Current Events > In other news, Gorsuch was approved

Topic List	Page List: 1
HylianFox 04/07/17 3:53:14 PM #1:	because once again people don't have the balls to do the right thing --- I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals FUH-LAMING! - Homer Simpson i.imgur.com/a2EzoIs.gif i.imgur.com/rPcGRiP.gif <cite>HylianFox posted [p:876744382] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>because once again people don't have the balls to do the right thing</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ManBeast462 04/07/17 3:53:43 PM #2:	Nice! --- http://m.imgur.com/EKKJrY6 <cite>ManBeast462 posted [p:876744410] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>Nice!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
armandro 04/07/17 3:54:05 PM #3:	but it is the right thing to do left thing to do is to stop it --- http://i.imgur.com/sKghEcP.gif 8 October, 2023 <cite>armandro posted [p:876744433] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>but it is the right thing to do left thing to do is to stop it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarthAragorn 04/07/17 3:54:07 PM #4:	good --- Who fears to walk upon the grass? But it is the grass that hides the viper from his enemies and shelters him until he strikes. <cite>DarthAragorn posted [p:876744436] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>good</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 04/07/17 3:54:31 PM #5:	Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing. --- http://i.imgur.com/K4D864f.gif <cite>Blighboy posted [p:876744468] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CrimsonAngeI 04/07/17 3:57:33 PM #6:	Blighboy posted... Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing. Well the position should have never been filled by Trump. --- Why am I here? <cite>CrimsonAngeI posted [p:876744652] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing.</quote> Well the position should have never been filled by Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
armandro 04/07/17 3:58:41 PM #7:	CrimsonAngeI posted... Blighboy posted... Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing. Well the position should have never been filled by Trump. why? did they cheat the system? or just use it to their advantage like every single white person that knows the law. --- http://i.imgur.com/sKghEcP.gif 8 October, 2023 <cite>armandro posted [p:876744728] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>CrimsonAngeI posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing.</quote> Well the position should have never been filled by Trump.</quote> why? did they cheat the system? or just use it to their advantage like every single white person that knows the law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HylianFox 04/07/17 4:05:29 PM #8:	Yeesh. Just looking at this guy, his name should be "Whitey McWhitebread" No wonder conservatives love him. --- I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals FUH-LAMING! - Homer Simpson i.imgur.com/a2EzoIs.gif i.imgur.com/rPcGRiP.gif <cite>HylianFox posted [p:876745155] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>Yeesh. Just looking at this guy, his name should be "Whitey McWhitebread" No wonder conservatives love him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trigg3rH4ppy 04/07/17 4:07:47 PM #9:	lol, tc hates white people so much and it's kind of hilarious. --- ~A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men ~ TWSSted since~ 3/27/12 https://i.imgur.com/zlaENmx.png <cite>Trigg3rH4ppy posted [p:876745294] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>lol, tc hates white people so much and it's kind of hilarious.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cjsdowg 04/07/17 4:08:38 PM #10:	Blighboy posted... Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing. He felt a man sure freeze to death or be fired. And the fact that this was seat Obama should have placed. But once more Dems show how weak they are. --- Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives? <cite>cjsdowg posted [p:876745345] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing.</quote> He felt a man sure freeze to death or be fired. And the fact that this was seat Obama should have placed. But once more Dems show how weak they are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 04/07/17 4:09:56 PM #11:	armandro posted... CrimsonAngeI posted... Blighboy posted... Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing. Well the position should have never been filled by Trump. why? did they cheat the system? or just use it to their advantage like every single white person that knows the law. yes, they spitefully stole a SC seat from the sitting president purely out of partisanship spite. Dems should never have let anyone be approved other than Merrick Garland. But once again the democrats would rather be the party who does the adult thing and loses while the GoP runs amuck and makes a mockery out of our federal government. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:876745418] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>armandro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CrimsonAngeI posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing.</quote> Well the position should have never been filled by Trump.</quote> why? did they cheat the system? or just use it to their advantage like every single white person that knows the law.</quote> yes, they spitefully stole a SC seat from the sitting president purely out of partisanship spite. Dems should never have let anyone be approved other than Merrick Garland. But once again the democrats would rather be the party who does the adult thing and loses while the GoP runs amuck and makes a mockery out of our federal government.