goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2017, 09:58:03 PM
-
Great choice. Truly fantastic. ITT we talk about all the reasons why. I'll start.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213590/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6 (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213590/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6)
Who do you think said this: “Reliance on constitutional lawsuits to achieve policy goals has become a wasting addiction among American progressives…. Whatever you feel about the rights that have been gained through the courts, it is easy to see that dependence on judges has damaged the progressive movement and its causes”? Rush Limbaugh? Laura Ingraham? George Bush? The author is David von Drehle, a Washington Post columnist. This admission, by a self-identified liberal, is refreshing stuff. It is a healthy sign for the country and those rethinking the direction of the Democratic party in the wake of November’s election results. Let’s hope this sort of thinking spreads.
There’s no doubt that constitutional lawsuits have secured critical civil-right victories, with the desegregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board of Education topping the list. But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.
This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide
At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has–its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.
Amen. These picks wouldn't be so political if justices would simply interpret the law as written without regard to achieving a particular result.
Or, as he said tonight, "A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands."
-
i wish he wasn't a columbia and harvard guy. idk anything else about him yet. i didn't read that nationalreview article.
-
it's nothing personal. but blood demands blood.
-
it's nothing personal. but blood demands blood.
They should confirm immediately and save being clownsuited by Donald.
-
I'm a Big Trump Hater but I read half a slate profile on this guy and I think he's pretty good.
-
agreed
seems like a measured sensible pick.
(so was Garland btw)
-
Peter Thiel must have told Trump no.
-
All the democrats who are saying that they will only confirm Garland are really :facepalm:.
It is commonly accepted that had Hillary won the election she would have nominated someone other than Garland herself.
-
i wish he wasn't a columbia and harvard guy. idk anything else about him yet. i didn't read that nationalreview article.
Our estate planner from U of Idaho didn't make the cut. :-(
-
I'm a Big Drumpf Hater but I read half a slate profile on this guy and I think he's pretty good.
agreed
seems like a measured sensible pick.
(so was Garland btw)
Agree with both of these. Garland was a fine pick, Gorsuch is a fine pick ,if you pretty much choose a guy/gal with a good record of being a judge, hard to eff up a SCOTUS pick. It's unfortunate repubs made it so political the last round, and forcing the dems to do the same here. But overall don't really see that much of an issue. It didn't kill the repubs, it won't kill the dems.
-
do @TheDemocrats have a weekend at bernie's contingency plan in place?
-
I don't like blocking sc picks unless it's something extreme. I don't know anything about this bro but I'm sure he's fine given there has been no meltdown.
I wish I could be as vindictive as sys because what the Republicans did to garland was despicable.
-
Agree with both of these. Garland was a fine pick, Gorsuch is a fine pick ,if you pretty much choose a guy/gal with a good record of being a judge, hard to eff up a SCOTUS pick. It's unfortunate repubs made it so political the last round, and forcing the dems to do the same here. But overall don't really see that much of an issue. It didn't kill the repubs, it won't kill the dems.
Here is why it could kill the dems.
First, there are way more single-issue Republican voters when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. Roe v. Wade is a huuuuge deal to conservatives. They could come out in droves during mid terms if Democrats stonewall a solid candidate for two years.
Second, there was a clear end in sight for Republicans. A year is a pretty long time, but Democrats would be looking at two years minimum of keeping the court at 8, which is probably unheard of (have not fact checked this).
Third, it's distracting. Republicans and Trump WANT this fight. Stonewalling a good Supreme Court nominee to fill a super conservative justice's seat is about the only way Democrats can look bad during a Trump presidency. It makes Democrats easy to paint as petty, vindictive, and spiteful, which is pretty much the platform Trump used to get elected in the first place.
-
Meh. In the pantheon of guys they could have picked, he's not bad.
Too into Jesus and corporate welfare, but whatever. It's not like I haven't had to live with too much Jesus in my life already.
