|
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. |
On April 04 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country. There is no particular reason why SCOTUS nominees should not get a hearing because an election is coming up. I mean there's a scheduled election every four years, how come the Dems don't get to say "Scalia's vacant seat will be decided by the next President and Congress"? I agree the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Maybe the GOP should try a different nominee first before they take it. If you're consistent and say that the Dems are just as legitimate filibustering Gorsuch as the GOP was for denying a vote to Garland, then ok. Or the reverse, i.e. the GOP should have let a vote on Garland happen and the Dems should not filibuster. But saying one to the exclusion of the other is partisan hackery.
If gorsuch can't get through, then no republican nomination will make it. The republicans can choose to have an 8 justice court for next 4 years or use nuclear option.
I would 100 percent agree with you if the republicans filibustered garland in this situation if hrc won. I don't think they would stoop this low however.
|
On April 04 2017 03:56 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 03:48 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2017 03:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 04 2017 03:40 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2017 03:30 On_Slaught wrote:On April 04 2017 03:18 Introvert wrote:
There is only one scenario where this works long term for the Democrats.
They have to succeed here, hope a liberal/moderate justice doesn't leave in the next 3 years, and take back both the senate and presidency in 4 years. Quite a few ifs in there.
Edit: the gop has little spine, but I expect they will go through with it. The Democrats certainly would, and threatened to do so, so I expect to see those clips rolled out. Don't they just have to take back a majority in 2018? Don't have to hold out until 2020. No, they still won't be able to get an acceptable replacement if Trump is president. The #resistance that is forcing this now won't be happy with any choice. If they keep a vacancy for this long they will lose. The GOP used "no seat in an election year" what are the dems going to say? No seat because neener neener. No excuse is very marginally worse than a horrible flimsy excuse in the hyperpartisan bullshit that is Congress. As I posted a week or two ago, denying a scotus appointment in a presidents 4th or 8th year is far more normal than what is being proposed. Besides, have you seen the numbers on people who voted for Trump so he could replace Scalia? I'd wonder if you could drive out otherwise disgusted conservatives to vote for even squishy republicans to get the seat, somehow. Whose side cares more about this fight? On April 04 2017 03:48 Nevuk wrote:On April 04 2017 03:40 Introvert wrote:On April 04 2017 03:30 On_Slaught wrote:On April 04 2017 03:18 Introvert wrote:
There is only one scenario where this works long term for the Democrats.
They have to succeed here, hope a liberal/moderate justice doesn't leave in the next 3 years, and take back both the senate and presidency in 4 years. Quite a few ifs in there.
Edit: the gop has little spine, but I expect they will go through with it. The Democrats certainly would, and threatened to do so, so I expect to see those clips rolled out. Don't they just have to take back a majority in 2018? Don't have to hold out until 2020. No, they still won't be able to get an acceptable replacement if Trump is president. The #resistance that is forcing this now won't be happy with any choice. If they keep a vacancy for this long they will lose. The GOP used "no seat in an election year" what are the dems going to say? The dems will probably say that a president under FBI investigation shouldn't be allowed to make a lifetime appointment until the investigation is finished Not nearly as good of a reason as "it's an election year." unless the next appointment has ever spoken to a Russian for more than 3minutes. :p Eh, the issue isn't Gorsuch, it's Trump. He's widely viewed as illegitimate by the democratic base voters, and it is his nominee. Basing it off the idea that Trump is under investigation makes it a discussion about Trump rather than Gorsuch. Gorsuch seems perfectly qualified so it'd be a bad move to not try and make it about Trump. Yes, it's deeply cynical but no more so than Mcconnell's rule.
I'll just say that I think there is a good reason the Democrats have avoided this strat more or less. They seem to be bitching more about Garland and Gorsuch than Trump on this one.
On April 04 2017 04:04 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country. There is no particular reason why SCOTUS nominees should not get a hearing because an election is coming up. I mean there's a scheduled election every four years, how come the Dems don't get to say "Scalia's vacant seat will be decided by the next President and Congress"? I agree the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Maybe the GOP should try a different nominee first before they take it. If you're consistent and say that the Dems are just as legitimate filibustering Gorsuch as the GOP was for denying a vote to Garland, then ok. Or the reverse, i.e. the GOP should have let a vote on Garland happen and the Dems should not filibuster. But saying one to the exclusion of the other is partisan hackery. If gorsuch can't get through, then no republican nomination will make it. The republicans can choose to have an 8 justice court for next 4 years or use nuclear option. I would 100 percent agree with you if the republicans filibustered garland in this situation if hrc won. I don't think they would stoop this low however.