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 04/07/17 4:10:55 PM #12:	Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation? --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:876745476] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 04/07/17 4:12:39 PM #13:	cjsdowg posted... He felt a man sure freeze to death or be fired. It's not a judge's job to decide what's moral. A judge is supposed to decide what the law says. If you don't like that an employer is able to fire their employee under shitty circumstances, blame your congressman, not the guy who pointed out that it was legal. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:876745595] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>cjsdowg posted...</cite> <quote>He felt a man sure freeze to death or be fired.</quote> It's not a judge's job to decide what's moral. A judge is supposed to decide what the law says. If you don't like that an employer is able to fire their employee under shitty circumstances, blame your congressman, not the guy who pointed out that it was legal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePrinceFish 04/07/17 4:14:34 PM #14:	cjsdowg posted... Blighboy posted... Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing. He felt a man sure freeze to death or be fired. And the fact that this was seat Obama should have placed. But once more Dems show how weak they are. So he followed the law even though he disagreed with it on a personal and emotional level? Sounds like exactly what you want in a judge. --- Dielman on Rivers: "I've tried to get him to say s--- or f--- and all he'll ever do is say, 'Golly gee, I can't do that." <cite>ThePrinceFish posted [p:876745715] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>cjsdowg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing.</quote> He felt a man sure freeze to death or be fired. And the fact that this was seat Obama should have placed. But once more Dems show how weak they are.</quote> So he followed the law even though he disagreed with it on a personal and emotional level? Sounds like exactly what you want in a judge.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
voldothegr8 04/07/17 4:22:34 PM #15:	Solid Snake07 posted... But once again the democrats would rather be the party who does the adult thing and loses Blocks a judge for purely vengeful reasons Acts like adults Pick one. --- Oda break tracker 2017- 2 (1) Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE <cite>voldothegr8 posted [p:876746225] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Solid Snake07 posted...</cite> <quote>But once again the democrats would rather be the party who does the adult thing and loses</quote> Blocks a judge for purely vengeful reasons Acts like adults Pick one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 04/07/17 4:23:48 PM #16:	voldothegr8 posted... Blocks a judge for purely vengeful reasons When's the last time a supreme court pick was approved in an election year --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:876746316] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>voldothegr8 posted...</cite> <quote>Blocks a judge for purely vengeful reasons</quote> When's the last time a supreme court pick was approved in an election year</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 04/07/17 4:24:14 PM #17:	Mal_Fet posted... When's the last time a supreme court pick was approved in an election year Why does that matter? Just curious. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:876746342] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>When's the last time a supreme court pick was approved in an election year </quote> Why does that matter? Just curious.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BilalPowell 04/07/17 4:25:36 PM #18:	Dems didnt have the power to stop it. --- Start me, bench Forte <cite>BilalPowell posted [p:876746439] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>Dems didnt have the power to stop it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CrimsonAngeI 04/07/17 4:26:15 PM #19:	They had 8 months to pick a nominee, it being an election year is just an excuse to justify their behavior. --- Why am I here? <cite>CrimsonAngeI posted [p:876746485] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>They had 8 months to pick a nominee, it being an election year is just an excuse to justify their behavior.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 04/07/17 4:26:52 PM #20:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... When's the last time a supreme court pick was approved in an election year Why does that matter? Just curious. Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:876746520] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>When's the last time a supreme court pick was approved in an election year </quote> Why does that matter? Just curious.</quote> Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 04/07/17 4:28:17 PM #21:	did they got with the nuclear option? Pretty ballsy, could definitely come back to bite republicans in the ass. The way this administration has been going I wouldn't bank on keep that senate majority next year. They've kicked down the door of majority rule with this once --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:876746624] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>did they got with the nuclear option? Pretty ballsy, could definitely come back to bite republicans in the ass. The way this administration has been going I wouldn't bank on keep that senate majority next year. They've kicked down the door of majority rule with this once</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Maeiv 04/07/17 4:28:43 PM #22:	CableZL posted... Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation? They couldn't but it sets up a precedent for future Supreme Court nominees --- Achieve the dream 76ers, Eagles <cite>Maeiv posted [p:876746654] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation?</quote> They couldn't but it sets up a precedent for future Supreme Court nominees</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 04/07/17 4:29:24 PM #23:	Mal_Fet posted... Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's. Obama's approval ratings were pretty high around that time and only getting higher. Presidents are elected to do their jobs in 4 year terms, so I don't see why it matters that it was his last year. