U.S. Politics

[Badger]

Love how now "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land" (I concur) isn't enough for the absolute frauds like Liz Warren to scream that someone is dangerously outside the mainstream. In a sea of excrement, she's a true island onto herself.

SBTC&T

[Matt4776]

Merrick Garland was never getting confirmed in a situation where there was a Republican majority, and I'm of the belief that he was nominated just to pick a fight. Had former President Obama been serious about picking a judicial moderate, Sri Srinivasan was sitting right there.

"The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

Conservative Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the major proponents of the strategy to not even let Garland get a hearing, and three time chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Try again, please.

[sg3]

I agree with Mitch the Moron from Kentucky

No SCOTUS nominee should be considered or confirmed in the final year of a Presidency

Since Trump is clearly in his final year before impeachment and removal or resignation and seeking asylum in Russia (probably less than 3 months) Gorsuch cannot be confirmed

[mj2sexay]

"The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

Conservative Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the major proponents of the strategy to not even let Garland get a hearing, and three time chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Try again, please.

AHAHAHA. Well if old delusional retard Orrin Hatch said it, it must be true. Did you also think Orrin Hatch had it correct when he pushed heavily for the impeachment of Bubba?  I love how these guys are old, crusty douchebags until we say something "we" like. It's the same with McCain.

I don't have to try anything again. A nomination is not grounds for automatic approval. At least Garland was objected to in a fashion where they didn't smear him with lies and innuendo like what that stupid drunk/vehicular homicide perpetrator Ted Kennedy did to Bork.

His decision and subsequent rhetoric on Heller was always going to disqualify him. Had he been confirmed the majority in Congress would've actually been in dereliction of their duty to the constituency that sent them to capital hill as that majority. They were absolutely sent to oppose the nomination of any justice that would seek to repeal the 2nd amendments applicability to individuals. 

If you can find in the Constitution where a right to be rubber stamped by the Senate after a Presidential nomination to the SCOTUS bench, then I'll retract my position. It doesn't exist. It never has. In the same way that the Dems are within their right to filibuster Gorsuch, the GOP was within their right to deny Garland the seat. The difference is, one party was successful because they were acting with a congressional majority, and the other party is pitching a fit for the sole purpose of having a mechanism that they introduced used against them for reasons I still don't understand. It's a fight they can't win.

I agree with Mitch the Moron from Kentucky

No SCOTUS nominee should be considered or confirmed in the final year of a Presidency

Since Trump is clearly in his final year before impeachment and removal or resignation and seeking asylum in Russia (probably less than 3 months) Gorsuch cannot be confirmed

There's something wrong with your brain.

[Matt4776]

AHAHAHA. Well if old delusional retard Orrin Hatch said it, it must be true. Did you also think Orrin Hatch had it correct when he pushed heavily for the impeachment of Bubba?  I love how these guys are old, crusty douchebags until we say something "we" like. It's the same with McCain.

I don't have to try anything again. A nomination is not grounds for automatic approval. At least Garland was objected to in a fashion where they didn't smear him with lies and innuendo like what that stupid drunk/vehicular homicide perpetrator Ted Kennedy did to Bork.

His decision and subsequent rhetoric on Heller was always going to disqualify him. Had he been confirmed the majority in Congress would've actually been in dereliction of their duty to the constituency that sent them to capital hill as that majority. They were absolutely sent to oppose the nomination of any justice that would seek to repeal the 2nd amendments applicability to individuals. 

If you can find in the Constitution where a right to be rubber stamped by the Senate after a Presidential nomination to the SCOTUS bench, then I'll retract my position. It doesn't exist. It never has. In the same way that the Dems are within their right to filibuster Gorsuch, the GOP was within their right to deny Garland the seat. The difference is, one party was successful because they were acting with a congressional majority, and the other party is pitching a fit for the sole purpose of having a mechanism that they introduced used against them for reasons I still don't understand. It's a fight they can't win.

There's something wrong with your brain.

So many red herrings and so much revisionist history it's hard to keep track of it all.

1. Garland is rated as a moderate by literally almost every judicial tracking organization. His most "extreme" ratings rate him as a slight liberal-leaning centrist with a pro-prosecution (a conservative trait) twist.

2. He was confirmed for the DC Circuit by many GOP senators, including McCain and Hatch. The only GOP senators that voted no did so because they "didn't want a 11th judge on the court", and had no problems with his political views or qualifications.

3. The idea that something is constitutionally legal is not the argument here. The comical and blatant hypocrisy for cheap political points is hilarious though. And I sure hope that McConnell tries the nuclear option in 2018 (because he can't change the rules of congress until the next session I believe). I doubt he will though.

[mj2sexay]

So many red herrings and so much revisionist history it's hard to keep track of it all.

1. Garland is rated as a moderate by literally almost every judicial tracking organization. His most "extreme" ratings rate him as a slight liberal-leaning centrist with a pro-prosecution (a conservative trait) twist.