They dont have the guts. Guys like McCain would vote for someone she picked. So you are right.
|
On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus justice if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country.
Yep, and the Republicans caused it by their faithless gamesmanship of putting party before country. So they are now getting exactly what they asked for. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
|
On April 04 2017 01:48 Danglars wrote:Bloomberg now reporting that Susan Rice requested the unmasking of US citizens involved in Trump transition and picked up in FISA-approved surveillance on foreign persons. In the spirit of sensational Russia headlines, we now place the Obama administration spying on and then leaking about the incoming administration. They unmasked people who weren't targets, the leaks themselves were criminal. Sensationalism aside, I await further reports confirming Nunes's instincts. I really thought unmasking would be at greater distance from Obama, then passed along. I'll have to buy popcorn on the way home from work.
First thing's first: Nunes has been vindicated.
The question that I really want to ask is why did Rice unmask the persons involved in these communications? What was the basis for it? A legitimate national security issue or partisan politics? I suspect that the communications will speak for themselves on this point. And if these are the materials that Schiff reviewed when he has said that he has seen no real evidence linking Trump to the Russians, then I suspect that Rice is going to have some explaining to do.
|
On April 04 2017 04:04 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country. There is no particular reason why SCOTUS nominees should not get a hearing because an election is coming up. I mean there's a scheduled election every four years, how come the Dems don't get to say "Scalia's vacant seat will be decided by the next President and Congress"? I agree the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Maybe the GOP should try a different nominee first before they take it. If you're consistent and say that the Dems are just as legitimate filibustering Gorsuch as the GOP was for denying a vote to Garland, then ok. Or the reverse, i.e. the GOP should have let a vote on Garland happen and the Dems should not filibuster. But saying one to the exclusion of the other is partisan hackery. If gorsuch can't get through, then no republican nomination will make it. The republicans can choose to have an 8 justice court for next 4 years or use nuclear option. I would 100 percent agree with you if the republicans filibustered garland in this situation if hrc won. I don't think they would stoop this low however.
No, they were planning to. Several senators were on record saying they would oppose any democratic nominee for the supreme court. I recall McCain specifically saying he would oppose any nominee of Hillary's
|
On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices.
this is kinda dumb and false; it costs the republicans just as much political capital, if not moreso. (unless you're counting that they already spent it on this).
and the republicans are already political hacks, so at least the dems would only be the 2nd to become political hacks.
all politicians are kinda political hacks anyways, cuz people keep electing political hacks.
you really should stop the dumb line of saying the left is not concerned with bipartisan selection. the right already chose to make supreme court justices partisan, it takes two to be bipartisan, and the right chose not to be.
|
On April 04 2017 04:07 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 04:04 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country. There is no particular reason why SCOTUS nominees should not get a hearing because an election is coming up. I mean there's a scheduled election every four years, how come the Dems don't get to say "Scalia's vacant seat will be decided by the next President and Congress"? I agree the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Maybe the GOP should try a different nominee first before they take it. If you're consistent and say that the Dems are just as legitimate filibustering Gorsuch as the GOP was for denying a vote to Garland, then ok. Or the reverse, i.e. the GOP should have let a vote on Garland happen and the Dems should not filibuster. But saying one to the exclusion of the other is partisan hackery. If gorsuch can't get through, then no republican nomination will make it. The republicans can choose to have an 8 justice court for next 4 years or use nuclear option. I would 100 percent agree with you if the republicans filibustered garland in this situation if hrc won. I don't think they would stoop this low however. No, they were planning to. Several senators were on record saying they would oppose any democratic nominee for the supreme court. I recall McCain specifically saying he would oppose any nominee of Hillary's
McCain runs to the right when he needs to get relected. I'd expect a well qualified dem judge to get around 70 votes, maybe something slightly less than Obama's picks. A wide range, but still easily passed.
Edit: to clarify, I think he would vote for cloture. The actual nomination, who knows.
|
On April 04 2017 04:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 01:48 Danglars wrote:Bloomberg now reporting that Susan Rice requested the unmasking of US citizens involved in Trump transition and picked up in FISA-approved surveillance on foreign persons. In the spirit of sensational Russia headlines, we now place the Obama administration spying on and then leaking about the incoming administration. They unmasked people who weren't targets, the leaks themselves were criminal. Sensationalism aside, I await further reports confirming Nunes's instincts. I really thought unmasking would be at greater distance from Obama, then passed along. I'll have to buy popcorn on the way home from work. First thing's first: Nunes has been vindicated.
