- 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 4:40 pm to BamaAtl
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:40 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Then it's worthless to pretend that there's a filibuster for any SCOTUS nominee. Let's get that out in the open, so voters know the true landscape in this era of Republican obstructionism.
wait
how did you just say that the Republicans are being obstructionist when we're discussing the DEMs filibustering Gorsuch?
1
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:41 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
That doesn't mean I think the Dems should roll over for a stolen seat.
do you think that Garland would have been approved by the Senate last year?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:42 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Of course not, the 9th seat is clearly Merrick Garland's.
based on what? being nominated by the President?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:44 pm to a want
quote:
To force the nuclear option. That's the point IMO.
forcing the nuclear option presents a real possibility of a 7-2 USSC for a generation and a half
quote:
. From the Ds perspective, an SC spot was stolen.
well that's retarded. Garland was never being approved by the Senate. the DEMS made the USSC political in the 80s and then under GWB. they have to live with it
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:49 pm to Texas Weazel
quote:
So you'll become a Democrat???
If the republicans can't even get a qualified, conservative justice approved...it doesn't really matter, does it?
They're completely useless at that point. So there's no reason to cast another vote for a republican ever again.
The republicans have been trying my patience for quite some time now. I've reached my fill of them. This is their last chance for me.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:54 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Before Merrick Garland, no party had chosen to not hold hearings on a qualified candidate for purely political reasons.
Holy fricking shite.
I just don't even...
How can someone have a real conversation with someone who thinks like the above quote?
Why even try at that point?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:56 pm to Wtodd
The Republicans reap what they sew by not confirming Garland
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:58 pm to BulldogXero
quote:
The Republicans reap what they sew by not confirming Garland
the GOP made an error not holding hearings
Garland was never being confirmed and I have no idea why the DEMs act like he had a shot to be confirmed
Posted on 3/28/17 at 5:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nobody "made" the USSC political silly, it's inherently political
the DEMS made the USSC political in the 80s and then under GWB. they have to live with it
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 3/28/17 at 5:02 pm to LuckyTiger
Set the vote. Male it happen. Let the chips fall on the Dems.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 5:02 pm to Iosh
quote:
Nobody "made" the USSC political silly, it's inherently political
you're right. fair point
i'll clarify
change "USSC" to "USSC appointment/approval process"
Posted on 3/28/17 at 5:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Still not seeing how that hasn't always been political
change "USSC" to "USSC appointment/approval process"
Posted on 3/28/17 at 5:10 pm to LuckyTiger
Well be prepared to be disappointed.
When I was a tried and true Dem, I ALWAYS counted on the Repubs to either fold, or buy into the whole "let's make a deal" BS where Dems would promise one thing for "compromise" then never follow through later (essentially lie and laugh)
When I was a tried and true Dem, I ALWAYS counted on the Repubs to either fold, or buy into the whole "let's make a deal" BS where Dems would promise one thing for "compromise" then never follow through later (essentially lie and laugh)
Posted on 3/28/17 at 5:11 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
What on earth about liberals leads you to believe they won't do it just because Republicans didn't?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 6:15 pm to 9th life
quote:
I agree, and I am assuming that has to be expected from Democrats. I am sure there is an aim in bringing about that situation, I just am not seeing what that is in forcing GOP to use that option.
I think Gorsuch should be approved, and differ from my party on this issue.
quote:
9th life
I applaud you on this issue.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 6:20 pm to Iosh
quote:
Nobody "made" the USSC political silly, it's inherently political
The Democrats torpedoed an eminently qualified Robert Bork during 1980's. It was highly partisan and not at all based on qualifications. It was so egregious and the first blatant example that the practice is now referred to as "Borking".
Yes, the Democrats are shite and own this steaming pile.
Borking
Posted on 3/28/17 at 6:31 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?
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!
You know damn good and well if the Democrats had a majority in Senate they would be ramming through crap as quickly as possible, and not give two shites about long standing traditions... That level of decency was already blown up when Biden and Reid used nuke option in past. And we all know you would be standing up and applauding every move they made.. so please don't try to come across as bipartisan.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 6:41 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:*Ron Howard voice*
It was so egregious and the first blatant example
It was not.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 6:45 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Of course not, the 9th seat is clearly Merrick Garland's.
It's not his seat.
It's the people's seat and they wanted it filled with someone exactly like Justice Scalia and voted accordingly.
Get the frick over it you sore loser.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 6:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how did you just say that the Republicans are being obstructionist when we're discussing the DEMs filibustering Gorsuch?
It's some impressive mental gymnastics on his part.
He always finds a way out of the political conundrum he's presented with no matter how flawed and poor his logic is.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News