-
I hope Demohates do put up a stupid fight, and lose any remaining credibility they have. Isn't refreshing to have a President do what he/she said they would do. Voters voted for Trump because this issue. Senators Pissloosely and Scummer are giving the bird to America.
-
I hope Demohates do put up a stupid fight, and lose any remaining credibility they have. Isn't refreshing to have a President do what he/she said they would do. Voters voted for Trump because this issue. Senators Pissloosely and Scummer are giving the bird to America.
I'm fine with them stomping around and making a scene. Showing a little backbone is refreshing.
-
I don't think dems will fight the scotus guy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
They are going to make noise to appease their base, but he'll be on the bench by year end I think.
-
Rose ceremony when confirmed
-
Agree with both of these. Garland was a fine pick, Gorsuch is a fine pick ,if you pretty much choose a guy/gal with a good record of being a judge, hard to eff up a SCOTUS pick. It's unfortunate repubs made it so political the last round, and forcing the dems to do the same here. But overall don't really see that much of an issue. It didn't kill the repubs, it won't kill the dems.
Here is why it could kill the dems.
First, there are way more single-issue Republican voters when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. Roe v. Wade is a huuuuge deal to conservatives. They could come out in droves during mid terms if Democrats stonewall a solid candidate for two years.
Second, there was a clear end in sight for Republicans. A year is a pretty long time, but Democrats would be looking at two years minimum of keeping the court at 8, which is probably unheard of (have not fact checked this).
Third, it's distracting. Republicans and Drumpf WANT this fight. Stonewalling a good Supreme Court nominee to fill a super conservative justice's seat is about the only way Democrats can look bad during a Drumpf presidency. It makes Democrats easy to paint as petty, vindictive, and spiteful, which is pretty much the platform Drumpf used to get elected in the first place.
Meh, I'm absolutely fine with them fighting tooth and nail to show backbone, like I said, it clearly didn't kill the repubs to cause a ruckus, it wont kill the dems to do the same.
Additionally, even if he's pretty right, he's replacing a pretty right person, so (this one) isn't going to drastically change decisions in SCOTUS. Merrick would potentially have, cause it would be trading a righty for a middle guy.
Finally, there are plenty of distractions, this one at least matters more than other things, it affects the government more long term than any other decision. Especially given how young he is.
Overall, let them throw a giant tantrum, it's not going to debase them that much, if it does, it is to people who already think they dems are.
If the cheetoh chose some crazy dude that plenty of people were pre freaking out about, like a Bannon or some crap, then you throw a giant ass fight. Trying to block a mostly qualified guy, no matter their leaning, is ultimately theatre, and the repubs just happened to win that last session cause they thought they had the next prez, which turned out true. Even if what they did was a giant ass hissy fit then, it ultimately worked. If trump had lost, it would be them who would have lost a giant amount of credibility. So w/e
-
I don't know if he is measured or sensible or anything about his views or beliefs, but I do know that he is a deep 'n critical thinker which is really all I care about.
-
I don't like blocking sc picks unless it's something extreme. I don't know anything about this bro but I'm sure he's fine given there has been no meltdown.
I wish I could be as vindictive as sys because what the Republicans did to garland was despicable.
This is how you do it Lib, not like dumbass meltylibbers. :cheers:
-
Stick a bork in him. He's done. :Keke:
-
EXCLUSIVE: Trump's Supreme Court pick founded and led club called 'Fascism Forever' at his elite all-boys Washington prep school
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html
-
Jesus Christ. You can't make up this stuff.
-
Did you even read the article? It was a tongue in cheek jab at his liberal professors, dumbasses. Stop being so butthurt and whiny. Get a sense of humor.
-
To be fair, reading the article was quite a challenge. The DailyMail.co.uk website is garbage.
-
The things we do as kids....Imagine when the college kids today go to get nominated for something....It will be trolltrace IRL
-
https://twitter.com/Filmdrunk/status/826644975844786177
-
They're really daring Democrats to play this game.
-
They're really daring Democrats to play this game.
