything other than its default
meaning in the Dictionary Act

(source) (RFRA = Religious Freedom Restoration Act)


Meaning that corporations that can demonstrate a religious objection to a government mandate are generally exempt from that mandate.

Those criticisms tend to overlook his concurring opinion, in which he explains why the corporation's owners can also sue in their own capacities to block enforcement of the same rule, finessing the controversial portion of the decision.

Hell, just read a few pages of his concurring opinion to see his understanding of religion and laws meant to protect freedom of conscience (imo, much neglected in modern debate)+ Show Spoiler +
All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for
ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case.
As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong. No one before us disputes that the mandate compels Hobby Lobby and Mardel to underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg. No one disputes that the Greens’ religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.1 It is no less clear from the Greens’ uncontested allegations that Hobby Lobby and Mardel cannot comply with the mandate unless and until the Greens direct them to do so — that they are the human actors who must compel the corporations to comply with the mandate.
And it is this fact, the Greens contend, that poses their problem. As they understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faith itself violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows. In light of the crippling penalties the mandate imposes for failing to comply with its dictates — running as high as $475 million per year — the Greens contend they confront no less than a choice between exercising their faith or saving their business.


I wanted to find a collection of funny opinions over the years from Gorsuch I saw on twitter because they reminded me of Frisbee & flatulence Scalia humor, but I can't find anymore.

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.
Show nested quote +
If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf–and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point–then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf.

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
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17954 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 20:19:29
February 01 2017 20:18 GMT
#134666
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.
Toadesstern
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
Germany16350 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 20:24:21
February 01 2017 20:22 GMT
#134667
On February 02 2017 05:13 Logo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 02 2017 05:08 Toadesstern wrote:
On February 02 2017 05:03 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 05:02 Toadesstern wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:58 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:50 TheYango wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.

I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.


I think it is? Not for just "a better nominee" or "vague political points", but I think the dems should set a clear achievable procedural goal that dissuades the Republican obstructionism in the future. Though I don't know enough about congressional procedures to indicate what that sort of thing should be.

But even if that bar is too high like a "We will stop the filibuster in exchange for a public admission of wrong doing in blocking Obama's nominee, and a denouncement of the Biden Rule" type of deal would be well worth it. Even though such an admission isn't worth jack it would at least be usable going forward politically and/or would dissuade people (including Dems) from invoking such obstructionist behavior later on.

We can't just confirm Gorsuch here and then go on like nothing happened, the playing field needs to be leveled and the obstructionist wrongs need to be righted.

perhaps, but doing that from day1 won't do any good. Maybe if another seat neats to be filled you start the same but not before that imo


That's make no sense? Any other nominee isn't the position that was obscenely obstructed by the Republicans.

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).

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.
<Elem> >toad in charge of judging lewdness <Elem> how bad can it be <Elem> also wew, that is actually p lewd.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
February 01 2017 20:24 GMT
#134668
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.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 20:25:57
February 01 2017 20:25 GMT
#134669
On February 02 2017 05:22 Toadesstern wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 02 2017 05:13 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 05:08 Toadesstern wrote:
On February 02 2017 05:03 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 05:02 Toadesstern wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:58 Logo wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:50 TheYango wrote:
On February 02 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote:
EDIT: Also, I think that it is foregone conclusion that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed to the Court. There are already 7 democrat senators who have indicated that they won't support a filibuster. The writing is on the wall for Schumer.

I don't fully agree with Gorsuch, but honestly Trump could do a lot worse. The Democrats should take what they can get--this one simply isn't a hill worth dying on.


I think it is? Not for just "a better nominee" or "vague political points", but I think the dems should set a clear achievable procedural goal that dissuades the Republican obstructionism in the future. Though I don't know enough about congressional procedures to indicate what that sort of thing should be.

But even if that bar is too high like a "We will stop the filibuster in exchange for a public admission of wrong doing in blocking Obama's nominee, and a denouncement of the Biden Rule" type of deal would be well worth it. Even though such an admission isn't worth jack it would at least be usable going forward politically and/or would dissuade people (including Dems) from invoking such obstructionist behavior later on.

We can't just confirm Gorsuch here and then go on like nothing happened, the playing field needs to be leveled and the obstructionist wrongs need to be righted.

perhaps, but doing that from day1 won't do any good. Maybe if another seat neats to be filled you start the same but not before that imo


That's make no sense? Any other nominee isn't the position that was obscenely obstructed by the Republicans.

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).

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.
Logo
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
February 01 2017 20:26 GMT
#134670
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.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 20:33:20
February 01 2017 20:32 GMT
#134671
this nomination is one of the few positions where congressional republicans and trump align most strongly. it's trump's face at stake and congressional republican's agenda.

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
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Profile Blog Joined March 2013
Netherlands30548 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 21:12:34
February 01 2017 21:05 GMT
#134672
On February 02 2017 05:26 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

Russian northpole oil deal with Exxon after lifting sanctions in 3 2 1
Neosteel Enthusiast
Buckyman
Profile Joined May 2014
1364 Posts
February 01 2017 21:24 GMT
#134673
"the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has — its independence" - Neil Gorsuch

biology]major
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2253 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 21:28:11
February 01 2017 21:27 GMT
#134674
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.
Question.?
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 21:34:21
February 01 2017 21:31 GMT
#134675
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.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17954 Posts
February 01 2017 21:32 GMT
#134676
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
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
February 01 2017 21:33 GMT
#134677
If nothing else, you're getting to see how much of your government system only functions because people historically wanted it to function.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 21:36:07
February 01 2017 21:34 GMT
#134678
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.
Logo
biology]major
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2253 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-02-01 21:53:42
February 01 2017 21:36 GMT
#134679
On February 02 2017 06:31 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
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?


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.
Question.?
ThaddeusK
Profile Joined July 2008
United States231 Posts
February 01 2017 21:38 GMT
#134680
Isn't suggesting that the people don't have a voice in this decision despite everyone involved being elected officials just throwing the whole point of a republic out the window?
Prev 1 6732 6733 6734 6735 6736 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 37m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 257
Livibee 103
mcanning 76
trigger 43
StarCraft: Brood War
Mong 1239
actioN 374
Snow 74
Leta 68
sorry 43
Sharp 21
yabsab 15
Dota 2
XBOCT647
Fuzer 123
League of Legends
JimRising 716
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1119
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor150
Other Games
C9.Mang0834
WinterStarcraft348
Mew2King169
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream4614
Other Games
gamesdonequick683
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4818
• Rush1049
• Stunt370
• HappyZerGling99
Upcoming Events
GSL Code S
2h 37m
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
3h 7m
OSC
14h 7m
Replay Cast
17h 7m
OSC
17h 7m
WardiTV Invitational
1d 4h
OSC
1d 6h
Korean StarCraft League
1d 20h
SOOP
2 days
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
Cheesadelphia
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
GSL Code S
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Wardi Open
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
6 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.