RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS

RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/23/2016 9:57:18 PM)
quote: So since there was not an opening on the court it doesn't count now? I'm sure it counts a lot to the cadre of petulant, all-male, all-white Republicans seeking intellectual fig leaves for their naked power grab. And to their supporters in Republicistan as well, I imagine. The rest of us can pretty well distinguish between words from a politician about what he might like to see happen in a hypothetical situation and the actions of the GOP leadership during an actual SCOTUS vacancy.

DaddySatyr -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/23/2016 10:12:30 PM)
The poor, whiny-assed, cry-baby dumbocrats are the ones that built this Dagwood-sized shit sandwich. Now they're bitching, when it's their turn to take a bite. Michael

MrRodgers -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/23/2016 10:14:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC If you look at history, the democrats have done exactly the same thing when George H.W. Bush was president and when George W. Bush was president. Democrats cry like the bunch of bitches that they are when they get a taste of their own medicine. You have a penchant for revising history or just not knowing it. The last supreme to be voted onto the court in an election year, was Kennedy, it was a dem congress, they met him an gave him a hearing and was voted in unanimously. This was in fact the election year of 1988, Reagan's last term while he was in office and H.W. Bush was running. H.W. Bush nominated Souter for the court, The dem congress met him, gave him a hearing and was voted in 90-9 with a few dem and repub senators voting against him. H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the court and a dem congress, met him, gave him a hearing and was voted in 52-48 GWB nominated Roberts 2 days after Rehnquist's death. A repub senate almost immediately voted him in. GWB nominated Alito and he was voted in by a repub senate 1/06. Subsequently, the dems took both houses the following Nov.

dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/23/2016 10:25:19 PM)
quote: You might find this interesting, DC: Many thanks for all the cutting and pasting on my behalf. I tend to skim walls of text, but I think I got the gist of yours: Democrats too can play rough with judicial nominations. Not news to me. I'm fine with tough scrutiny, by either party, of any nominee for SCOTUS. S/he is on the cusp of an incredibly powerful job with lifelong tenure. But that's not what we saw on Capitol Hill just recently. Before even a single nominee has been named, the GOP leadership announced that they will hold no hearings. Indeed, they won't even open the door for courtesy visits. Put bluntly, the Republicans are taking their marbles (what's left of them) and going home. That behavior seems more suited to a playground than to Congress, at least to me. Ymmv, of course.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/23/2016 11:06:00 PM)
I have a feeling this is really turning into a clusterfuck of immense proportions. Its gonna bite them in the ass, with nasty sharp pointy teeth.

MrRodgers -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 2:12:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You might find this interesting, DC: Many thanks for all the cutting and pasting on my behalf. I tend to skim walls of text, but I think I got the gist of yours: Democrats too can play rough with judicial nominations. Not news to me. I'm fine with tough scrutiny, by either party, of any nominee for SCOTUS. S/he is on the cusp of an incredibly powerful job with lifelong tenure. But that's not what we saw on Capitol Hill just recently. Before even a single nominee has been named, the GOP leadership announced that they will hold no hearings. Indeed, they won't even open the door for courtesy visits. Put bluntly, the Republicans are taking their marbles (what's left of them) and going home. That behavior seems more suited to a playground than to Congress, at least to me. Ymmv, of course. That's what my link was all about and a letter saying so.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 2:21:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 Ah, I see.................if one side does it, it immediately makes it okay for the other side to do the same thing ? Don't you think that smacks a little of schoolyard behaviour masterbrent ? Given the context, that is probably the stupidest question I've seen you ask on here, Dvr. It's US politics. of course it's schoolyard behavior! That should have been a given. [:D] All joking aside, neither party trusts the other, so even if the GOP takes the high road, they don't believe for a moment that the Democrats will the next time the roles are reversed. If the Democrats take the high road, they don't trust that the GOP will do the same when they have the opportunity. In the polarity of two-party politics, each party is going to do what's best for the party because they fully believe the other party is going to do what's best for itself.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 2:48:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic he completely missed that it was a resignation, not a death, and that is the whole difference! Is an opening not an opening, regardless of how it was gotten? Had Biden said something about a Justice dying while Bush was still in office, and a Justice did happen to pass, wouldn't there have been some hysteria about that (wrong as it may have been)? No one expects a Justice to die in a short-term timeframe, unless there are signs of degeneration. Justice Scalia's death was not expected, though at that age, it's more common to keel over without major road signs. And, any Justice who is old enough to consider retirement, is entirely likely to also be old enough to cease living. Even with all that being said, I'm still on the side that the President should fulfill his Constitutional duty and nominate someone to the SCOTUS. And, the Senate Judiciary Committee should convene and consider the nomination, voting on it as is their duty. IMO, it's wrong to preemptively oppose a nomination, or oppose a sitting President fulfilling his/her Constitutional authority in nominating.