2. He was confirmed for the DC Circuit by many GOP senators, including McCain and Hatch. The only GOP senators that voted no did so because they "didn't want a 11th judge on the court", and had no problems with his political views or qualifications.

3. The idea that something is constitutionally legal is not the argument here. The comical and blatant hypocrisy for cheap political points is hilarious though. And I sure hope that McConnell tries the nuclear option in 2018 (because he can't change the rules of congress until the next session I believe). I doubt he will though.

There is literally nothing about this that is revisionist history, and I find it especially hilarious that if the Dems actually knew how to win an election or two and had a Congressional majority, the rhetoric would be completely different. After all, the whole premise of denying SCOTUS hearings came from everyones favorite village idiot, Joe Biden.

1. Those same "tracking organizations" will tell you Richard Posner is a conservative. Politifact and Snopes also rate "truth in media," it doesn't mean they aren't completely compromised by bias as well. Besides being pro-prosecution isn't a "conservative trait." Scalia was an ardent defender of defendants rights, especially the indigent. Surprising I know. Luckily all of this stuff is easily accessible, as is Garlands jurisprudence on Heller, which puts to rest any notion that he's any sort of moderate on a very pertinent issue.

2. You can literally say the same thing about Gorsuch.

3. When you're talking about hypocrisy, are you referring to how the last 8 years were nothing but a bitchfest about republican obstructionism, when now all the left wants to do is obstruct? Again, what would be the purpose of a GOP congressional majority in the face of a Democratic President? Certainly not to provide a rubber stamp.

[sg3]

Wow

What a totally dumb RW Trumpwad you are.

Hopefully your IQ is higher than his 37

[SixFeetDeep]

Wow

What a totally dumb RW Trumpwad you are.

Hopefully your IQ is higher than his 37

[Fenwyr]

While I don't disagree that the GOP led Congress should've had a confirmation hearing, there is absolutely nothing that guarantees this right of confirmation. Which I think is lost in the whole debate. While the GOP probably figured that even a hearing opens up a shitstorm in terms of negative press, not having a hearing accomplished that anyway. So I never saw the upside. But this notion that somehow that seat belongs to Garland is a bunch of bullshit. Otherwise, tell Anthony Kennedy to get off his derriere and give back the last 30 years of judicial opinions to Robert Bork...and this is coming from someone who considers Kennedy to be an all-time great Supreme Court justice.

However, it's not turnabout because the Dems aren't utilizing a Congressional majority, rather they're pitching a fit just to pitch one. Sort of hilarious after all the talk of obstructionism I had to hear for eight years. What was it our former President said? Elections have consequences? Indeed. And had Garland actually been confirmed given his previous jurisprudence on issues like our second amendment, the GOP would've completely sold out its base. We're one judge away from a severe upheaval of the second amendment as we know it in this country.

Merrick Garland was never getting confirmed in a situation where there was a Republican majority, and I'm of the belief that he was nominated just to pick a fight. Had former President Obama been serious about picking a judicial moderate, Sri Srinivasan was sitting right there.

Given that they don't have said congressional majority, this filibuster serves absolutely no purpose. I'd say its damaging and that the GOP doesn't have recourse, but thanks to everyones favorite mongrel idiot Harry Reid, they do indeed have the nuclear option to override. Gorsuch isn't getting Bork'd because the numbers don't exist for them to do so. Nor should he. He's a solid enough nominee, despite certain facets of the media, the usual suspects trying to portray him as a fascist, or talk about his rulings like they have any idea as to what a justices role is supposed to be.

Love how now "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land" (I concur) isn't enough for the absolute frauds like Liz Warren to scream that someone is dangerously outside the mainstream. In a sea of excrement, she's a true island onto herself.

This is a big block of excrement.  Bork at least got a hearing.  I have mixed opinions about how it went down, but it does not relate in any way.

Obama nominated a moderate republican FFS.  The SCOTUS needs swing votes.  It is best for everyone.  There should have been a hearing and a vote.

By any interpretation of the constitution this seat is stolen.

Garland should have a hearing now.  Ultra right wing version of Anthony Bourdain looking guy got next.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[Fenwyr]

And you want to talk about obstruction?  Just don't.  The Dems let all these idiots in so far.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[mj2sexay]

This is a big block of excrement.  Bork at least got a hearing.  I have mixed opinions about how it went down, but it does not relate in any way.

Obama nominated a moderate republican FFS.  The SCOTUS needs swing votes.  It is best for everyone.  There should have been a hearing and a vote.

By any interpretation of the constitution this seat is stolen.

Garland should have a hearing now.  Ultra right wing version of Anthony Bourdain looking guy got next.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Garland isn't a moderate republican because you say he is. And the fact that you think Garland is a moderate republican shows how left you are. Let me guess, Hillary is a republican right? Christ.