I say they just screw with this guy and force the Republicans to break another check and balance. Make Trump whine about it for a while, show what a baby he is, and then watch McConnell cave to him.
Then Weekend at Bernies the hell out of RBG and wait until 2020. Then put the most liberal judge on the bench with a slim majority.
And by liberal, I hope they get sworn in in a pink knit hat and a rainbow colored robe.
-
And is like 32
-
Maybe instead of just nominating Gorsuch, Trump ought to nominate two or four more textualist judges now (I'd keep it an odd number, obvs). No reason he can't do that. I say if you're gonna go all in, you go all in.
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
The only competent thing trump has done so far. We should be encouraging this
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
The only competent thing trump has done so far. We should be encouraging this
oh for sure. I'm all in on this guy (same as the guy everyone lost their brains about that obama nominated).
-
i think it's the same dude
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
If you care about such things his ideology is pretty far right, even right of Scalia. There is some think tank that has a left to right continuum in which they place the current justices. Three of the current four conservatives are either centrist, Chief Justice Roberts, or center right. Justice Long Dong Uncle Tom is far right on the scale and this dude was just slightly left of JLDUT.
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
If you care about such things his ideology is pretty far right, even right of Scalia. There is some think tank that has a left to right continuum in which they place the current justices. Three of the current four conservatives are either centrist, Chief Justice Roberts, or center right. Justice Long Dong Uncle Tom is far right on the scale and this dude was just slightly left of JLDUT.
I tried to find the one I think you are talking about but found this one and it seemed cooler:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png/1024px-Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png)
-
The one I saw was on vice news tonight, last night, it was pretty damn cool, I wish I could remember the sourcing.
-
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/roeder-scotus-nominee-gorsuch.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1)
-
It was that only with faces for the plots, thanks sys
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
If you care about such things his ideology is pretty far right, even right of Scalia. There is some think tank that has a left to right continuum in which they place the current justices. Three of the current four conservatives are either centrist, Chief Justice Roberts, or center right. Justice Long Dong Uncle Tom is far right on the scale and this dude was just slightly left of JLDUT.
I tried to find the one I think you are talking about but found this one and it seemed cooler:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png/1024px-Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png)
Chart seems very suspect as Scalia had several fat right decisions at the end like Heller, McDonald, and Shelby county v Holder. that should have tacked his line "right" to a great degree. It's interesting to see how others perceive the court's members though.
-
I'd be interested to know how those determinations are made, but my guess would be that the needle isn't going to move as much for 5-4 decisions.
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
If you care about such things his ideology is pretty far right, even right of Scalia. There is some think tank that has a left to right continuum in which they place the current justices. Three of the current four conservatives are either centrist, Chief Justice Roberts, or center right. Justice Long Dong Uncle Tom is far right on the scale and this dude was just slightly left of JLDUT.
well, I'm a republican so that's fine by me. unlike president of the united states you can't really be a complete dumbass and get to the supreme court.
-
I really have no major problem with him. I just want the Democrats to fight it so Trump melts down on Twitter and smacks McConnell around for a while.
He's going to get confirmed. It's just how much damage can you do to Trump and the Republicans before he is. I'm hoping for maximum damage.
-
RBG should have retired 10 years ago (actually should have never been confirmed-aclu lawyer, lol). She's going to die while trump is president and the court is going to be made right for 30 yeqrs.
The dems aren't going to put up a fight, at all. There will be some stupid immature soundbites that the libtarded base will rejoice about, but nothing substantive.
-
RBG raised kids while acing law school and still always had a nice meal prepared for her husband by dinner time. If she wants to survive four more years she can make it happen.
-
Oh look more repubs having fantasies about people dying. How very pro-life of you.
-
Semi-humorous (I think) article about liberals concerned about RBG. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Can-she-eat-more-kale-Hordes-of-liberals-want-10903762.php (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Can-she-eat-more-kale-Hordes-of-liberals-want-10903762.php)
Actually, these quotes may be 100% serious, which makes them even funnier.