No he hasn't. He's still the same lying shill as he was before and absolutely nothing about that has changed.
|
On April 04 2017 04:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 04:07 Nevuk wrote:On April 04 2017 04:04 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country. There is no particular reason why SCOTUS nominees should not get a hearing because an election is coming up. I mean there's a scheduled election every four years, how come the Dems don't get to say "Scalia's vacant seat will be decided by the next President and Congress"? I agree the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Maybe the GOP should try a different nominee first before they take it. If you're consistent and say that the Dems are just as legitimate filibustering Gorsuch as the GOP was for denying a vote to Garland, then ok. Or the reverse, i.e. the GOP should have let a vote on Garland happen and the Dems should not filibuster. But saying one to the exclusion of the other is partisan hackery. If gorsuch can't get through, then no republican nomination will make it. The republicans can choose to have an 8 justice court for next 4 years or use nuclear option. I would 100 percent agree with you if the republicans filibustered garland in this situation if hrc won. I don't think they would stoop this low however. No, they were planning to. Several senators were on record saying they would oppose any democratic nominee for the supreme court. I recall McCain specifically saying he would oppose any nominee of Hillary's McCain runs to the right when he needs to get relected. I'd expect a well qualified dem judge to get around 70 votes, maybe something slightly less than Obama's picks.
I would have expected Obama’s nominee to get a hearing, but here we are. I like this magical world where we get to assume the Republicans would have been so much more reasonable in defeat. Just like in 2008.
|
On April 04 2017 04:04 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country. There is no particular reason why SCOTUS nominees should not get a hearing because an election is coming up. I mean there's a scheduled election every four years, how come the Dems don't get to say "Scalia's vacant seat will be decided by the next President and Congress"? I agree the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Maybe the GOP should try a different nominee first before they take it. If you're consistent and say that the Dems are just as legitimate filibustering Gorsuch as the GOP was for denying a vote to Garland, then ok. Or the reverse, i.e. the GOP should have let a vote on Garland happen and the Dems should not filibuster. But saying one to the exclusion of the other is partisan hackery. If gorsuch can't get through, then no republican nomination will make it. The republicans can choose to have an 8 justice court for next 4 years or use nuclear option. I would 100 percent agree with you if the republicans filibustered garland in this situation if hrc won. I don't think they would stoop this low however.
stoop this low? are you just pretending the garland thing didn't happen here?
both are displays of poor politics, but to suggest poor politics is solely in the lap of dems is total ignorance. this is a very classic two wrongs not making right come to life. thx america.
|
What a shock, not really as Colorado already showed...
Less people get hospitalized for opioid abuse in states where medical cannabis is legal, according to a recent study, published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
The researchers tallied hospital discharges between 1997–2014 documented on state-level annual administrative records that were retrieved from State Inpatient Databases (SID). The databases – funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality – archive about 97 percent of all hospital discharges in each participating state.
Discharge records for 27 states were included in the study.
The databases did not include hospital discharges in Alaska, Alabama, Connecticut, District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Virginia. These 13 states and Washington D.C. did not archive their records with the SID as of 2014. California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and New York were also excluded from the study because the SID did not contain full-year observations of those states’ hospital discharges before or after medical cannabis was legalized.
The researchers compared the average amount of hospitalizations caused by opioid use in states with legal medical cannabis to average opioid-related hospitalizations in states where medical cannabis is still illegal.
Out of every 1000 discharges in states where medical cannabis is legal, hospitalizations caused by opioid dependence and abuse dropped by 23 percent and hospitalizations caused by opioid overdoses dropped by 11 percent.
There were 2.2 million hospitalizations caused by opioid dependence or abuse, and .4 million hospitalizations for opioid overdoses in these 27 states, during the period under examination.
The study also finds that in states where medical cannabis dispensaries were in operation opioid-dependance and abuse hospitalizations dropped by 13 percent and opioid overdose hospitalizations dropped by 11 percent.
Hospitalizations caused by cannabis use did not increase in states with medical cannabis legalization policies.