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:876746711] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's.</quote> Obama's approval ratings were pretty high around that time and only getting higher. Presidents are elected to do their jobs in 4 year terms, so I don't see why it matters that it was his last year.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 04/07/17 4:32:18 PM #24:	Solid Snake07 posted... Pretty ballsy, could definitely come back to bite republicans in the ass. The way this administration has been going I wouldn't bank on keep that senate majority next year. 1) The filibuster was a dumb institution regardless of what party is in charge 2) Democrats stand to lose way more seats than Reps in 2 years --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:876746883] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Solid Snake07 posted...</cite> <quote>Pretty ballsy, could definitely come back to bite republicans in the ass. The way this administration has been going I wouldn't bank on keep that senate majority next year. </quote> 1) The filibuster was a dumb institution regardless of what party is in charge 2) Democrats stand to lose way more seats than Reps in 2 years</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scorpion41 04/07/17 4:34:09 PM #25:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's. Obama's approval ratings were pretty high around that time and only getting higher. Presidents are elected to do their jobs in 4 year terms, so I don't see why it matters that it was his last year. The reasoning was that it was a chance for the people to choose the type of country they wanted: left-leaning or right-leaning. Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010. --- PSN: scorpion_4160 Currently Playing: NCAA 14, Devil May Cry HD collection <cite>scorpion41 posted [p:876746995] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's.</quote> Obama's approval ratings were pretty high around that time and only getting higher. Presidents are elected to do their jobs in 4 year terms, so I don't see why it matters that it was his last year.</quote> The reasoning was that it was a chance for the people to choose the type of country they wanted: left-leaning or right-leaning. Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 04/07/17 4:38:24 PM #26:	Mal_Fet posted... The filibuster was a dumb institution regardless of what party is in charge maybe if you're in favor of total majority rule. The filibuster has been an incentive for bipartisanship compromise for 200 years. I don't think you're really seeing the big picture here. And this has basically pissed all over that. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:876747222] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>The filibuster was a dumb institution regardless of what party is in charge</quote> maybe if you're in favor of total majority rule. The filibuster has been an incentive for bipartisanship compromise for 200 years. I don't think you're really seeing the big picture here. And this has basically pissed all over that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solid Snake07 04/07/17 4:39:44 PM #27:	scorpion41 posted... CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's. Obama's approval ratings were pretty high around that time and only getting higher. Presidents are elected to do their jobs in 4 year terms, so I don't see why it matters that it was his last year. The reasoning was that it was a chance for the people to choose the type of country they wanted: left-leaning or right-leaning. Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010. The sad part is you've probably legitimately convinced yourself of this. --- "People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time" -Detective Rust Cohle <cite>Solid Snake07 posted [p:876747298] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>scorpion41 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's.</quote> Obama's approval ratings were pretty high around that time and only getting higher. Presidents are elected to do their jobs in 4 year terms, so I don't see why it matters that it was his last year.</quote> The reasoning was that it was a chance for the people to choose the type of country they wanted: left-leaning or right-leaning. Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010.</quote> The sad part is you've probably legitimately convinced yourself of this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Axiom 04/07/17 4:39:46 PM #28:	CableZL posted... Mal_Fet posted... Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's. Obama's approval ratings were pretty high around that time and only getting higher. Presidents are elected to do their jobs in 4 year terms, so I don't see why it matters that it was his last year. It doesn't. It's just an excuse they use. What they really mean is "We just wanted a candidate that aligned with our own political beliefs". Pretty pathetic especially after Obama went out of his way to try and pick a candidate that both sides would be fine with <cite>Axiom posted [p:876747302] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Don't you think the will of the people that year is more important than the will of the people 4 years prior? Also, the answer is the mid-1800's.</quote> Obama's approval ratings were pretty high around that time and only getting higher. Presidents are elected to do their jobs in 4 year terms, so I don't see why it matters that it was his last year.</quote> It doesn't. It's just an excuse they use. What they really mean is "We just wanted a candidate that aligned with our own political beliefs". Pretty pathetic especially after Obama went out of his way to try and pick a candidate that both sides would be fine with</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gojak_v3 04/07/17 4:40:48 PM #29:	HylianFox posted... because once again people don't have the balls to do the right thing I think yer confused on what the right thing to do was. --- http://i.imgtc.com/rIZcfGBEt8.png <cite>Gojak_v3 posted [p:876747373] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>HylianFox posted...