-
It was pretty selfish of RBG not to retire after Obama was re-elected.
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
If you care about such things his ideology is pretty far right, even right of Scalia. There is some think tank that has a left to right continuum in which they place the current justices. Three of the current four conservatives are either centrist, Chief Justice Roberts, or center right. Justice Long Dong Uncle Tom is far right on the scale and this dude was just slightly left of JLDUT.
I tried to find the one I think you are talking about but found this one and it seemed cooler:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png/1024px-Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png)
Well, it was a tough fight, but: chart 1, William O. Douglas 0.
-
this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.
If you care about such things his ideology is pretty far right, even right of Scalia. There is some think tank that has a left to right continuum in which they place the current justices. Three of the current four conservatives are either centrist, Chief Justice Roberts, or center right. Justice Long Dong Uncle Tom is far right on the scale and this dude was just slightly left of JLDUT.
I tried to find the one I think you are talking about but found this one and it seemed cooler:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png/1024px-Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png)
Well, it was a tough fight, but: chart 1, William O. Douglas 0.
Obvious case of long term dementia over his last 25 years.
-
When is this Gorsuch stud getting confirmed?
-
When is this Gorsuch stud getting confirmed?
The failed comic is doing his best to stop.
-
Franken?
-
They don't have the votes to stop it.
Probably butthurt he made top 5 dumbest questions:
The questioner: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
The issue: Gorsuch's by now well-known dissent in the TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board case. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the company had to rehire a trucker who had been fired for leaving a malfunctioning rig in freezing weather. Several senators have browbeat the nominee already for his dissent, but Franken couldn't resist taking another pass Tuesday.
The question: Referring to testimony that the driver was suffering hypothermia and that the brakes were failing, the senator said, "I don't think you'd want to be on the road with him, would you, Judge?"
The answer: Gorsuch said he does not blame the driver for doing what he did and added that he empathizes with him but explained — again — that his dissent was based on the language of the statute, which protected a worker from dismissal for refusal to operate an unsafe vehicle. But the driver did operate the truck, he said. Gorsuch also explained that Franken incorrectly described the doctrine of absurdity, which the senator had argued allowed for a departure from applying the statute as literally written. The judge said that neither side in the case even raised that issue. "And it usually applies when there's a scrivener's error, not when we just disagree with the policy or the statute," he said.
-
They don't have the votes to stop it.
Probably butthurt he made top 5 dumbest questions:
The questioner: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
The issue: Gorsuch's by now well-known dissent in the TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board case. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the company had to rehire a trucker who had been fired for leaving a malfunctioning rig in freezing weather. Several senators have browbeat the nominee already for his dissent, but Franken couldn't resist taking another pass Tuesday.
The question: Referring to testimony that the driver was suffering hypothermia and that the brakes were failing, the senator said, "I don't think you'd want to be on the road with him, would you, Judge?"
The answer: Gorsuch said he does not blame the driver for doing what he did and added that he empathizes with him but explained — again — that his dissent was based on the language of the statute, which protected a worker from dismissal for refusal to operate an unsafe vehicle. But the driver did operate the truck, he said. Gorsuch also explained that Franken incorrectly described the doctrine of absurdity, which the senator had argued allowed for a departure from applying the statute as literally written. The judge said that neither side in the case even raised that issue. "And it usually applies when there's a scrivener's error, not when we just disagree with the policy or the statute," he said.
This just demonstrates the difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to the rule of law. Liberals believe that judges should fulfill a role like King Solomon, making decisions based upon the right and "just" outcome. Conservatives, who respect the Constitution, believe that this usurps the authority of the legislature, and that a judge is to adhere to the laws and interpret them as written, without regard to outcome. This is why the selection of judges has become so politicized - if you're selecting a judge to fulfill your partisan desires in making policy, you obviously want judges who match your partisan views.
-
They don't have the votes to stop it.