MrRodgers -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 2:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 Ah, I see.................if one side does it, it immediately makes it okay for the other side to do the same thing ? Don't you think that smacks a little of schoolyard behaviour masterbrent ? Given the context, that is probably the stupidest question I've seen you ask on here, Dvr. It's US politics. of course it's schoolyard behavior! That should have been a given. [:D] All joking aside, neither party trusts the other, so even if the GOP takes the high road, they don't believe for a moment that the Democrats will the next time the roles are reversed. If the Democrats take the high road, they don't trust that the GOP will do the same when they have the opportunity. In the polarity of two-party politics, each party is going to do what's best for the party because they fully believe the other party is going to do what's best for itself. Unfortunately DS you may be right and irrespective of any interpretation of the past battles or senate rules. In that vain, I just think the repubs can do as they please but to do it this way...could bite them on the ass. Go ahead and be partisan but don't go out of your way to advertise it in such a way. Makes me chuckle to think they could have remained silent (a shocker in itself) and when the nominee comes up...vote him down. To do it this way, is just playing with fire politically and yep...could get burned come Nov.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 3:16:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Unfortunately DS you may be right and irrespective of any interpretation of the past battles or senate rules. In that vain, I just think the repubs can do as they please but to do it this way...could bite them on the ass. Go ahead and be partisan but don't go out of your way to advertise it in such a way. Makes me chuckle to think they could have remained silent (a shocker in itself) and when the nominee comes up...vote him down. To do it this way, is just playing with fire politically and yep...could get burned come Nov. Then again, the President could very well nominate a moderate or even a right-leaning person to call out McConnell. McConnell could, then, dutifully go through the process and the Senate could approve the nomination, blunting a left-ward swing on the court. The President and the Democrats could show the GOP won't stick to their guns, and the GOP can claim to have out-foxed the Democrats.

thishereboi -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 3:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic he completely missed that it was a resignation, not a death, and that is the whole difference! Only to those who are scrambling to come up with reasons why it's so bad now, but wasn't back when their side did it.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 4:30:23 AM)
Lmfao. You means facts dont trump their lies? That it its factually different to their claims? Their claims llike their lies are debunked....daily.

Tkman117 -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 5:21:36 AM)
FR In all honesty I see nothing different between a death and a resignation. Either way a seat is empty, and either way it needs to be filled. The government needs to go through the process listed in its legislation for appointing a new judge. The fact that the cons won't even participate in the process is simply shameful, even if they were going to vote no on every person until the election.

dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 6:53:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic he completely missed that it was a resignation, not a death, and that is the whole difference! Only to those who are scrambling to come up with reasons why it's so bad now, but wasn't back when their side did it. To me, the key difference is between the Democrats' words (political posturing about not confirming a hypothetical nominee) then and the Republicans' actions (officially announcing that the Judiciary Committee will hold no hearings in the face of an actual vacancy) now. Ymmv, of course.

dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 6:54:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic he completely missed that it was a resignation, not a death, and that is the whole difference! Only to those who are scrambling to come up with reasons why it's so bad now, but wasn't back when their side did it.

CreativeDominant -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 7:06:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You might find this interesting, DC: Many thanks for all the cutting and pasting on my behalf. I tend to skim walls of text, but I think I got the gist of yours: Democrats too can play rough with judicial nominations. Not news to me. I'm fine with tough scrutiny, by either party, of any nominee for SCOTUS. S/he is on the cusp of an incredibly powerful job with lifelong tenure. But that's not what we saw on Capitol Hill just recently. Before even a single nominee has been named, the GOP leadership announced that they will hold no hearings. Indeed, they won't even open the door for courtesy visits. Put bluntly, the Republicans are taking their marbles (what's left of them) and going home. That behavior seems more suited to a playground than to Congress, at least to me. Ymmv, of course. And if you'll do more than skim, you'll find that Schemer said the...very...same...thing. As did Biden. That's why they keep saying "let's not talk about what was said in the past". Of course not...because they did...the...same...thing...and did it FIRST. Before Bush ever appointed ANYbody.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 7:22:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 FR In all honesty I see nothing different between a death and a resignation. Either way a seat is empty, and either way it needs to be filled. The government needs to go through the process listed in its legislation for appointing a new judge. The fact that the cons won't even participate in the process is simply shameful, even if they were going to vote no on every person until the election. well a resignation can be postponed, a death cant?

CreativeDominant -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 7:33:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 FR In all honesty I see nothing different between a death and a resignation. Either way a seat is empty, and either way it needs to be filled. The government needs to go through the process listed in its legislation for appointing a new judge. The fact that the cons won't even participate in the process is simply shameful, even if they were going to vote no on every person until the election. Was it shameful when the Dims said it...did it? Read my previous post for all the info on the "non-obstructionist" Dims.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 7:40:08 AM)
It really don't make a fuck. I think the imploding nutsuckers are missing the trick as usual. Obama so far, has not appointed any bomb throwers. If they let this slide, Hillary will appoint a much more partisan justice. They are only fucking themselves.

MrRodgers -> RE: SCOTUS nominee is out...letter to the POTUS (2/24/2016 7:55:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 FR In all honesty I see nothing different between a death and a resignation. Either way a seat is empty, and either way it needs to be filled. The government needs to go through the process listed in its legislation for appointing a new judge. The fact that the cons won't even participate in the process is simply shameful, even if they were going to vote no on every person until the election. well a resignation can be postponed, a death cant? I've heard that.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375