</cite> <quote>because once again people don't have the balls to do the right thing</quote> I think yer confused on what the right thing to do was.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ampelas 04/07/17 4:42:15 PM #30:	scorpion41 posted... Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010. ITP, someone who can't count <cite>Ampelas posted [p:876747446] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>scorpion41 posted...</cite> <quote>Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010.</quote> ITP, someone who can't count</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scorpion41 04/07/17 7:07:47 PM #31:	Ampelas posted... scorpion41 posted... Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010. ITP, someone who can't count I'm glad you admit your faults. --- PSN: scorpion_4160 Currently Playing: NCAA 14, Devil May Cry HD collection <cite>scorpion41 posted [p:876755612] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ampelas posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scorpion41 posted...</cite> <quote>Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010.</quote> ITP, someone who can't count</quote> I'm glad you admit your faults.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ampelas 04/07/17 7:11:01 PM #32:	scorpion41 posted... Ampelas posted... scorpion41 posted... Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010. ITP, someone who can't count I'm glad you admit your faults. But Obama won 2012, so your sweeping generalization is objectively wrong. <cite>Ampelas posted [p:876755799] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>scorpion41 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ampelas posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scorpion41 posted...</cite> <quote>Dems are still pissy that people are not buying into their bullshit despite losing every election since 2010.</quote> ITP, someone who can't count</quote> I'm glad you admit your faults.</quote> But Obama won 2012, so your sweeping generalization is objectively wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cjsdowg 04/07/17 7:36:06 PM #33:	ThePrinceFish posted... cjsdowg posted... Blighboy posted... Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing. He felt a man sure freeze to death or be fired. And the fact that this was seat Obama should have placed. But once more Dems show how weak they are. So he followed the law even though he disagreed with it on a personal and emotional level? Sounds like exactly what you want in a judge. 6 out or 7 judges disagree with his ruling. So not he didn't follow the law. But its always funny to see people on the right complain about the Left not caring about the little man. Then think is ok for someone to be fired for not dying. Let me ask you something. If worked in a factory and your boss said stay in your area. Then a fire broke out. Do you think it would be ok to fire you because got to safety ? --- Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives? <cite>cjsdowg posted [p:876757240] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThePrinceFish posted...</cite> <quote><cite>cjsdowg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>Was there anything wrong with Gorsuch or is it just the principle of the thing.</quote> He felt a man sure freeze to death or be fired. And the fact that this was seat Obama should have placed. But once more Dems show how weak they are.</quote> So he followed the law even though he disagreed with it on a personal and emotional level? Sounds like exactly what you want in a judge.</quote> 6 out or 7 judges disagree with his ruling. So not he didn't follow the law. But its always funny to see people on the right complain about the Left not caring about the little man. Then think is ok for someone to be fired for not dying. Let me ask you something. If worked in a factory and your boss said stay in your area. Then a fire broke out. Do you think it would be ok to fire you because got to safety ?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paragon21XX 04/07/17 7:47:05 PM #34:	@CableZL posted... Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation? They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. Face it, you know that if Democrats were the majority party in the Senate last year, they would have invoked the nuclear option to push through Garland or whoever else Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court position. --- Hmm... <cite>Paragon21XX posted [p:876757912] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>@CableZL posted...</cite> <quote>Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation?</quote> They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. Face it, you know that if Democrats were the majority party in the Senate last year, they would have invoked the nuclear option to push through Garland or whoever else Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court position.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Guardian-Sloth 04/07/17 7:49:30 PM #35:	"Corporate interests" my ass, they can't even admit that they just want another liberal on the court. <cite>Guardian-Sloth posted [p:876758074] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>"Corporate interests" my ass, they can't even admit that they just want another liberal on the court.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/07/17 7:51:37 PM #36:	Will of the people an interesting argument in favor of the nominee from a president who got 46% of the vote and his approval by senators representing 44% of the population. Republicans were entirely within their power as outlined by the constitution to block Garland and push Gorsuch through. But let's not pretend it wasn't about ideology and power. --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876758221] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>Will of the people an interesting argument in favor of the nominee from a president who got 46% of the vote and his approval by senators representing 44% of the population. Republicans were entirely within their power as outlined by the constitution to block Garland and push Gorsuch through. But let's not pretend it wasn't about ideology and power.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