"By any interpretation of the constitution this seat is stolen"

Who's interpretation is that? Salons? Slates? This quote is stupid as freak. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT A PRESIDENT GETS A RUBBER STAMP ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS. There isn't one for trump either. It just so happens the party he 'belongs to" (debatable) holds a congressional majority. Again, elections have consequences!

[Fenwyr]

Garland isn't a moderate republican because you say he is. And the fact that you think Garland is a moderate republican shows how left you are. Let me guess, Hillary is a republican right? Christ.

"By any interpretation of the constitution this seat is stolen"

Who's interpretation is that? Salons? Slates? This quote is stupid as freak. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT A PRESIDENT GETS A RUBBER STAMP ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS. There isn't one for trump either. It just so happens the party he 'belongs to" (debatable) holds a congressional majority. Again, elections have consequences!

For some reason you think I read excrement liberal blogs.  I might catch Huffington when someone reposts on facebook, but thats it.  I actually do some legwork on my opinions.

By any reasonable cohesive cognition, Garland and the Clintons would have been considered moderate republicans in 1990 compared to what we have now.

Your party has gone so far to the right it is unrecognizable.  You are fighting an unwinnable war.  Instead of moving towards the inevitable conclusion at a measured pace, recent nonsense is going to slingshot us there.

We are a progressive country.  We are just waiting for old white people to die at this point.  Your policies, if you actually had any you could pass, are excrement.

Republicans used to be the friends you put up with.  They slowed you down a bit, but it was cool to take a moment and maybe look at the clouds.

Now that you are starting to die off you have decided to freak this country to death with your vengeful, selfish agenda.

Before you inevitably tell me to eat excrement, tell me the one good thing the republicans did for this country in the last 30 years, and why it was good.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[mj2sexay]

For some reason you think I read excrement liberal blogs.  I might catch Huffington when someone reposts on facebook, but thats it.  I actually do some legwork on my opinions.

By any reasonable cohesive cognition, Garland and the Clintons would have been considered moderate republicans in 1990 compared to what we have now.

Your party has gone so far to the right it is unrecognizable.  You are fighting an unwinnable war.  Instead of moving towards the inevitable conclusion at a measured pace, recent nonsense is going to slingshot us there.

We are a progressive country.  We are just waiting for old white people to die at this point.  Your policies, if you actually had any you could pass, are excrement.

Republicans used to be the friends you put up with.  They slowed you down a bit, but it was cool to take a moment and maybe look at the clouds.

Now that you are starting to die off you have decided to freak this country to death with your vengeful, selfish agenda.

Before you inevitably tell me to eat excrement, tell me the one good thing the republicans did for this country in the last 30 years, and why it was good.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I mean really. You're a bad cliche of a liberal at this point. The terrible attempt to deflect at your own stupidity that somehow in the Constitution its enumerated that Merrick Garland is owed a senate seat. The delusion that "the war is unwinnable." (Republicans of course occupy the majority of the House, the Senate, state and local governments, governorships, and the Presidency. HAHAHA WHAT A freaking JOKE. And by the way, I really don't identify myself as a die in the wool republican, socially definitely more a classical liberal but I'd stand with them over a regressive such as yourself.) The smug condescension that you somehow know best, that the opposition is hateful and bigoted, the hope that "old white people will die off." You are the derriere end of the comments section of DailyKos come to life. It's pathetic.

Again. Garland and the Clintons aren't conservatives because you're a regressive leftist.

[dcm1602]

For some reason you think I read excrement liberal blogs.  I might catch Huffington when someone reposts on facebook, but thats it.  I actually do some legwork on my opinions.

By any reasonable cohesive cognition, Garland and the Clintons would have been considered moderate republicans in 1990 compared to what we have now.

Your party has gone so far to the right it is unrecognizable.  You are fighting an unwinnable war.  Instead of moving towards the inevitable conclusion at a measured pace, recent nonsense is going to slingshot us there.

We are a progressive country.  We are just waiting for old white people to die at this point.  Your policies, if you actually had any you could pass, are excrement.

Republicans used to be the friends you put up with.  They slowed you down a bit, but it was cool to take a moment and maybe look at the clouds.

Now that you are starting to die off you have decided to freak this country to death with your vengeful, selfish agenda.

Before you inevitably tell me to eat excrement, tell me the one good thing the republicans did for this country in the last 30 years, and why it was good.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

In the grand scheme of the world isn't the United States a conservative  country? Especially compared to Europe and other countries? Yes the Republicans are a absolute excrement party completely out of touch with reality and the desires of the American people for the most part. There's some stuff they hold traction on (ie taxes and supposedly spending), but for the most part they need a complete overhaul. That said the untied states is far more conservative than much of the world still

Also you're seriously delusional about your views on conservative liberal and moderate

[dcm1602]

I have no issue conceding that Garland would be more "moderate/conservative" than some of the liberal judges currently on the supreme court. But the assertion that he falls to the right of the spectrum is completely absurd. Obama was a quite liberal president, so him nominating a conservative would literally make zero sense