Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 104 of 104

Thread: Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Nomination

  1. #91
    I keep hearing people talking about a deeply fractured Republican Party but never the same is said about the Democrats. Is it because they are just a gooey mess?

    Who are the vocal leaders right now even? Shumer and Pelosi? Sanders? Who is the up-and-coming contender for Trump? If there was ever an incumbent currently set up for a loss it has to be Trump right now.

    I mean, they lost to Donald Trump and control of everything. This new dawn of enlightened politics they were claiming is further away.

    Nobody is talking about the utter mess the dems are right now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Rocker Ute; 03-22-2017 at 08:39 AM.

  2. #92
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    I keep hearing people talking about a deeply fractured Republican Party but never the same is said about the Democrats. Is it because they are just a gooey mess?

    Who are the vocal leaders right now even? Shumer and Pelosi? Sanders? Who is the up-and-coming contender for Trump? If there was ever an incumbent currently set up for a loss it has to be Trump right now.

    I mean, they lost to Donald Trump and control of everything. This new dawn of enlightened politics they were claiming is further away.

    Nobody is talking about the utter mess the dems are right now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Here's one analysis, which I neither endorse nor disagree with:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/specials/demo...t-in-the-lurch

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  3. #93
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,276

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  4. #94
    "After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court," -- Chuck Schumer

    LOL.....Schumer is a tool, a liar, a farce and a disgrace to the United States Senate. He may not support Gorsuch, but let's not kid ourselves.....it was NOT after careful deliberation. Gorsuch has impeccable credentials, is brilliant, follows the law, and passes the temperament test with flying colors. In short, he killed it. Schumer......a complete buffoon running his own kabuki theater.

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...ourt/22008988/
    “Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman

    "You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb

    "Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.

  5. #95
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,276
    Al Hunt (a serious liberal) pinpoints the real reason the Dems are opposing Gorsuch: They don't want to face a primary opponent. Seems the Democrats have their own version of the Tea Party.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...orsuch-problem

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  6. #96
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,276
    And to think that just a few years ago, I was constantly hearing that the filibuster is outdated, undemocratic, and probably racist.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  7. #97
    I'm coming around on the Filibuster. Most Americans probably have no idea what it is, and it defies the simple "majority rules" mindset we have.

    Get rid of it. It's almost as anachronistic as the Electoral College.

    If McConnell won't get rid of it now, it would certainly come up again with the next nominee, whether that's another Trump selection or whoever the next President is (assuming there is a next President).

    The Filibuster is from a different era. I don't see any way we're going back to that time.

  8. #98
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,276

    Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Nomination

    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    I'm coming around on the Filibuster. Most Americans probably have no idea what it is, and it defies the simple "majority rules" mindset we have.

    Get rid of it. It's almost as anachronistic as the Electoral College.

    If McConnell won't get rid of it now, it would certainly come up again with the next nominee, whether that's another Trump selection or whoever the next President is (assuming there is a next President).

    The Filibuster is from a different era. I don't see any way we're going back to that time.
    It is what we might call "extra-constitutional," meaning it is not mentioned there at all. I think it was in the 1970s that an extra "track" was added, so that instead of stopping everything the Senate is doing (see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), the filibuster means that legislation being filibustered is simply set aside while the Senate moves on to other things. The result is that you need a super-majority to get certain things passed, even though the Constitution requires a super-majority only for very specific things. Right now it's causing problems for the Republicans, but it will cause problems for the Democrats someday too. It should be abolished, or maybe we should just go back to the one-track system.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    It is what we might call "extra-constitutional," meaning it is not mentioned there at all. I think it was in the 1970s that an extra "track" was added, so that instead of stopping everything the Senate is doing (see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), the filibuster means that legislation being filibustered is simply set aside while the Senate moves on to other things. The result is that you need a super-majority to get certain things passed, even though the Constitution requires a super-majority only for very specific things. Right now it's causing problems for the Republicans, but it will cause problems for the Democrats someday too. It should be abolished, or maybe we should just go back to the one-track system.
    I remember learning from J.D. Williams that the Filibuster was a moderating instrument. Even the minority could exert influence on things coming through the Senate, causing the majority, and / or the House and the Executive to compromise (apologies for using French here).

