|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 7:54:00 GMT -5
Elizabeth Warren gives fantasy world-building a try...As I said upthread, the Dems are 100% entitled to obstruct Gorsuch; Repubs criticizing such a tactic wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But the idea that Gorsuch is somehow unfit, and that's the reason she's going to stand in the way? Come on. Nobody with a brain is going to fall for that. Right?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 8:43:06 GMT -5
I agree with you, on all counts.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 20, 2017 11:43:48 GMT -5
Elizabeth Warren gives fantasy world-building a try...As I said upthread, the Dems are 100% entitled to obstruct Gorsuch; Repubs criticizing such a tactic wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But the idea that Gorsuch is somehow unfit, and that's the reason she's going to stand in the way? Come on. Nobody with a brain is going to fall for that. Right?... I agree with you, on all counts. 1st off, I can't read that as I have to sign in.
Having said that, I sorta do and don't agree with what you're saying.
So the Dems tried to get Obama's pick through, and the GOP obstructed. The dems called it unfair, and it was partisan. Fair enough. Now the roles are reversed.
If the GOP objects to the same tactics, they're hypocrites, but I also see the Democrats as hypocrites for using the same tactics. If you feel that a certain behavior is wrong and say so when it's used against you, how do you then use the same behavior against the original group. You either legitimizing the tactic, or you're delegitimizing you earlier stand.
If someone calls me a name, and I say it's not fair that a person should do that and not get called out on it, then I later call them a name, I'm no better than they are. (Or were)
From a political POV, I get it, but the fact is it's all part of the escalation that will continue.
So again, no winners, no high road.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 21, 2017 15:47:26 GMT -5
Wow, Gorsuch is entirely and amazingly impressive in the hearings today. What a brain and what a stand up guy. If you haven't watched any of this, I'd highly recommend tuning in for a bit. I'm fascinated.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 21, 2017 18:15:49 GMT -5
^ Unqualified!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 22, 2017 8:18:13 GMT -5
It's been interesting, what with the softballs being tossed by Repubs and the "penetrating" questions from noted legal scholar Al Franken. For anyone interested, here is the actual case in question ("The case of the frozen trucker," TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board): www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdOddly enough, the ruling--to which Gorsuch dissented, much to the chagrin (glee?) of Franken, et al--hinges on supposed ambiguity, though not for the lack of a comma: Senator Franken and others suggest this dissent indicates Gorsuch doesn't have the necessary temperament to be a SC Justice; I think it's evidence that he has exactly the right temperament to serve as such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 9:30:36 GMT -5
Certainly he has the temperament, and certainly he is amply qualified. I actually think he'll make a good justice.
But, yeah, so would Garland. And yeah, unfortunately, given what happened there, Dems can't just give Gorsuch the easy road he probably deserves.
I itched to grab the mike out of Franken's hand, btw. He did a shit job of framing that question about Garland, for example, and I don't blame Gorsuch a bit for not answering it as it was framed -- indeed, I don't think it would have been appropriate for him to do so.
The way to frame the question would have revolved around the Senate's responsibilities under the Constitution. Instead, Franken framed the question politically (and meandered all over hell and back). I would have been very interested in hearing Gorsuch's answer to the question from a legal/constitutional perspective, and I think it could have been framed in a way that Gorsuch could and would have answered (or looked bad if he didn't). But the way Franken asked it...no. Major missed opportunity, and it pissed me off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 17:49:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 4, 2017 7:55:52 GMT -5
High comedy over the high court: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/04/the_democrats_gorsuch_gambit_133510.htmlPeople can bitch and moan about how awful Trump is, about how immature and vindictive he is and I won't disagree. But come on. Congress--as a group--in no better, regardless of the letters by the names. We've got two immensely qualified real jurists who have been recently nominated to the Court, both of whom are immensely superior to, say...Alito and Sotomayor, and neither has been treated well in the least, from the refusal to even vote on Garland to the manufactured criticisms of Gorsuch (and now the threats of puling funding from Dems who refuse to be vindictive). ETA: And in case it's not clear, the middle bit I quoted above is intended to indicate the hypocrisy of Repubs, many of whom were unwilling to support Obama's nominations, no matter what.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 22:55:27 GMT -5
High comedy over the high court: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/04/the_democrats_gorsuch_gambit_133510.htmlPeople can bitch and moan about how awful Trump is, about how immature and vindictive he is and I won't disagree. But come on. Congress--as a group--in no better, regardless of the letters by the names. We've got two immensely qualified real jurists who have been recently nominated to the Court, both of whom are immensely superior to, say...Alito and Sotomayor, and neither has been treated well in the least, from the refusal to even vote on Garland to the manufactured criticisms of Gorsuch (and now the threats of puling funding from Dems who refuse to be vindictive). ETA: And in case it's not clear, the middle bit I quoted above is intended to indicate the hypocrisy of Repubs, many of whom were unwilling to support Obama's nominations, no matter what. I agree with all of that.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 6, 2017 14:42:49 GMT -5
