- 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
0
Posted on 3/23/17 at 8:34 am to TakingStock
quote:
Republicans should agree to this and go nuclear anyway with the next confirmation.
Yep, frick the left. You wanted to play hardball when Obama was in office, you get the consequences
Posted on 3/23/17 at 8:34 am to SlowFlowPro
You're usually good about not being so coy.
What are the Republicans getting here? Blocking, or trying to block Gorsuch will not look good for Dems, so this seems like a win win for them.
What are the Republicans getting here? Blocking, or trying to block Gorsuch will not look good for Dems, so this seems like a win win for them.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 8:35 am to Jbird
GOP should make this deal, and then frick the Dems anyway (just like good old Harry did).
Posted on 3/23/17 at 8:37 am to Jbird
Holy shite is that a stupid deal for the GOP to make, no other trump pick would get confirmed. Earth to Mitch the fillbuster is dead it's just a matter of time
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 8:38 am
Posted on 3/23/17 at 8:58 am to Jbird
quote:
The next high court opening could alter the balance of the court, and some Democrats privately argue that fight will be far more consequential than the current one.
That would be wise on their part. RBG is probably going to retire within the next couple of years.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 8:59 am to udtiger
quote:
GOP should make this deal, and then frick the Dems anyway
I'm okay with this too. It's all but certain that the Democrats will use the nuclear option in the future for their nominees.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 9:00 am
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if only teh GOP had just allowed hearings on Garland
we all know he'd never have gotten the nomination (without filibuster, even), and that would have been a much better precedent
Garland was just as qualified as Gorsuch. Why would he have failed to be confirmed if the he had gotten the hearing he deserved?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:08 am to massiveattack
quote:
Smart deal if true
And then the next time we have an opening, the GOP should simply ignore the deal.
After all, Democrats did this with Reagan--"we promise to cut spending if you raise taxes", "we promise to increase border security if you grant amnesty". Something about geese and ganders.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:10 am to Jbird
quote:
The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term. The next high court opening could alter the balance of the court, and some Democrats privately argue that fight will be far more consequential than the current one.
Seriously, I would probably die from laughter if the Dems do this. Especially if Trump nominates Merrik Garland to replace Ginsburg.
It would replace a extreme leftist on the court with a moderate and it would be deathly hilarious to see the Dems filibuster him then.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 9:11 am
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:10 am to jdd48
quote:
F that - R's better not cave to this garbage. There's no reason other than petty politics why Gorsuch should not be confirmed.
This by a mile. I would promise them no deal at all. Use the nuke option if need be.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:10 am to Dale51
quote:
This is a con. There is zero need to deal. The repubs hold all the cards. Why promise to not nuke the next nominee?
Exactly, Gorsuch is going to be confirmed regardless.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:10 am to Bullethead88
quote:For the same reason dems will vote in lock step against Gorsuch, no?
Garland was just as qualified as Gorsuch. Why would he have failed to be confirmed if the he had gotten the hearing he deserved?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:13 am to Kafkas father
quote:
This is a con. There is zero need to deal. The repubs hold all the cards. Why promise to not nuke the next nominee?
quote:
Exactly, Gorsuch is going to be confirmed regardless.
Because the promise doesn't mean shite. The Democrats wouldn't honor it. They would do just like their "leader" Obama and say elections have consequences.
But like I said in the previous post. Give them a renom of Garland to replace Ginsberg or Bryer. Their heads would literally explode.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:15 am to Bullethead88
quote:
Why would he have failed to be confirmed if the he had gotten the hearing he deserved?
Because Garland is literally Hitler.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:16 am to Jbird
The Dems are screwed, minus taking over the Senate. And with all they Seats they have to defend next Election - many in States that Trump won handily - they'll likely lose numbers in the Senate.
Gorsuch is in. The next Seat will be the big one, and Dems had best save their ammo for that dogfight.
Gorsuch is in. The next Seat will be the big one, and Dems had best save their ammo for that dogfight.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:18 am to Jbird
Bad deal. Gorsuch is a good nominee and has won over several Dems already. The GOP doesn't have anything to win from this and everything to lose as any more nominees will be filibustered.
The only possible positive I can see is that RBG might see the filibuster option as a means to ensure another Conservative originalist doesn't make it to the court and thus might increase her likelihood of stepping down before she's carried out.
The only possible positive I can see is that RBG might see the filibuster option as a means to ensure another Conservative originalist doesn't make it to the court and thus might increase her likelihood of stepping down before she's carried out.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:19 am to Bullethead88
quote:
Garland was just as qualified as Gorsuch. Why would he have failed to be confirmed if the he had gotten the hearing he deserved?
Obama nominated Garland after he already KNEW the Republican's would not confirm ANYONE he nominated.
He only nominated him because he was a moderate and so it would be a campaign issue for the Democrats.
Problem is their plan didn't work out. Hillary lost and they didn't get control of the Senate.
If she would have won and the Democrats would have won the Senate they would have withdrawn his nomination and nominated someone with a proven activist record.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:21 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
The next Seat will be the big one, and Dems had best save their ammo for that dogfight.
You are incorrect. Thomas will step down before 2018.
He will more than likely announce his retirement within the next 6 months.
Trump is going to replace 2 more justices and maybe even 3.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 9:23 am
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:27 am to goofball
quote:
That would be wise on their part. RBG is probably going to retire within the next couple of years.
She isn't going to retire. The only way she's leaving the bench is in a pine box.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News