Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '17 03:24
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

    He seems like a quite conservative, though well-qualified pick. Then again, Merrick Garland was a well-qualified pick and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing.

    Filibusters are still allowed in the Senate for SCOTUS appointments; what should the Dems (with 48 seats far more than the 40 needed to maintain a filibuster) do? Act like the Republicans and obstruct? Or return to the traditional practice and allow a vote which will surely mean that Republican obstructionism worked?

    Tough call.
  2. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    01 Feb '17 03:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

    He seems like a quite conservative, though well-qualified pick. Then again, Merrick Garland was a well-qualified pick and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing.

    Filibusters are still allowed in the Senate for SCOTUS appointments; what should the Dems (wi ...[text shortened]... ce and allow a vote which will surely mean that Republican obstructionism worked?

    Tough call.
    Wait for the next one (Kennedy, Ginsburg) and go all out.
  3. 01 Feb '17 03:47
    The Dums in Washingtin, as well as Establishment Republucans are little more than drama queens. This will be no different.

    Drama this, drama that.
  4. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    01 Feb '17 03:56
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The Dums in Washingtin, as well as Establishment Republucans are little more than drama queens. This will be no different.

    Drama this, drama that.
    Actually it's film noir.
  5. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    01 Feb '17 06:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

    He seems like a quite conservative, though well-qualified pick. Then again, Merrick Garland was a well-qualified pick and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing.

    Filibusters are still allowed in the Senate for SCOTUS appointments; what should the Dems (wi ...[text shortened]... ce and allow a vote which will surely mean that Republican obstructionism worked?

    Tough call.
    Oh, obstruct it until a champansee's nominated.
  6. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    01 Feb '17 09:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

    He seems like a quite conservative, though well-qualified pick. Then again, Merrick Garland was a well-qualified pick and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing.

    Filibusters are still allowed in the Senate for SCOTUS appointments; what should the Dems (wi ...[text shortened]... ce and allow a vote which will surely mean that Republican obstructionism worked?

    Tough call.
    They should probably obstruct. It will force the GOP to nuke the filibuster, which works for the Dems in the long run because they control the Senate more frequently. It's also what their base wants which helps them in the long run too. Either way they end up with Gorsuch on the bench.
  7. 01 Feb '17 10:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

    He seems like a quite conservative, though well-qualified pick. Then again, Merrick Garland was a well-qualified pick and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing.

    Filibusters are still allowed in the Senate for SCOTUS appointments; what should the Dems (wi ...[text shortened]... ce and allow a vote which will surely mean that Republican obstructionism worked?

    Tough call.
    Gorsuch, like late Justice Scalia, describes himself as a strict textualist in his interpretation of the constitution.

    His biggest difference with Scalia comes in the field of administrative law, an area that is sleepy for most lay people but determines the scope of much government action.

    The Trump nominee has been a critic of “Chevron deference”, a doctrine that gives administrative agencies significant latitude with how they interpret federal statutes. His views, which are shared by a number of conservative legal scholars, would significantly weaken the federal government and allow the courts to override agency actions on issues ranging from immigration to healthcare to the environment.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/feb/01/supreme-court-nomination-live-trump-gorsuch-hardiman
  8. 01 Feb '17 11:09 / 1 edit
    I saw Nancy Pelosi crying about it.

    They just need to tell her, "Nancy, you need to vote for him in order to see how it will turn out for you"

    Mwhahahaha!!!
  9. 01 Feb '17 12:29 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    They should probably obstruct. It will force the GOP to nuke the filibuster, which works for the Dems in the long run because they control the Senate more frequently. It's also what their base wants which helps them in the long run too. Either way they end up with Gorsuch on the bench.
    After the Dims boycotted the inauguration, and the general history they have now with the GOP, I don't think either party should talk to each other anymore.

    We get it, Trump is illegitimate and they all are peachy keen super duper government people that will try to impeach Trump on his every word.

    I mean, do we really want to see Schumer and Boehner cry any longer, or Nancy Pelosi try to use here words again?

    It's just too depressing to continue to watch.

    Of course, John McCan't will continue to talk to Dims but only because he is one of them
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Feb '17 15:07
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

    He seems like a quite conservative, though well-qualified pick. Then again, Merrick Garland was a well-qualified pick and the Republicans wouldn't even give him a hearing.

    Filibusters are still allowed in the Senate for SCOTUS appointments; what should the Dems (wi ...[text shortened]... ce and allow a vote which will surely mean that Republican obstructionism worked?

    Tough call.
    With only 5 Dem Senators in "red" states, that would require 3 additional Dem Senators from blue/purple states to break a filibuster. With Dems falling all over themselves trying to show how much they're opposing Trump, I doubt they'll get it.

    I also think the Republicans will nuke the filibuster once and for all.

    Were Republicans wrong to block Garland? Sure. Then again, even had he gotten an up or down vote, they might have been able to vote him down anyway.

    Either way, I think Gorusch will be confirmed in pretty short order.
  11. 01 Feb '17 15:17
    In terms of what would be smart for the Democrats politically, I'd say it is to obstruct this pick as much as they can, and pledge that if Trump nominates Garland they'll consider Gorsuch for the next SCOTUS seat. That will never happen, of course, but it will be interesting to see whether the GOP will nuke the filibuster considering the expected political fallout from a Trump presidency.
  12. 01 Feb '17 15:31
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    In terms of what would be smart for the Democrats politically, I'd say it is to obstruct this pick as much as they can, and pledge that if Trump nominates Garland they'll consider Gorsuch for the next SCOTUS seat. That will never happen, of course, but it will be interesting to see whether the GOP will nuke the filibuster considering the expected political fallout from a Trump presidency.
    Negotiate with someone they deem illegitimate?

    Fascinating.

    Is he really legitimate after all?
  13. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    01 Feb '17 15:35
    Originally posted by sh76
    Were Republicans wrong to block Garland? Sure.
    Wrong!? Nah. It was the best thing McConnell ever pulled off. It was a political triple back flip with a twist, and if the Dems roll over he will have stuck the landing. Now we just need to add a few more GOP senators in 2018, and dear old Ruth to retire so Trump can appoint Mike Lee.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '17 15:48
    Originally posted by sh76
    With only 5 Dem Senators in "red" states, that would require 3 additional Dem Senators from blue/purple states to break a filibuster. With Dems falling all over themselves trying to show how much they're opposing Trump, I doubt they'll get it.

    I also think the Republicans will nuke the filibuster once and for all.

    Were Republicans wrong to block Garland? ...[text shortened]... to vote him down anyway.

    Either way, I think Gorusch will be confirmed in pretty short order.
    I've always opposed the filibuster and if this leads to its abolition fine and dandy but my understanding is that even if they use the "nuclear option" it only locks in a non-filibuster rule for SCOTUS appointments.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '17 15:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Wrong!? Nah. It was the best thing McConnell ever pulled off. It was a political triple back flip with a twist, and if the Dems roll over he will have stuck the landing. Now we just need to add a few more GOP senators in 2018, and dear old Ruth to retire so Trump can appoint Mike Lee.
    It was a short-term political play that was unlikely to succeed. It wound up doing so, but it set a precedent where it seems very unlikely any President will ever be able to get a SCOTUS nominee through an opposition Senate no matter how qualified that nominee is. That's a significant change compared to past practice and just further poisoned the political well.