High comedy over the high court: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/04/the_democrats_gorsuch_gambit_133510.htmlPeople can bitch and moan about how awful Trump is, about how immature and vindictive he is and I won't disagree. But come on. Congress--as a group--in no better, regardless of the letters by the names. We've got two immensely qualified real jurists who have been recently nominated to the Court, both of whom are immensely superior to, say...Alito and Sotomayor, and neither has been treated well in the least, from the refusal to even vote on Garland to the manufactured criticisms of Gorsuch (and now the threats of puling funding from Dems who refuse to be vindictive). ETA: And in case it's not clear, the middle bit I quoted above is intended to indicate the hypocrisy of Repubs, many of whom were unwilling to support Obama's nominations, no matter what. Yeah, I caught that. Too bad you totally invalidated it by calling the criticism of Gorsuch by Democrats "manufactured." There are more than ample reasons to deny a right-wing ideologue a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court, but to see them requires going past the spurious suggestion the treatment of Neil Gorsuch is in any way equatable to the treatment of Merrick Garland whom Republicans refused to even meet with, never mind giving him a hearing by the Judiciary Committee or an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. The hypocrisy is your false equivalency. The Republicans stole the seat for Trump and some even suggested not filling it at all had the election gone the other way. Calling the Democrats "vindictive" for not bending over and grabbing their ankles is nothing more than partisan cheerleading for the Republicans being successful in their act of theft in denying the nation's first Black president the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. If you want to call the response by the Democrats "vindictive," by all means, feel free. Just don't forget they are only responding to the Republicans pissing on their heads and telling them its rain.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 6, 2017 15:08:21 GMT -5
What a ridiculously slanted op-ed. But then given who wrote it, I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. Look at the opening line: Lol, that's just ignorant. Donald Trump is the legitimately elected POTUS. He has every right to nominate someone to fill this seat. O'Neill has no real argument there. Nothing, nada, zilch. Her "critique" of Gorsuch is equally void of reason, imo. As I said upthread, I have zero problem with the Dems in the Senate obstructing here. They have every reason to do so; the Repubs in the Senate more than deserve it. That said, I think threatening those Dems in the Senate who don't want to play this game is pretty pathetic and pretty stupid.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 6, 2017 16:01:13 GMT -5
What a ridiculously slanted op-ed. But then given who wrote it, I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. Look at the opening line: Lol, that's just ignorant. Donald Trump is the legitimately elected POTUS. He has every right to nominate someone to fill this seat. O'Neill has no real argument there. Nothing, nada, zilch.- So you're saying Mitch McConnell was right when he denied Barack Obama, the legitimately elected POTUS, his right to nominate someone to fill this seat? Yeah, I'm not surprised by that ridiculously slanted opinion either.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 6, 2017 17:33:41 GMT -5
What a ridiculously slanted op-ed. But then given who wrote it, I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. Look at the opening line: Lol, that's just ignorant. Donald Trump is the legitimately elected POTUS. He has every right to nominate someone to fill this seat. O'Neill has no real argument there. Nothing, nada, zilch.- So you're saying Mitch McConnell was right when he denied Barack Obama, the legitimately elected POTUS, his right to nominate someone to fill this seat? Yeah, I'm not surprised by that ridiculously slanted opinion either. Nope, I never said anything like that. Exactly the opposite, actually. The Repubs were 100% wrong to not vote on Garland, imo. Obama as President had the right and the duty to nominate someone to fill the empty seat. The Senate's duty was to either confirm or reject the choice. The Senate failed because of McConnell and other Repubs. It was shameful, imo. That reality, however, doesn't impact Trump. He's not beholding to the previous admin or the previous Senate. He was elected President, there's a vacancy on the Court, so he gets to nominate someone to fill the spot. The idea that he has no right to do this--which is what O'Neill said--is nonsense. Again, she doesn't have a real argument there at all. The Senate Dems can fairly do whatever they can to obstruct this, of course (I've said that multiple times, as well).
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 7, 2017 9:49:40 GMT -5
So you're saying Mitch McConnell was right when he denied Barack Obama, the legitimately elected POTUS, his right to nominate someone to fill this seat? Yeah, I'm not surprised by that ridiculously slanted opinion either. Nope, I never said anything like that. Exactly the opposite, actually. The Repubs were 100% wrong to not vote on Garland, imo. Obama as President had the right and the duty to nominate someone to fill the empty seat. The Senate's duty was to either confirm or reject the choice. The Senate failed because of McConnell and other Repubs. It was shameful, imo. That reality, however, doesn't impact Trump. He's not beholding to the previous admin or the previous Senate. He was elected President, there's a vacancy on the Court, so he gets to nominate someone to fill the spot. The idea that he has no right to do this--which is what O'Neill said--is nonsense. Again, she doesn't have a real argument there at all. The Senate Dems can fairly do whatever they can to obstruct this, of course (I've said that multiple times, as well). Rubbish. McConnell blocked Obama's legitimate nomination of Merrick Garland based upon purely partisan political reasons and personal animus and the direct beneficiary of the Republican Senate's obstruction is Trump. How absurd to say "the reality doesn't impact Trump." O'Neill argument is on-point and totally shreds your feeble dismissal of hers. Trump and Gorsuch are not innocents in this whole dirty deal. They are the fruits of the poison tree planted by McConnell and his cabal of like-minded conspirators. The Republicans stole Scalia seat in an underhanded and unscrupulous manner and they're giving it to Gorsuch and you're indignant because O'Neil and the Dems are calling it an act of theft?
|
|