|
Post by robeiae on Feb 3, 2017 11:47:17 GMT -5
But appearances count and if too many Dems take the chickenshit way out in order to save their own sorry asses, they could find the support they need from the base won't be there for them in November 2018. That's certainly possible. But you know, going with that line of thinking, it seems to me that the Dems who rollover last would catch the most flak, no? Assume a filibuster is instituted. The Dems--like Manchin--who choose not to join in from the beginning will likely get to use the justification you noted. But any who jump ship later are going to be blamed if the filibuster fails, especially those last couple who finally give up the ghost. They're the ones who might not have the support form the base, right? That leads to an obvious political calculation: don't be the last one to abandon the filibuster. And what's the best way to insure you're not the last one? Never join in. Plus, that will give them more time to repair their chickenshit reputations. Guess we'll see, soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Feb 5, 2017 0:02:26 GMT -5
I can just imagine the Justices dying off one by one, and no replacements being approved. And one day, only Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be left to make the decisions. And she'll be 112.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Feb 5, 2017 0:15:40 GMT -5
I can just imagine the Justices dying off one by one, and no replacements being approved. And one day, only Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be left to make the decisions. And she'll be 112. And in Hospice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 0:16:53 GMT -5
We can stuff the others when they go and prop them up in their chairs. Perhaps Trump won't notice.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 5, 2017 3:50:09 GMT -5
I can just imagine the Justices dying off one by one, and no replacements being approved. And one day, only Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be left to make the decisions. And she'll be 112. Sounds like a plan. By then blockchain will have replaced most useful government functions anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 18:30:54 GMT -5
Gorsuch called Trump's attacks on the judicial branch "demoralizing" and "disheartening." nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/gorsuch-calls-trumps-judge-bashing-disheartening.htmlTrump is not gonna like that one bit. Democrats in the Senate likely will. And they should, IMO. The more I hear of him, the more I think he is not only intelligent and qualified, but also a man of integrity who puts the law first and is no one's political pawn. (IMO, that's how a Supreme Court justice should be.) We surely will not get a better judge pick from Trump. ETA: This might be the first Trump decision I actually think was...well...a good one. (For the record, I don't just say that because of these latest remarks.) Of course, Trump himself may be regretting it... Better than Merrick Garland? No. But still good. I do think they should ask him in his confirmation hearings what he thinks about the Merrick Garland debacle. My guess is the answer will be interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 8:42:54 GMT -5
Heh. Trump got on Twitter this morning, insisting Gorsuch's statements had been misrepresented.
Trouble is, Gorsuch's team confirmed that Gorsuch made those remarks. Not that a silly little thing like the truth is going to get in the way of The Donald's morning bluster.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 8:46:00 GMT -5
You're going to give yourself an aneurysm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 8:55:00 GMT -5
What, following Trump's Twitter account?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2017 9:03:49 GMT -5
Seeking any sort of consistency from it or Trump in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 9:12:42 GMT -5
Must...find...consistency.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 14, 2017 10:11:43 GMT -5
theweek.com/speedreads/679747/gorsuch-completes-68page-questionnaire-scotus-confirmation-hearingsApparently, Gorsuch had to fill out a 68 page questionnaire for his confirmation hearing. Some sample questions: 1. Mr. Gorsuch, you probably know that Bork's rejection by the senate resulted in the now famous term "Borked". If your name could give rise to any new coinage, what would you hope it to be? 2. Supreme Court trivia question: Which justice had a name that sounded like a hot dog? 3. Which constitutional amendment would you most like to repeal? And don't say the third amendment just to be uncontroversial. Give us something good. 4. That whole fiasco with Merrick Garland was pretty crazy, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:40:31 GMT -5
Those would certainly be among the vital questions I would ask.
(Seriously, I'd like to see them ask some version of number 4.)
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 14, 2017 10:58:22 GMT -5
Those would certainly be among the vital questions I would ask. (Seriously, I'd like to see them ask some version of number 4.) Yeah, I'm sure Garland is going to be brought up at some point, by someone. But I actually think Gorsuch is one of the last people that deserve to be embarrassed by such a question. He's been consistent on the issue of confirmations, going back over a decade. He even once stood up for Garland, specifically: edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/gorsuch-garland-2002-mistreated-senate/I give him a lot of credit for what he said. I just wish more senators would've listened to him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 11:06:34 GMT -5
I agree with you.
I'm sure he's going to face a rougher road to confirmation because of the Garland fiasco (though I'm guessing one way or another, he ultimately gets the seat). And for the reasons I've given earlier in the thread, I can't blame Democrats for that. But as far as he himself goes -- he's a superlatively well-qualified candidate whom I think has demonstrated some integrity. If things weren't so fucked up, I think he'd be waved in. Of course, if things weren't so fucked up, Garland would have been waved in.
The Garland fiasco is obviously not his fault. It's not that I want him grilled on it to make him suffer. But I think it would be instructive and interesting to hear what he has to say about it. (I think we've got a big hole that shouldn't be there, in that the Senate was able to not even consider such a well-qualified candidate.)
Frankly, the Republicans in the Senate DO deserve to squirm for that fiasco.
|
|