Source
|
Great moment in understanding how government works
|
not understanding how government (or accounting) for that matter, the 'very sizable donation' was 78k. this was in response to a question about his excessive trips security costs, estimated in millions.
oops forgot the other half of the context was in the tweet. w/e
|
Doesnt the President make like 400,000 a year, salary wise? And he didnt even donate all of the salary? 400,000 buckeroonis is not a whole lot with the security fees hes racking up.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Don't worry, Trump is going to cut the fat out of the system and that $1 billion in protection costs will be a pittance.
|
On April 04 2017 04:04 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country. There is no particular reason why SCOTUS nominees should not get a hearing because an election is coming up. I mean there's a scheduled election every four years, how come the Dems don't get to say "Scalia's vacant seat will be decided by the next President and Congress"? I agree the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Maybe the GOP should try a different nominee first before they take it. If you're consistent and say that the Dems are just as legitimate filibustering Gorsuch as the GOP was for denying a vote to Garland, then ok. Or the reverse, i.e. the GOP should have let a vote on Garland happen and the Dems should not filibuster. But saying one to the exclusion of the other is partisan hackery. If gorsuch can't get through, then no republican nomination will make it. The republicans can choose to have an 8 justice court for next 4 years or use nuclear option. I would 100 percent agree with you if the republicans filibustered garland in this situation if hrc won. I don't think they would stoop this low however.
You thought wrong.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins
What the GOP did to Garland is inexcusable, what GOP leadership said afterward is perhaps worse. You reap what you sow, the hyper-partisan obstructionist tactics in congress were bound to blow up eventually. We're just going to have to ride it out as a nation until enough people pay enough attention to vote these clowns out.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 04 2017 04:41 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 04:04 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:55 biology]major wrote:On April 04 2017 03:54 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:
The democrats have now reduced themselves to the level of political hacks. With their partisanship they have lost doubly, the next scotus pick from trump will be free, perhaps much more radical than gorsuch. Secondly now and hereafter for all future justices will be even more politicized for what should be an apolitical bipartisan selection. What the republicans did screwed over 1 nomination, and then after losing the election the democrats lost the chance to confirm garland yet again. This filibuster should cost the democrats political capital, but I guess the left is not concerned with a bipartisan selection of us Supreme Court justices. Everything you say applies equally to the GOP and Garland. I'm sorry "but he started it" is not a terribly mature reply, but it's the fact. Catapulting monkeyshit over a Gorsuch filibuster is hypocritical and partisan hackery. Garland would have been the next scotus if hrc won, and she didn't. Secondly, the nuclear option effects the nomination of all future justices. It is a terrible moment for the country. There is no particular reason why SCOTUS nominees should not get a hearing because an election is coming up. I mean there's a scheduled election every four years, how come the Dems don't get to say "Scalia's vacant seat will be decided by the next President and Congress"? I agree the nuclear option is a terrible idea. Maybe the GOP should try a different nominee first before they take it. If you're consistent and say that the Dems are just as legitimate filibustering Gorsuch as the GOP was for denying a vote to Garland, then ok. Or the reverse, i.e. the GOP should have let a vote on Garland happen and the Dems should not filibuster. But saying one to the exclusion of the other is partisan hackery. If gorsuch can't get through, then no republican nomination will make it. The republicans can choose to have an 8 justice court for next 4 years or use nuclear option. I would 100 percent agree with you if the republicans filibustered garland in this situation if hrc won. I don't think they would stoop this low however. You thought wrong. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-winsWhat the GOP did to Garland is inexcusable, what GOP leadership said afterward is perhaps worse. You reap what you sow, the hyper-partisan obstructionist tactics in congress were bound to blow up eventually. We're just going to have to ride it out as a nation until enough people pay enough attention to vote these clowns out.
I only hope that the other party won't just decide on being 99% as much of partisan hacks as the offending party and thinking they will get away with it. They will come to realize that Trump being "so bad" doesn't automatically make them a viable alternative.
|
Canada11350 Posts
A pox on both houses, I say.
|
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued guidance late last week making it more difficult for companies to use the H-1B visa program to hire foreign workers to fill "computer related positions."
"The fact that a person may be employed as a computer programmer and may use information technology skills and knowledge to help an enterprise achieve its goals in the course of his or her job is not sufficient to establish the position as a specialty occupation," the memo, dated Friday, read.
The memo cited varying educational requirements for different positions in the overall "computer programming occupation" and mandated that applicants "must provide other evidence to establish that the particular position is one in a specialty occupation."
During the 2016 primary, Trump railed against "rampant, widespread H-1B abuse."
"I will end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program," he said in a statement in March 2016. "No exceptions."
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