Probably butthurt he made top 5 dumbest questions:
The questioner: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
The issue: Gorsuch's by now well-known dissent in the TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board case. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the company had to rehire a trucker who had been fired for leaving a malfunctioning rig in freezing weather. Several senators have browbeat the nominee already for his dissent, but Franken couldn't resist taking another pass Tuesday.
The question: Referring to testimony that the driver was suffering hypothermia and that the brakes were failing, the senator said, "I don't think you'd want to be on the road with him, would you, Judge?"
The answer: Gorsuch said he does not blame the driver for doing what he did and added that he empathizes with him but explained — again — that his dissent was based on the language of the statute, which protected a worker from dismissal for refusal to operate an unsafe vehicle. But the driver did operate the truck, he said. Gorsuch also explained that Franken incorrectly described the doctrine of absurdity, which the senator had argued allowed for a departure from applying the statute as literally written. The judge said that neither side in the case even raised that issue. "And it usually applies when there's a scrivener's error, not when we just disagree with the policy or the statute," he said.
This just demonstrates the difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to the rule of law. Liberals believe that judges should fulfill a role like King Solomon, making decisions based upon the right and "just" outcome. Conservatives, who respect the Constitution, believe that this usurps the authority of the legislature, and that a judge is to adhere to the laws and interpret them as written, without regard to outcome. This is why the selection of judges has become so politicized - if you're selecting a judge to fulfill your partisan desires in making policy, you obviously want judges who match your partisan views.
Yes, you certainly do
-
And this is how liberals respond: "well conservatives are being partisan too by selecting judges who will just apply the law without regard to outcome." Liberals cannot see the difference.
-
Activist judges :curse:
-
Libs are enraged after answer regarding political judges.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-supreme-court-filibuster-nuclear-236563
:emawkid:
-
Would be a dumb move, IMO. Republicans should let Democrats keep filibustering at least another few months if they want to gain back some public opinion.
-
is your dick out @sys
-
all true americans have their dicks out today, tobias.
-
Aren't they just going to change the rules or some crap?
-
it wouldn't surprise me, wetwillie. they're dirty as eff.
-
Would be a dumb move, IMO. Republicans should let Democrats keep filibustering at least another few months if they want to gain back some public opinion.
There's nothing to be gained in drawing it out. Very few people understand or care about this stuff, and it's not like the GOP will get any help from the media. Vote for cloture, vote fails, change the filibuster rule, done. Then Dems hope and pray this doesn't bite them in the ass in the next three years (probably a bad bet from an actuarial standpoint).
-
Would be a dumb move, IMO. Republicans should let Democrats keep filibustering at least another few months if they want to gain back some public opinion.
There's nothing to be gained in drawing it out. Very few people understand or care about this stuff, and it's not like the GOP will get any help from the media. Vote for cloture, vote fails, change the filibuster rule, done. Then Dems hope and pray this doesn't bite them in the ass in the next three years (probably a bad bet from an actuarial standpoint).
Oh the hypocrisy.
-
Does anyone really believe if Democrats voted for Gorsuch, Republicans would then allow them to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they didn't like later in a Trump administration?
The fact some moderate Democrats were making that argument tells you everything you need to know about how dumb the Democratic leadership is.
-
Does anyone really believe if Democrats voted for Gorsuch, Republicans would then allow them to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they didn't like later in a Trump administration?
it's the stupidest rough ridin' argument.
-
Would be a dumb move, IMO. Republicans should let Democrats keep filibustering at least another few months if they want to gain back some public opinion.
There's nothing to be gained in drawing it out. Very few people understand or care about this stuff, and it's not like the GOP will get any help from the media. Vote for cloture, vote fails, change the filibuster rule, done. Then Dems hope and pray this doesn't bite them in the ass in the next three years (probably a bad bet from an actuarial standpoint).
Oh the hypocrisy.
You either don't understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy or you don't understand how the Senate works. In the case of both Garland and Gorsuch, the GOP is doing what their majority status allows them to do. If Dems don't like it they should have won back the Senate and held the WH.