    It was a different time...

  10. #100
    So I think it is a stretch to call Gorsuch an objectionable nomination. The question is why would the democrats risk the nuclear option when they'll likely need it for another nominee in the future.

    This seems like a poor strategy on the left's part.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #101
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    I'm coming around on the Filibuster. Most Americans probably have no idea what it is, and it defies the simple "majority rules" mindset we have.

    Get rid of it. It's almost as anachronistic as the Electoral College.

    If McConnell won't get rid of it now, it would certainly come up again with the next nominee, whether that's another Trump selection or whoever the next President is (assuming there is a next President).

    The Filibuster is from a different era. I don't see any way we're going back to that time.
    The Progressive Case Against Filibustering Gorsuch

  12. #102
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,276

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  13. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    So I think it is a stretch to call Gorsuch an objectionable nomination. The question is why would the democrats risk the nuclear option when they'll likely need it for another nominee in the future.

    This seems like a poor strategy on the left's part.
    The Dems are working hard to take back the Senate in 2018, maybe 2020, which makes it easy to stonewall any new Trump appointees, ala the McConnell stonewall on Garland. Having the drama of a rules debate out of the way now, the confirmation vote can be quick and emphatic. Goes thru committee on whatever vote, goes to Senate, a debate could occur in a few hours, vote up or down, "Tell Trump to try again!" Nice, quick, clean, fast... government efficiency on steroids. Opposing presidents would need a bullpen of candidates.

    If Dems have the WH and the Senate, the challenge will be how fast to get pick #1 through will minimal discussion, and possibly use that nifty Rule 19 to squelch any opposers who get frustrated and make a misstep in complaining, ala Elizabeth Warren.

  14. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    The Dems are working hard to take back the Senate in 2018, maybe 2020, which makes it easy to stonewall any new Trump appointees, ala the McConnell stonewall on Garland. Having the drama of a rules debate out of the way now, the confirmation vote can be quick and emphatic. Goes thru committee on whatever vote, goes to Senate, a debate could occur in a few hours, vote up or down, "Tell Trump to try again!" Nice, quick, clean, fast... government efficiency on steroids. Opposing presidents would need a bullpen of candidates.

    If Dems have the WH and the Senate, the challenge will be how fast to get pick #1 through will minimal discussion, and possibly use that nifty Rule 19 to squelch any opposers who get frustrated and make a misstep in complaining, ala Elizabeth Warren.
    It's a dangerous misstep by still flailing democrats based on presumptions. What happens 'if' they don't take back anything? We only need to look as far back as their presumptive nominee and how well that went for them, to know how easy it is to predict the future.

    At some point, Trump will likely find a way to steady the ship. In fact, you could argue that has begun to happen with the ousting of Bannon, to whom he basically said: "You're fired." Trump is who he is. He was a moderate and democrat first, as was/is his son in-law and daughter, before they became born again republicans. Trumps lean right was a brilliant calculation that got him elected.

    Also, the more news media and late night comedians go after him, the more he becomes entrenched as the under dog; the punchline that defied all odds and ended up, improbably, on top when confronted with his "one shining moment." His underdog status will always play well with the silent majority of "independent" US voters. Those that turned their nose's away from the stench of his behavior and voted for him. The same people he won't hesitate to fleece.

    How many more justices will Trump need to replace is the real question? I'm happy with the Gorsuch nomination. He will be a brilliant addition to the Supreme Court. The Dems and liberals just don't seem to get it. You can't mercilessly mock and continue to condescend without their being consequences. Trump is that consequence, and his influence won't be fleeting.
    Last edited by tooblue; 04-07-2017 at 07:27 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •