little2add Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 9 minutes ago, havok579257 said: well to be fair he is mad because the republicans refused to even vote on Obama's appointee. that was the ultimate fillibuster of over a year. according to the rules of the senate, it was not right. i am personally glad the republicans did it but i can't argue that it was right according to the rules. democrats are just doing the same thing republicans did under obama. fake tears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 hey i don't like Schumer at all. although I feel like both sides of the spectrum (conservative and liberal) get their panties in a bunch when one side does something but clearly ignores the same thing when their side does it. both sides need to be honest about this and not cry everytime the other side pulls one of their tricks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 New York Senator Chuck Schumer is a hipocrate Schumer took the exact opposite stance nine years ago, going out of his way to bluntly tell the George W. Bush administration that he would filibuster any Supreme Court nominee they put forward in the next two years because he didn’t care for the ideology of his previous two nominees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 On 3/26/2017 at 11:48 PM, havok579257 said: hey i don't like Schumer at all. although I feel like both sides of the spectrum (conservative and liberal) get their panties in a bunch when one side does something but clearly ignores the same thing when their side does it. both sides need to be honest about this and not cry everytime the other side pulls one of their tricks. Well, the idea to not select a Supreme Court Judge is not a new Republican thing. It unofficially referred to as the Biden Rule, since Biden lobbied for it as a Senator in the 90's. It's dishonest to say D's are justified now to balance what R's did recently. The tit for tat has to stop sometime to begin some sort of bipartisanship in action. This hyper partisanship started growing years ago and has only escalated. It isn't constructive that anyone justifies the stupidity by either party as pay back for past wrongs, whether real or perceived. Gorsuch should be confirmed as a qualified, non-extreme candidate. The Dem filibuster is uncalled for party politics and it is very unfortunate the Reps have to consider changing rules to counter their stupidity. However, I think that maybe they shouldn't and not contribute to the continued escalation this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 What of the frozen trucker case? Does that concern anyone? Is it just leftwing hysteria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 3 hours ago, Ice_nine said: What of the frozen trucker case? Does that concern anyone? Is it just leftwing hysteria? What of it? In that instance, Gorsuch was ruling in a strict interpretation of the law, arguably without motivation to bend to other interests. If one wants to argue Gorsuch panders to outside interests, you will have to demonstrate that tendency with examples from the other 3,000 cases put before him, not just one case. Isn't independent judges ruling on the laws as written what we want? It is the legislative branch that creates the laws that govern. Three balancing branches of government is the intent of our system. The judicial branch's role is not to reinvent the intent or purpose of the laws. That is why they are appointed for life. We elect legislative representatives to create laws according to the intent and will of the voting population, as also guided by the principles of the Constitution. Muddying things up strictly for political party purposes is a huge mistake by Democrats, and unfortunately, if Republicans change the 60 vote rule to address that error, may really contribute to the politicalization and make matters worse in the long term. Again, Democrats are killing a qualified SC Judge nominee for politics, like they did with Bork. Republicans killed a qualified Judge with Garland. Trump got elected with a large part due to the will of the people's hope in the ideology of Judges he would appoint? Voters contribute to the political aspects of Judges as well. Do we want legal verdicts decided on popular opinions (lynch mobs), or structured application of the laws (which we elect legislators to create or change)? Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 i dont know if it's better for the long term objectives of the court to do away with the sixty vote hurdle. but it may be best for abortion. democrats are the ones with the worst litmus test on abortion and it was becoming such that no one who might possibly vote to overturn it would get appointed. i realize it works both ways such that the dems will have it easier on the court too, but id think on balance it'd be more beneficial to the prolife cause to do away with all those litmus test dems obstructing things. i might be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 On 4/4/2017 at 10:58 AM, Anomaly said: What of it? In that instance, Gorsuch was ruling in a strict interpretation of the law, arguably without motivation to bend to other interests. If one wants to argue Gorsuch panders to outside interests, you will have to demonstrate that tendency with examples from the other 3,000 cases put before him, not just one case. Isn't independent judges ruling on the laws as written what we want? It is the legislative branch that creates the laws that govern. Three balancing branches of government is the intent of our system. The judicial branch's role is not to reinvent the intent or purpose of the laws. That is why they are appointed for life. We elect legislative representatives to create laws according to the intent and will of the voting population, as also guided by the principles of the Constitution. Muddying things up strictly for political party purposes is a huge mistake by Democrats, and unfortunately, if Republicans change the 60 vote rule to address that error, may really contribute to the politicalization and make matters worse in the long term. Again, Democrats are killing a qualified SC Judge nominee for politics, like they did with Bork. Republicans killed a qualified Judge with Garland. Trump got elected with a large part due to the will of the people's hope in the ideology of Judges he would appoint? Voters contribute to the political aspects of Judges as well. Do we want legal verdicts decided on popular opinions (lynch mobs), or structured application of the laws (which we elect legislators to create or change)? Hmmmm. Are you defensive? I was genuinely asking. I got an email from DemandProgress calling the guy a right-wing extremist, and on the surface it seems pretty crappy to say a company had every right to fire a trucker who refused to risk his life. But I'm not really following all the developments so I was just looking for people who were to break down what they thought about it. I just don't have the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 7 hours ago, Ice_nine said: Are you defensive? I was genuinely asking. I got an email from DemandProgress calling the guy a right-wing extremist, and on the surface it seems pretty crappy to say a company had every right to fire a trucker who refused to risk his life. But I'm not really following all the developments so I was just looking for people who were to break down what they thought about it. I just don't have the time. Are you dazed, or are you confused? Knowing you don't usually follow all developments and the fact you aren't the only reader here, I think I gave a great and thorough answer, albeit without foot notes. It's not like there are so many riveting topics and posts at phademass that I'm rudely insulting Mr Lopez by knocking his thread down a level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Anomaly said: It's not like there are so many riveting topics and posts at phademass that I'm rudely insulting Mr Lopez by knocking his thread down a level. Props for having respect for Mr. Lopez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 On 4/6/2017 at 6:31 AM, Anomaly said: Are you dazed, or are you confused? Probably both. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't implying anything about gorsuch, because some people here think I'm a leftist, bleeding-heart, pinko-commie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 On 4/6/2017 at 5:31 AM, Anomaly said: It's not like there are so many riveting topics and posts at phademass that I'm rudely insulting Mr Lopez by knocking his thread down a level. All that LEnten fasting seems to be making someone just a little touchy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 16 hours ago, Ice_nine said: Probably both. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't implying anything about gorsuch, because some people here think I'm a leftist, bleeding-heart, pinko-commie A little color should be always welcome, even if it is a degree of red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now