Now if the GOP had been in the minority and had filibustered Garland, or any SC nominee, that would be hypocritical, but they haven't.
-
The filibuster is stupid, hopefully this does away with it as a standard for both parties.
-
The left does a great job of getting people to forget what a majority is.
-
Why don't the R's float the idea of some really crazy right wing nomination as a threat?
-
Why don't the R's float the idea of some really crazy right wing nomination as a threat?
Did you see how the healthcare thing went down? They have like 52 pubs, it's extremely fragile.
-
Why don't the R's float the idea of some really crazy right wing nomination as a threat?
Did you see how the healthcare thing went down? They have like 52 pubs, it's extremely fragile.
Seems like a good way to get a moderate confirmed with 60 votes tho. You're only looking to pick up one vote vs lose 8.
-
They can't even articulate a basis to oppose him. He's as good as on the court.
-
They can't even articulate a basis to oppose him. He's as good as on the court.
they are just doing it so the pubs change the rules to ruin the senate, win win for them. the pubs take the heat and look like anti american assbrains for changing the rules, and the dems get to use the new rules to ruin america with ease when the cycle comes around
-
They can't even articulate a basis to oppose him. He's as good as on the court.
they are just doing it so the pubs change the rules to ruin the senate, win win for them. the pubs take the heat and look like anti american assbrains for changing the rules, and the dems get to use the new rules to ruin america with ease when the cycle comes around
No one is going to care about the rule change, just like no one cared about Democrats doing the same thing for cabinet appointments under Obama.
I do agree the filibuster is pretty stupid. You either need 50 votes or you need 60. Make up your minds.
-
It seems though like the dems are hell bent on not confirming anyone (no matter who it is) as retribution.
-
Wow, the party of NO (that's the Dems) is nothing but hate hate hate
Sad
-
I disagree with the position that Dems are currently taking and wish moderation would win out and talk in substanative terms.
Wow, the party of NO (that's the Dems) is nothing but hate hate hate
Sad
This however, after the last 8 years and the lack of respect given to Garland, is asinine.
-
I disagree with the position that Dems are currently taking and wish moderation would win out and talk in substanative terms.
Wow, the party of NO (that's the Dems) is nothing but hate hate hate
Sad
This however, after the last 8 years and the lack of respect given to Garland, is asinine.
Not really
-
if the Dems have exclusive ownership of the party of "NO" please explain both the last 8 years and the inability of Pubs themselves to move forward policy outside of E.O.'s and functionally govern
-
Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing Republicans did during Obama's first term, which is fine for me. The more both parties alienate reasonable people, the more likely we can get a true centrist/moderate voting bloc together.
-
i disagree with the position being taken by Democrats by i understand it
what i don't understand is how the Pubs leadership is so ineffective that they cant execute any policy change while having the power to do so
-
Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing Republicans did during Obama's first term, which is fine for me. The more both parties alienate reasonable people, the more likely we can get a true centrist/moderate voting bloc together.
Lol
-
I want a viable 3rd party as well
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
-
Dems: Party of No
SMDH
-
seems like such a waste of time imo
-
I'm hearing a lot of talk about how the Dems wouldn't be filibustering if Trump had nominated "a more moderate" judge. Putting aside the fact that nobody except perhaps some partisan liberals really believe this - what exactly does "moderate judge" mean? You either believe laws should be interpreted based upon the text and intent of the drafters without regard to policy outcome, or you believe that judges should be free to and in fact have an obligation to interpret laws based upon policy outcome. Does a moderate judge just sort of go and back and forth on that? Like a M-W-F versus T-Th plus every other weekend arrangement?
-
So tell me why Garland never even got a rough ridin' hearing then?
-
So tell me why Garland never even got a rough ridin' hearing then?
Because the GOP held the Senate Majority. Just as they do now. That's not a filibuster. This really isn't all that complicated. Nothing but a parliamentary rule currently gives the Dems the power to stop Gorsuch, and that rule can be changed. Again - the power of the Senate Majority.