3rd_Best_Master 04/07/17 7:53:26 PM #37:	Paragon21XX posted... @CableZL posted... Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation? They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. Face it, you know that if Democrats were the majority party in the Senate last year, they would have invoked the nuclear option to push through Garland or whoever else Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court position. How many filibusters did those appointments go through before Harry Reid enacted the nuclear option? How many filibusters did Gorsuch go through before the nuclear option was enacted? --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2 <cite>3rd_Best_Master posted [p:876758320] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Paragon21XX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@CableZL posted...</cite> <quote> Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation?</quote> They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. Face it, you know that if Democrats were the majority party in the Senate last year, they would have invoked the nuclear option to push through Garland or whoever else Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court position.</quote> How many filibusters did those appointments go through before Harry Reid enacted the nuclear option? How many filibusters did Gorsuch go through before the nuclear option was enacted?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChrisHansen59 04/07/17 7:53:37 PM #38:	Paragon21XX posted... They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. After Republicans block roughly 80 attempted appointments Turtlehead did it after one --- http://i.imgtc.com/jZY2MqX.png <cite>ChrisHansen59 posted [p:876758329] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Paragon21XX posted...</cite> <quote>They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013.</quote> After Republicans block roughly 80 attempted appointments Turtlehead did it after one</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/07/17 7:58:42 PM #39:	Also, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February of 1988, which was a presidential election year. William Brennan was confirmed in October 1956... --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876758577] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>Also, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February of 1988, which was a presidential election year. William Brennan was confirmed in October 1956...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ampelas 04/07/17 8:04:57 PM #40:	Antifar posted... Also, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February of 1988, which was a presidential election year. William Brennan was confirmed in October 1956... Hush, Trump supporters don't like facts. Their narrative about "Garland was blocked as the will of the American people to never have a justice appointed during election years" is very comfortable to them <cite>Ampelas posted [p:876758923] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Also, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February of 1988, which was a presidential election year. William Brennan was confirmed in October 1956...</quote> Hush, Trump supporters don't like facts. Their narrative about "Garland was blocked as the will of the American people to never have a justice appointed during election years" is very comfortable to them</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paragon21XX 04/07/17 8:05:01 PM #41:	3rd_Best_Master posted... Paragon21XX posted... @CableZL posted... Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation? They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. Face it, you know that if Democrats were the majority party in the Senate last year, they would have invoked the nuclear option to push through Garland or whoever else Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court position. How many filibusters did those appointments go through before Harry Reid enacted the nuclear option? How many filibusters did Gorsuch go through before the nuclear option was enacted? Irrelevant. Republicans acted irrationally according to their party lines then and paid for it by continuing to filibuster once the nuclear option was placed on the table, Democrats showed that they were willing to act irrationally according to their party lines now and paid the same by being stubborn in the face of the nuclear option. Moral of the story: pick your battles, especially when your foe holds the insta-win button in your face. --- Hmm... <cite>Paragon21XX posted [p:876758927] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>3rd_Best_Master posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Paragon21XX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@CableZL posted...</cite> <quote> Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation?</quote> They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. Face it, you know that if Democrats were the majority party in the Senate last year, they would have invoked the nuclear option to push through Garland or whoever else Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court position.</quote> How many filibusters did those appointments go through before Harry Reid enacted the nuclear option? How many filibusters did Gorsuch go through before the nuclear option was enacted?</quote> Irrelevant. Republicans acted irrationally according to their party lines then and paid for it by continuing to filibuster once the nuclear option was placed on the table, Democrats showed that they were willing to act irrationally according to their party lines now and paid the same by being stubborn in the face of the nuclear option. Moral of the story: pick your battles, especially when your foe holds the insta-win button in your face.