- 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
When Republicans blocked Garland curious about process
Posted on 9/20/20 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 9/20/20 at 12:52 pm
Sounds like they would have voted no. If they voted no Obama would have gotten to nominate someone else.
I always felt they should have voted on Garland. I know it worked out more less for court, but just felt they should have voted
I always felt they should have voted on Garland. I know it worked out more less for court, but just felt they should have voted
16
Posted on 9/20/20 at 12:54 pm to thelawnwranglers
I said the same in another post.
Trump should get his pick just like Obama should’ve gotten his.
Trump should get his pick just like Obama should’ve gotten his.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 12:55 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
I always felt they should have voted on Garland. I know it worked out more less for court, but just felt they should have voted
They probably should have voted, but elections have consequences. Kinda like dems insane impeachment that was a petty abuse of power imo.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 12:55 pm to thelawnwranglers
Those who voted would have to go on record as to why they voted no. That would be used against them later. That is why the Dems used rape as an excuse to vote no for Kavanaugh. The Senate is made up of a bunch of cowards.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 12:55 pm to thelawnwranglers
I'm glad it played out exactly as it did.
Republicans have to learn to play hardball. Denying obama's nominee a vote was hardball and it was well played.
Republicans have to learn to play hardball. Denying obama's nominee a vote was hardball and it was well played.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 12:58 pm to Irons Puppet
quote:
Those who voted would have to go on record as to why they voted no. That would be used against them later. That is why the Dems used rape as an excuse to vote no for Kavanaugh. The Senate is made up of a bunch of cowards.
Makes a lot of sense
Garland was an okay pick? Or would have been activist?
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:00 pm to redneck hippie
quote:
said the same in another post.
Trump should get his pick just like Obama should’ve gotten his.
Elections have consequences. No Senate, no vote for Obama. Deal with it
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:01 pm to thelawnwranglers
They achieved the exact same goal as voting no on Garland
And at the same time they achieved the exact same goal as voting no on whoever the frick Obama nominated after Garland into infinity people
Save some time and posturing
And at the same time they achieved the exact same goal as voting no on whoever the frick Obama nominated after Garland into infinity people
Save some time and posturing
This post was edited on 9/20/20 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:01 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
I always felt
Nobody cares about your stupid feelings
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:02 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Garland was an okay pick? Or would have been activist?
Gorsuch is far better.
I'm not comfortable with the ends justifying the means but the outcome was better.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:02 pm to YF12
quote:
They achieved the exact same goal as voting no on Garland
And at the same time they achieved the exact same goal as voting no on whoever the frick Obama nominated after Garland into infinity people
Save some time and posturing
Could he have nominated someone else after they didn't act?
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:03 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
I'm not comfortable with the ends justifying the means but the outcome was better.
Lifetime appointment such a zero sum game
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:05 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Or would have been activist?
Garland was an appellate court judge and that makes it problematic to truly gage his ideology fully.
He was probably the most moderate of obama's three selections.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:06 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Could he have nominated someone else after they didn't act?
I guess he could have just kept withdrawing and submitted new people every single minute of every single day
But it was obvious the answer to all the above was: frick No
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:09 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
I always felt they should have voted on Garland. I know it worked out more less for court, but just felt they should have voted
Garland was not a liberal. The reason he was nominated was that the democrats thought they would retain the presidency but not be able to retake the congress. In that scenario they wanted another justice who believed that the courts should defer to executive rule making and interpretation of statutes. Republicans opposed Garland because they assumed also that democrats would retain the presidency and they wanted to limit executive power.
The surprise was that Trump won. Immediately the republicans changed their stripes completely and argued for expansive executive power. Trump has gone farther with EOs and rule making by regulation than Obama ever did. Congress basically does nothing now. The irony is that Garland’s views of federalism would have aided Trump by supporting his arguments for expansive executive power.
But Trump only wants to nominate right wing ideologues. Views about federalism are secondary, or lower. Everyone can predict Barrett’s views on abortion, but who knows anything about her views on deference to executive rule making? Scalia always wanted to restrain executive power. What would Barrett do?
Posted on 9/20/20 at 1:21 pm to Irons Puppet
quote:Not true.
Those who voted would have to go on record as to why they voted no
Senators can simply cast their vote (yes/no) with the single word and refrain from, or even refuse to state, a reason for it. Much like a simple yay/nay roll call vote.
For the smart ones, knowing they are in a contentious future position, it would be the wise thing to do. One word and shut up. Whenever asked, obfuscate and deflect away giving a non answer like so many usually do.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 2:17 pm to Sidicous
Not in todays environment. Most are on twitter within minutes of casting their votes explaining why.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 2:24 pm to thelawnwranglers
My response: frick THEM.
frick THEM ALL TO HELL
AND I WILL LAUGH IN THE DEMS FACE
....
AND FOR GOOD MEASURE,
frick'EM AGAIN
frick THEM ALL TO HELL
AND I WILL LAUGH IN THE DEMS FACE
....
AND FOR GOOD MEASURE,
frick'EM AGAIN
Posted on 9/20/20 at 2:26 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Garland was an okay pick?
Not if you want the 2nd Amendment for a little while longer.
Posted on 9/20/20 at 2:28 pm to TBoy
quote:
But Trump only wants to nominate right wing ideologues.
And you think that's what pretty middle-of-the-road types like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are?
Ridiculous.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News