- 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: Dems to filibuster Gorsuch
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:59 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:59 pm to buckeye_vol
Sure. That was a lot of text to say "judges should judge shite."
Even RBG probably has a case out there that went "against her side." But we're speaking in shorthand on a message board.
Even RBG probably has a case out there that went "against her side." But we're speaking in shorthand on a message board.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:59 pm to fouldeliverer
Some of these same dems warned bush to not nominate anyone within a year and a half of the end of his them.
They are full of shite
They are full of shite
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:04 pm to fouldeliverer
Trump should threaten to pull Gorsuch and put Ted Cruz up with a nuclear option.
Gorsuch would be confirmed tomorrow, 99-1.
Gorsuch would be confirmed tomorrow, 99-1.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:05 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
Dems to filibuster Gorsuch
Have it your way then
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:08 pm to MrTide33
quote:
So to extreme liberals: Supreme Court rulings are final and binding and unchallengable- but only when you agree with them
extreme liberals?
I've found this to be true with most liberals.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:11 pm to the808bass
quote:I wasn't really referring to you in particular, but more the general political projection, most troubling from the Senate.
Sure. That was a lot of text to say "judges should judge shite."
Even RBG probably has a case out there that went "against her side." But we're speaking in shorthand on a message board.
I only listened to a bit of the hearing the other day, but I think it was Al Franken who was asking Gorsuch about remarks from Bannon at CPAC about him. He kept asking Bannon's remakes meant. It was ridiculous to ask that.
Worse yet, everytime Gorsuch said something about the difference between his personal views and his legal opinions as a judge, Franken would condescendingly say "we've heard that response before" as if it can't be true. Seemed like projection by Franken.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:13 pm to DownSouthJukin
Screw it.
Let them filibuster for weeks, even months.
Let them filibuster for weeks, even months.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:14 pm to montanagator
quote:
montanagator
Just STFU, nobody cares.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:17 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
My side? I'm not a Democrat. Jesus.
Oh! Sorry. I insulted you severely, so, I apologize.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:20 pm to Champagne
payback for garland IMHO. The base wants it. They will cave in a week though.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:20 pm to montanagator
quote:What about Roberts and Kennedy?
Merrick garland would have voted in lockstep on dem talking points
So like Neil Gorsuch would for the right?
Both appointed by a Republican.
When was the last time a lib justice dissented from the other libs?
You're a mental midget.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:22 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Do you think your, or his opinion would change had Hillary Clinton been in the WH?
I would like to think my opinion would remain the same. I would think it acceptable for HRC to name a SC Justice if she were president and under investigation.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:27 pm to 9th life
quote:
I would like to think my opinion would remain the same. I would think it acceptable for HRC to name a SC Justice if she were president and under investigation.
I assume you mean UNacceptable?
ETA
FWIW I like the way you worded it. None of us know how we would react in any situation, until that situation happens.....it is accurate, and honest to say "I would like to think...."
Your honesty is appreciated!
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:33 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I assume you mean UNacceptable?
I think you may have misread what I initially wrote.
I think Schumer is wrong in his justification, I disagree with my party on this one, and I think Gorsuch should be approved.
I don't think it right to hold the investigation over Trump's head as a means to prevent his nomination. If we Dems want to push the issue and filibuster, then do it for reasons about Gorsuch, not the man that nominated him.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:43 pm to 9th life
Gorsuch never mattered. The plan was always to obstruct.
There were organized protesters in DC hours before Gorsuch was announced. When the organizer was asked by a journalist "what have you been protesting for last several hours before you knew that Gorsuch was the pick?", her response was "we reviewed Trumps entire nominee list and none of them are acceptable." The journalist followed up, "what decisions by Gorsuch trouble you?". She couldn't give an answer.
There were organized protesters in DC hours before Gorsuch was announced. When the organizer was asked by a journalist "what have you been protesting for last several hours before you knew that Gorsuch was the pick?", her response was "we reviewed Trumps entire nominee list and none of them are acceptable." The journalist followed up, "what decisions by Gorsuch trouble you?". She couldn't give an answer.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:44 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Gorsuch never mattered. The plan was always to obstruct. There were organized protesters in DC hours before Gorsuch was announced. When the organizer was asked by a journalist "what have been protesting for last several hours before you knew that Gorsuch was the pick?", her response was "we reviewed Trumps entire nominee list and none of them are acceptable." The journalist followed up, "what decisions by Gorsuch trouble you?". She couldn't give an answer.
no political party has cornered the market on stupidity. we try, but we don't have a monopoly just yet.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:49 pm to 9th life
quote:
I think Schumer is wrong in his justification, I disagree with my party on this one, and I think Gorsuch should be approved.
I don't think it right to hold the investigation over Trump's head as a means to prevent his nomination. If we Dems want to push the issue and filibuster, then do it for reasons about Gorsuch, not the man that nominated him.
My bad. I thought you were saying you thought a President under FBI investigation should NOT be allowed to name a SCJustice, but you thought Schumer should not fight it.
In principle I could agree with this, but then the GOP and Dems would find a way to put every President under FBI investigation to keep them from appointing a nominee.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 1:51 pm to 9th life
quote:
If we Dems want to push the issue and filibuster, then do it for reasons about Gorsuch, not the man that nominated him.
As it should be! make it about the man and his abilities to perform the duties. I wish political ideology had stayed away from the Supreme Court. There is not place for it. (I am talking about both sides)
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News