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/07/17 8:10:29 PM #42:	Is there a reality in which Democrats don't filibuster Gorsuch and Republicans play nice and don't just use the nuclear option the next time the Dems attempt to filibuster? --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876759207] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote>Is there a reality in which Democrats don't filibuster Gorsuch and Republicans play nice and don't just use the nuclear option the next time the Dems attempt to filibuster?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePieReborn 04/07/17 8:15:58 PM #43:	Antifar posted... Also, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February of 1988, which was a presidential election year. William Brennan was confirmed in October 1956... Quoting for additional visibility to the usual offenders. Not that it'll matter much. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:876759504] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Also, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February of 1988, which was a presidential election year. William Brennan was confirmed in October 1956...</quote> Quoting for additional visibility to the usual offenders. Not that it'll matter much.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
3rd_Best_Master 04/07/17 8:26:57 PM #44:	Paragon21XX posted... 3rd_Best_Master posted... Paragon21XX posted... @CableZL posted... Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation? They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. Face it, you know that if Democrats were the majority party in the Senate last year, they would have invoked the nuclear option to push through Garland or whoever else Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court position. How many filibusters did those appointments go through before Harry Reid enacted the nuclear option? How many filibusters did Gorsuch go through before the nuclear option was enacted? Irrelevant. Republicans acted irrationally according to their party lines then and paid for it by continuing to filibuster once the nuclear option was placed on the table, Democrats showed that they were willing to act irrationally according to their party lines now and paid the same by being stubborn in the face of the nuclear option. Moral of the story: pick your battles, especially when your foe holds the insta-win button in your face. You're using the actions of one in order to justify the other. How are the reasons behind either nuclear option irrelevant to you? --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2 <cite>3rd_Best_Master posted [p:876760116] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>Paragon21XX posted...</cite> <quote><cite>3rd_Best_Master posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Paragon21XX posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>@CableZL posted...</cite> <quote> Not that I disagree with your statements about the Democrats, but wasn't the "nuclear option" used to confirm Gorsuch? What could Democrats have done to prevent that in this situation? </quote> They could have started by not letting Harry Reid set a bad precedent by invoking the nuclear option when confirming multiple federal circuit judge appointments in 2013. Face it, you know that if Democrats were the majority party in the Senate last year, they would have invoked the nuclear option to push through Garland or whoever else Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court position. </quote> How many filibusters did those appointments go through before Harry Reid enacted the nuclear option? How many filibusters did Gorsuch go through before the nuclear option was enacted?</quote> Irrelevant. Republicans acted irrationally according to their party lines then and paid for it by continuing to filibuster once the nuclear option was placed on the table, Democrats showed that they were willing to act irrationally according to their party lines now and paid the same by being stubborn in the face of the nuclear option. Moral of the story: pick your battles, especially when your foe holds the insta-win button in your face.</quote> You're using the actions of one in order to justify the other. How are the reasons behind either nuclear option irrelevant to you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paragon21XX 04/07/17 8:46:33 PM #45:	3rd_Best_Master posted... You're using the actions of one in order to justify the other. How are the reasons behind either nuclear option irrelevant to you? As I said, neither side was willing to pick their battles carefully even when clearly presented with the worst case scenario of having their say in the process shown the door and hitting them in the ass with it on the way out. Democrats were simply shown the nuclear option card sooner rather than later and still held their ground despite it. Frankly, filibustering (especially for appointments of any nature) should never have been a thing to start with, especially with one of the most toxic legislatures in history. --- Hmm... <cite>Paragon21XX posted [p:876761097] in In other n... [t:75210354]...</cite> <quote><cite>3rd_Best_Master posted...</cite> <quote>You're using the actions of one in order to justify the other. How are the reasons behind either nuclear option irrelevant to you?</quote> As I said, neither side was willing to pick their battles carefully even when clearly presented with the worst case scenario of having their say in the process shown the door and hitting them in the ass with it on the way out. Democrats were simply shown the nuclear option card sooner rather than later and still held their ground despite it. Frankly, filibustering (especially for appointments of any nature) should never have been a thing to start with, especially with one of the most toxic legislatures in history.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > In other news, Gorsuch was approved (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > In other news, Gorsuch was approved