The GOP decided that they were not going to allow a lame duck Obama to replace Scalia with another "Living Constitution" political hack. They decided to let the next president pick the successor, thereby letting the American People decide. At the time, it seemed like an exercise in futility, given that Hillary seemed destined to succeed Obama. But then a funny thing happened on the way to her coronation.
None of this seems particularly hard to understand.
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
-
KSU, didn't the American people vote Obama in? How is that different than the American people voting Trump in?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
-
Also what Rage said.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
-
So tell me why Garland never even got a rough ridin' hearing then?
Because the GOP held the Senate Majority. Just as they do now. That's not a filibuster. This really isn't all that complicated. Nothing but a parliamentary rule currently gives the Dems the power to stop Gorsuch, and that rule can be changed. Again - the power of the Senate Majority.
The GOP decided that they were not going to allow a lame duck Obama to replace Scalia with another "Living Constitution" political hack. They decided to let the next president pick the successor, thereby letting the American People decide. At the time, it seemed like an exercise in futility, given that Hillary seemed destined to succeed Obama. But then a funny thing happened on the way to her coronation.
None of this seems particularly hard to understand.
So you're "The Ed" of constitutionality? Rules is rules (but only when in your favor).
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
Because it's more fun to throw a tempertantrum.
-
See what I mean? The libtards do not understand who is and has been in the majority.
The l-tards seem completely unaware that the dems were in the minority when garland was nominated (meaning the pubs were in the majority) and that the pubs remain in the majority for gorsuch's appointment (meaning the dems are still the minority). No party has ever unilaterally filibustered a scotus appointment. Not confirming an opposing party's nominee who has a majority vote is a completely separate issue.
The dems have zero leverage and the pubs are not going to back down and I suspect most non-psycho dems will fall in step. Because next time Trump is putting a rubber stamp on the bench.
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).
So why not give him a hearing and vote him down?
-
what i don't understand is how the Pubs leadership is so ineffective that they cant execute any policy change while having the power to do so
This is a great question. Get it together r-tards, you have unrestrained power
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).
So why not give him a hearing and vote him down?
Because huge waste of time, effort and resources. Were you rough ridin' unconscious when Gorsuch was going through his 3 days of 10 hour a day of senate testimony and weeks of written testimony, testimony before the senate committee?
Jesus rough ridin' christ, what a stupid goddamn question.
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).
So why not give him a hearing and vote him down?
Super dumb move by Republicans IMO, similar to how they are not drawing this nomination out a little longer.
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).
So why not give him a hearing and vote him down?
Because huge waste of time, effort and resources. Were you rough ridin' unconscious when Gorsuch was going through his 3 days of 10 hour a day of senate testimony and weeks of written testimony, testimony before the senate committee?
Jesus rough ridin' christ, what a stupid goddamn question.
Oh, it's because they would have had to work a few more hours?
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."
That wasn't so hard, I don't understand why FSD kept dancing around it.
-
"Risking" Republicans voting with Democrats on something is the most rough ridin' dumb and disgusting (and probably accurate) reason to not hold a vote.
-
Sdk the last presidential term differs from the current term in that the party of the president and majority party of the senate were not / are now the same.
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."
If you have squishes on your side that are going to break ranks, do you really have a majority?
-
The lame duck argument is so damn stupid. The 'Pubs stole a nomination from a sitting President. No appointment of Trump should be considered until after the conclusion of the FBI investigation. He could be getting impeached so I guess he is a lame duck too.
-
Pences idea of a good justice is probably one that believes in the implementation of christian sharia law, so I don't know if we want him picking
-
I love how Gooch counters an allegedly stupid argument with a colossally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) argument.
-
I love how Gooch counters an allegedly stupid argument with a colossally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) argument.
How is it different?
-
I think the absolute best thing that might come out of this is Gorsuch getting confirmed and then ruling against the travel ban.
-
I love how Gooch counters an allegedly stupid argument with a colossally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) argument.
How is it different?
