- 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
Serious question about Garland and the "stolen" USSC seat
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:46 pm
does ANYONE believe that had Garland been given hearings (which he clearly should have been given and the GOP fricked up by not doing this), he would have gotten SIXTY votes in the Senate?
if not, how is this seat "stolen"?
secondly, if we all agree he had no shot of being confirmed, why do we care about the hearings? to quote Hillary Clinton:
if not, how is this seat "stolen"?
secondly, if we all agree he had no shot of being confirmed, why do we care about the hearings? to quote Hillary Clinton:
23
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
It is impossible to say. He was voted in for other positions by many conservatives and with Gorsuch we have seen some libs hesitate to vote against him, Mccaskill for instance. Therefore there really is no telling but the fact that he didn't get his opportunity is a tragedy.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
The federal government has devolved into a barely figurative clown show.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
Biden rule...
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
You're right of course. But I think that's where the Republicans made a tactical error...they should have said "sure, we'll put him through the process." Then simply not confirmed him.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:50 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
Therefore there really is no telling
uh the GOP was united in not even giving him hearings. you think they'd participate in getting him 60 votes? in an election year? with an anti-establishment candidate leading the GOP primaries?
quote:
the fact that he didn't get his opportunity is a tragedy.
that's a bit hyperbolic, unless your name is Merrick Garland
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:50 pm to Centinel
quote:
.they should have said "sure, we'll put him through the process." Then simply not confirmed him.
100%
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
Podesta e-mails mentioned "wet works" with a link to a map that pointed at Scalia's location.
Just saying.
Just saying.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
Everything you posted is right, but it's not truth motivating any of this. It's political convenience.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
Well at least there are a few libs with Gorsuch who are willing to acknowledge that this isn't about politics but interpreting the letter of the law. Are you admitting that no one in the GOP is willing to think this way?
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:54 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
Well at least there are a few libs with Gorsuch who are willing to acknowledge that this isn't about politics but interpreting the letter of the law. Are you admitting that no one in the GOP is willing to think this way?
Republicans who voted for Kagan and Sotomayor say hi. Both of which were MUCH more blatantly ideological.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
No frick Garland he's a liberal and should be defrocked.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:54 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
Well at least there are a few libs with Gorsuch who are willing to acknowledge that this isn't about politics but interpreting the letter of the law.
i think it's more "i don't want to face the wrath of my Trumpkin-dominated constituents by blocking Gorsuch" rather that some noble, non-political platform
quote:
Are you admitting that no one in the GOP is willing to think this way?
the GOP was united last year because it was an election year. their gamble paid off.
it's not really comparable to 2017
This post was edited on 4/4/17 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:55 pm to Centinel
I was asking a question, not making a statement. I felt as if the OP was saying that there were no members of the GOP currently that were willing to listen.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they should have said "sure, we'll put him through the process." Then simply not confirmed him.
quote:
100%
And we'd still be where we are now.
McConnell did it correctly IMO; using shitty Dem rules/logic against them.
This post was edited on 4/4/17 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:55 pm to TheHumanTornado
quote:
but the fact that he didn't get his opportunity is a tragedy.
Lmao
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:56 pm to Centinel
quote:
Republicans who voted for Kagan and Sotomayor say hi. Both of which were MUCH more blatantly ideological.
this, too
also, the modern dip in support of USSC candidates started with DEM opposition to Bush-era appointees
the GOP basically unanimously approved Clinton's appointments
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
Jake, respectfully, Merrick "Gun Grabber" Garland can EABOD.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
also, the modern dip in support of USSC candidates started with DEM opposition to Bush-era appointees
Depends on your classification of modern though. Robert Bork also says hi.
Posted on 4/4/17 at 12:58 pm to Centinel
quote:
You're right of course. But I think that's where the Republicans made a tactical error...they should have said "sure, we'll put him through the process." Then simply not confirmed him.
^ Correct move, but the disgusting thing is that you KNOW that what the progressives are pissed about is that they didn't think of that maneuver first, if they had done it , the MSM would have been calling GOP Senators whiners and so on and so forth.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News