- 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: The Doctor of Common Sense Weighs in On Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (NSFW)
Posted on 2/27/17 at 10:08 pm to Centinel
Posted on 2/27/17 at 10:08 pm to Centinel
quote:
Robert Bork says hi.
Bork was nothing like what happened with Garland. Garland never got a hearing because the Repubs knew that, as a semi-moderate, well-qualified judge, he would be confirmed, and their only chance was to not even give him a hearing.
I watched a great deal of the Bork hearings. The guy was a right wing weirdo who talked down and lectured everyone he spoke to. He was also complicit in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre in 1973. In his writings he had a completely wacko stance curtailing most 1st amendment rights, but when he testified he contradicted those earlier writings and came across as un-genuine. The Senate voted him down. That was their right and choice. 6 Republican senators voted against Bork.
This post was edited on 2/27/17 at 10:28 pm
0
Posted on 2/27/17 at 10:17 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
Well, she still has to die, be impeached, or resign. The latter two are unlikely, and as long as she's held on, four years doesn't seem far fetched although not likely. Just saying, don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Two-time cancer survivor; been known to fall asleep during arguments before the Court.
The odds are not in the Widow Hen's favor.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 10:41 pm to Godfather1
I think Trump could possibly make 3-4 new appointments in his first term. Rumors that Kennedy and/or Thomas could choose to retire.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 10:45 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Worst than when the Dems did it 10 times 10 Time Dems Vowed to Block SC Nominees
What a complete bullsh!t article. and you didn't even get the title right. One of the times they say that Dems vowed to block the nominee was Alito who happens to be a current Supreme Court Justice in case you didn't know that. Another was Clarence Thomas who sits with Alito on the court. Several of the examples are Appeals court nominees NOT Supreme Court nominees.
The Dems never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing.
This post was edited on 2/27/17 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 2/27/17 at 11:46 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
Used to be called The Biden Rule.
bullshite. It was never called the Biden Rule. Biden was the source of the Bork-rule. The Repubs just made it up started calling it the Biden Rule in 2016 so they could justify not even giving Garland a hearing. Then they lied about it and said that everybody - Dems and Repubs - had refused to confirm nominations in election years in the past - which was a bold-faced lie.
Biden gave his speech on June 5, 1992. At the time he gave his speech there was not even an opening on the Supreme Court. Bush had already had confirmed 2 conservative justices - Sutter and Thomas. Thurgood Marshall retired in October 1991 and it was assumed that Bush would pick a black Justice of similar persuasion to take over Marshall's seat. But instead 5 days after Marshall retired Bush nominated Clarence Thomas - who is rated as the most conservative Supreme court justice in U.S. history. The Dems thought Bush mislead them about nominating Thomas.
When he gave his speech in June 1992, Biden was concerned that IF there was an opening before the election Bush would rush to nominate another very conservative Justice and stack the court. Biden was trying to dissuade Bush from making that type of nomination IF A SEAT BECAME AVAILABLE. Biden said that IF an opening came up that Bush should consult with the Dems before he made the nomination or Biden would not support another conservative nominee. Biden said that if Bush did consult the Dems and an acceptable/moderate nominee was proposed he would support him. (By the way that is exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1993. Clinton floated Bruce Babbitt, a former Arizona governor as proposed nominee. Orrin Hatch said he would not be confirmed - so Clinton withdrew the nomination).
Biden told Bush that IF Bush had a chance at a nomination and he didn't consult with the Dems on the nomination before hand, he would have to CONSIDER not talking the confirmation hearings up until after the election.
There was never an opening in 1992 on the Supreme Court. The Dems never denied Bush's nomination a hearing because there was never a chance for Bush to even make a domination.
The Repubs just made up a fictionalized Biden Rule so that they could use it as a ruse to sit on Garland's nomination for 283 days.
If I was the Dems, I would filibuster Gorsuch's nomination til the cows come in, not because Gorsuch is not qualified, but because, very simply, the Repubs stole that seat.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 11:58 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
in the next 8 years.
Next 2 and a half years- 2019 is off limits- Merrick Garland precedent.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 11:59 pm to montanagator
Are you going to the Michigan game next year?
Posted on 2/28/17 at 12:02 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Thinking heavily about it, want to watch the spring game first I can't watch our offense the way its been the last half a decade.
You going? You guys turn over almost the entire roster right?
You going? You guys turn over almost the entire roster right?
Posted on 2/28/17 at 12:06 am to montanagator
quote:join the club.
I can't watch our offense the way its been the last half a decade.
It's utterly amazing to me that blue-blood teams like florida and michigan cannot field serviceable offensive lines that are capable of holding steady in big games.
quote:nope
You going?
Posted on 2/28/17 at 12:16 am to montanagator
quote:
in the next 8 years.
quote:
Next 2 and a half years- 2019 is off limits- Merrick Garland precedent.
Nope.
Depends on who controls the Senate.
If Dems do then no Nominee since they won't confirm a Conservative anyway.
Of course the funny thing would be for Trump to renominate Garland to watch the Dems refuse him.
If the Reps control the Senate they will ram a Conservative through.
Watch and see...
Posted on 2/28/17 at 6:35 am to KCT
quote:
Buy Ruth Bader-Ginsburg Sunglasses Now: Put In Code Doctorcs15 And Get 15% Off
E.T. Williams hates him some Obama.
This post was edited on 2/28/17 at 6:40 am
Posted on 2/28/17 at 6:43 am to omegaman66
She actually does need to die soon because if she dies within 18 months of the 2020 election the Dems will just follow the GOP / Scalia method and likely have it pay off.
If the GOP played hardball and got a conservative replacement through relatively close to the election it would be a good thing but would also be an effective campaign issue for Dems
If the GOP played hardball and got a conservative replacement through relatively close to the election it would be a good thing but would also be an effective campaign issue for Dems
This post was edited on 2/28/17 at 6:45 am
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News