- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If Republicans Don't Go Nuclear For Gorsuch, I'm Never Voting For Them Again
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:18 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:18 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
you are delusional if you think he won't be confirmed.
I think he'll be confirmed. That doesn't mean I think the Dems should roll over for a stolen seat.
3
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:19 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
Because there is no point in voting for a republican at that stage.
If they are so spineless, weak, and ineffective that they can't stand up, tell the Democrats to frick themselves, and get a preeminently qualified justice like Gorsuch approved, I'm done with them forever. Because there is no point for their existence. They will have become totally useless.
And I know I'm not the only one that will have had enough of them.
I'm going to call BS. You will end up voting for a Republican again the minute a democrat threatens to raise your taxes or impose some other regulation that you don't like. You will just justify it by saying that the person you voted for wasn't in congress at the time Gorsuch was nominated or some other bs excuse
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:20 pm to PaperTiger
quote:
Even though he is qualified, I don't want the Dems to be able to do it with a terrible nominee down the road
They already got Kagan and Sotomayor. It's too late for that.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:20 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
it's worthless to pretend that there's a filibuster for any SCOTUS nominee.
Only four times a filibuster has ever been done in SCOTUS appointments and they were not intended to kill the nomination.
Just like in 2013, Democrats would be making history again and devaluing and debasing integrity of the senate again.
quote:
Plus, that's what the Democratic base wants. In a lose/lose, might as well make the base happy.
And what are they going to do when they're powerless to stop a Scalia/Gorsuch type replaces RBG with ease?
Why waste this over a conservative replacing a conservative?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:22 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
I think he'll be confirmed. That doesn't mean I think the Dems should roll over for a stolen seat.
Why not? they rolled over for a stolen Presidency. (Wasn't that what we kept hearing? Illegitimate President? Not my President? etc. etc.)
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:23 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
If Republicans Don't Go Nuclear For Gorsuch, I'm Never Voting For Them Again
So you'll become a Democrat???
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:25 pm to BamaAtl
Stolen seat?! 
you aren't familiar with the "Biden rule" obviously.
you aren't familiar with the "Biden rule" obviously. Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:27 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
quote:
I'm going to call BS. You will end up voting for a Republican again the minute a democrat threatens to raise your taxes or impose some other regulation that you don't like. You will just justify it by saying that the person you voted for wasn't in congress at the time Gorsuch was nominated or some other bs excuse
Classic case of projection.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:28 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Only four times a filibuster has ever been done in SCOTUS appointments and they were not intended to kill the nomination.
Before Merrick Garland, no party had chosen to not hold hearings on a qualified candidate for purely political reasons.
quote:
And what are they going to do when they're powerless to stop a Scalia/Gorsuch type replaces RBG with ease?
If Republicans are willing to go nuclear to replace Scalia, they're already powerless. Better to have it in the open so we're all exactly clear on the stakes for 2018 and 2020.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:30 pm to member12
quote:
I don't see a logical, non-partisan reason why Democrats want to filibuster this. Gorsuch is a great choice and he is replacing Scalia, not Ginsburg.
Democrats don't need to use logic, if it is a Repub they don't want him and they could care less what he has done in the past.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:33 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Before Merrick Garland, no party had chosen to not hold hearings on a qualified candidate for purely political reasons.
They were just following the rules set forth by Joe Biden and Barack Obama, not setting an entirely new precedent.
quote:
If Republicans are willing to go nuclear to replace Scalia
Only as a last resort in the face of unprecedented obstructionism from people who are bitter and sore losers.
If you want the fight over RBG's replacement to have any meaning to it, find 8 democrats to roll over as the sacrificial lamb, confirm gorsuch and call it a day and live to fight a much more important fight.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 2:40 pm to Sentrius
quote:
not setting an entirely new precedent.
They set an entirely new precedent.
quote:
If you want the fight over RBG's replacement to have any meaning to it, find 8 democrats to roll over as the sacrificial lamb, confirm gorsuch and call it a day and live to fight a much more important fight.
What in the world makes you think Republicans will respect the filibuster when they have the chance to replace RBG with another Scalia?
If the filibuster doesn't work for Gorsuch, it's not going to work for RBG. Let's stop pretending it exists for SCOTUS.
On the other hand, maybe 3 Republican Senators will choose to respect the longstanding traditions of the Senate. Let's find out!
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:01 pm to Swoopin
quote:
Yes, they stalled on Garland which gives a modicum of talking point ammo to the Dems.
They were following the BIDEN RULE
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:06 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
What in the world makes you think Republicans will respect the filibuster when they have the chance to replace RBG with another Scalia?
Because voters chose the President to shift the court as their vote goes accordingly, not what the loser party wants.
quote:
On the other hand, maybe 3 Republican Senators will choose to respect the longstanding traditions of the Senate. Let's find out!
So you want to keep the court at 8 seats forever?
You're batshit insane and hopelessly partisan.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:11 pm to LuckyTiger
Relax. It was the most conservative fringe of the House that blew up healthcare. The usual pussies that normally derail this sort of thing seem ready to work.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:18 pm to PaperTiger
quote:
It's a slippery slope.
Even though he is qualified, I don't want the Dems to be able to do it with a terrible nominee down the road
The Dems would do it if they could, regardless of what the Reps had done previously. That's the problem. The Dems will stoop to using every trick and underhanded tactic in the book when they hold the majority and will walk all over the Republicans every chance they get, but when the Republicans hold the majority, they won't do the same in return.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:23 pm to claremontrich
quote:
the Republicans can replace them with David Duke if they wanted within 2 weeks and the dems can do nothing about it.
Trump should really mess with the Dems and have WH leak out names of some extreme conservative judges as potential replacement nominees if Gorsuch can't get confirmed. See if the Dems change their tune when faced with nuclear option potentially being used on a further right leaning replacement nominee
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:35 pm to Sentrius
quote:
So you want to keep the court at 8 seats forever?
Of course not, the 9th seat is clearly Merrick Garland's.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:35 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Of course not, the 9th seat is clearly Merrick Garland's
Weird he isn't sitting in it.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:37 pm to member12
quote:
I don't see a logical, non-partisan reason why Democrats want to filibuster this. Gorsuch is a great choice and he is replacing Scalia, not Ginsburg.
To force the nuclear option. That's the point IMO.
Also, who he is replacing is irrelevant . From the Ds perspective, an SC spot was stolen. It's going to leave a mark. And they're not going to forget about it.
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News