- 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 12:14 pm to DawgsLife
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:14 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Really? Would you mind explaining Schumer's position to me? It escapes me.
Schumer would vote against any nominee Trump put forward even if he was a combination of John Marshall, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Perry Mason, Judge Judy, and Johnnie Cochran.
1
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:16 pm to member12
quote:
They should not have to. Gorsuch is a fantastic nominee and was approved unanimously in 2006 to the court of appeals.
Merrick Garland was confirmed unanimously as well did obstructing him hurt the GOP?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:17 pm to montanagator
quote:
Merrick Garland was confirmed unanimously as well did obstructing him hurt the GOP?
Precedent. You love it when it benefits your progressive ways.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:22 pm to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
the President who made the nomination is under FBI investigation. The confirmation should wait.
Such a stupid argument. Even in the unlikely event that the President was impeached it's still going to be a Republican in the office. You're getting a conservative Justice on the court whether you like it or not.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:24 pm to fouldeliverer
Chuck Schumer is HILARIOUS. Get over it.
Every time he talks about his nasty vagina I just lose my shite.
Every time he talks about his nasty vagina I just lose my shite.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:27 pm to montanagator
quote:
Good Move. No real downside.
It's a great move if you're a Republican. Gorsuch is qualified and should have been easily confirmed. Filibuster away.
The Senate will nuke it and then have a piece of cake confirmation when RBG shuffles off this mortal coil.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:27 pm to montanagator
quote:
Merrick Garland was confirmed unanimously as well did obstructing him hurt the GOP?
Their gamble definitely paid off.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:27 pm to montanagator
Merrick garland would have voted in lockstep on dem talking points. Any nominee the dems put up is going to behave the same way.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:29 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
how little political capital Trump/Republicans have with their base after the Trumpcare fiasco of the last few weeks
What is so funny is you really think Trump cares about "political capital"
You really think the old rules of politics(that Republican's adhered to, while democrats didn't) still apply.
See what you are missing is the current President doesn't give a frick. Most of the Republican Senators don't give a frick right now either because they aren't up for re-election.
Unfortunately for you it is the Democrats in the Senate who have all the seats up for grabs in 2018.
Regardless of how bad the Republican's frick up even the Health Care bill( And the only way they make their constituents mad is they do things you leftists would like) your side still wont capture the house in 2018.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:29 pm to 9th life
quote:
Really? Would you mind explaining Schumer's position to me? It escapes me.
quote:
That there is an investigation into the administration and Gorsuch could potentially be appointed by a president forced from office.
Do you think your, or his opinion would change had Hillary Clinton been in the WH?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:31 pm to doubleb
quote:
Judge Judy
Would love to see her being questioned by Al Franken!
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:46 pm to DawgsLife
I found it funny today that PLanned Parenthood came out in criticism of Gorsuch for his opinion on the Hobby Lobby case, which was of course upheld by the Supreme Court Yet, they also criticize Gorsuch for not calling Roe v. Wade some super-precedent that can't possibly be overturned.
So to extreme liberals: Supreme Court rulings are final and binding and unchallengable- but only when you agree with them
So to extreme liberals: Supreme Court rulings are final and binding and unchallengable- but only when you agree with them
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:46 pm to montanagator
quote:
Good Move. No real downside. It's not like obstructing Garland hurt the GOP.
Correct. It is what returned them to their seats.
The republican's completely held serve in an off year for them in the Senate. They held serve in the house too.
They will win sets in the 2018 mid terms senate and lose a few in the house. But they WILL hold both houses of congress.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:47 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
Merrick garland would have voted in lockstep on dem talking points
So like Neil Gorsuch would for the right?
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:47 pm to MrTide33
quote:
So to extreme liberals: Supreme Court rulings are final and binding and unchallengable- but only when you agree with them
They are after Gorsuch about his ideology. They want them to support theirs. They don't even pretend to hide their hypocrisy any longer.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:48 pm to montanagator
quote:
So like Neil Gorsuch would for the right?
Correct. That's what we're arguing about.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:49 pm to montanagator
Nope. The liberals on the court are much more in lock-step than the conservatives. Gorsuch has a very long record of cases from a federal bench. Can you please cite one case where he let his political ideology change a legal ruling? TIA
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:55 pm to fouldeliverer
Gorsuch absolutely proved himself to be a great choice for the position. Schmidt and the Dems are complete shite.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:57 pm to BBONDS25
I forgot who it was, Durbin or Whitehouse but one of the Dems even admitted that his staff went over the 2700 cases and only found maybe 2-3 in which the judges voted "along party lines" that is pretty staggering.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 12:57 pm to the808bass
quote:I actually think a sign of a truly independent and principled judge would be to have some decisions counter to the "party" they are (often unfairly) associated with since both sides don't always make policies or decisions that are correct from a judicial standpoint.
Correct. That's what we're arguing about.
If those legal scholars who speaks high of them are correct, I think Gorsuch and Garland wouldn't be lock step with them. I don't like when politicians and political hacks, who find ways to make apolitical (e.g., often seem with science) things political, just like they're doing here.
And the SCOTUS statistics highlight this with the frequency of unanimity and the strong agreement of the ideological opposites on the court. Compared to the rest of government, those phenomenon are quite an anomaly.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News