If you can't tell then I doubt you'd understand me explaining it to you.
-
Pences idea of a good justice is probably one that believes in the implementation of christian sharia law, so I don't know if we want him picking
Eating dinner with anyone other than your wife will be outlawed.
-
Sdk the last presidential term differs from the current term in that the party of the president and majority party of the senate were not / are now the same.
That makes sense. I didn't really think it through before I posted.
-
Pences idea of a good justice is probably one that believes in the implementation of christian sharia law, so I don't know if we want him picking
Eating dinner with anyone other than your wife will be outlawed.
That is doubtful. I would expect the court to see bathroom legislation, though.
-
I think it's funny that Reagan was allowed to nominate a judge in his last year as President but Obama was just a "lame duck". Maybe duck is a euphemism for a racial slur?
-
I think it's funny that Reagan was allowed to nominate a judge in his last year as President but Obama was just a "lame duck". Maybe duck is a euphemism for a racial slur?
"lame spook"
-
Obama nominated one just didn't get confirmed.
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."
If you have squishes on your side that are going to break ranks, do you really have a majority?
Yes. Having a majority in the senate actually means things procedurally even if that majority doesn't always hold together on votes.
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."
That wasn't so hard, I don't understand why FSD kept dancing around it.
Anything else patently obvious you'd like me to admit? That might be a fun thread if its own.
-
Comparing garland to gorsuch is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Comparing obama to reagan might be more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Filibustering a scotus nominee is absurd.
-
Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?
Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."
That wasn't so hard, I don't understand why FSD kept dancing around it.
Anything else patently obvious you'd like me to admit? That might be a fun thread if its own.
Considering the pubs had something like 56 senators and some 30+ were up for reelection, there was zero rough ridin' risk of breaking ranks, but I suppose they could have filibustered anyways....
It would have been a pointless waste of time to have a hearing on garland, and it's absurd to think he would have been confirmed at that stage in the toilet hole b.o. presidentancy. The demtards need to accept the fact that they didn't have the votes and move on. It's called democracy, no matter how much they yearn for police state neo-fascism. Win more senate seats if you want to confirm your lunatic judges. You rammed two through in two years through convenient retirement.
-
And McConnel doesn't get enough props for the stones it took to pull off the political gamble of the decade, if not our lifetime.
He obviously knew what a loser b.o. was, was well aware that b.o. scorched all of his political capital in like 18 mos., and was basically an unprecedented theocrat without purpose or objective, but still nobody saw Don throwing hilltard over his knee and spanking her ass.
-
Tremendous lib butthurt in this thread
-
GOP has initiated the rule change - Gorsuch to be confirmed Friday. Gorsuch seems like a promising addition to Team Rule of Law and a setback for Team The Law Is What I Want It To Be.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Fpolitics%2F2017%2F01%2F170201_POL_Gorsuch-dems.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg&hash=508ba0329474dc015f496b309ac68596567057e0)
-
Grats
-
Congrats FSD you earned this one.
-
Living breathers/we'll take into account what they said as a private citizen/let's look at foreign law'ers may have taken a hit on this one.
-
GOP has initiated the rule change - Gorsuch to be confirmed Friday. Gorsuch seems like a promising addition to Team Rule of Law and a setback for Team The Law Is What I Want It To Be.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Fpolitics%2F2017%2F01%2F170201_POL_Gorsuch-dems.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg&hash=508ba0329474dc015f496b309ac68596567057e0)
Which is funny cause you had to change the rules to get it to work, but hey, what happens when you get to be the ones to write the rules.
-
:facepalm:
-
Is it not strange that a law had to be changed to get a "by the books as they are written judge" in? Or have I missed something.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk
-
I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.
-
I don't think the 60 vote limit should have been changed...but the dems breached that line first. Nobody to blame but themselves.
-
Is it not strange that a law had to be changed to get a "by the books as they are written judge" in? Or have I missed something.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk
It wasn't a law that was changed. Just a standard operational procedure. I think it is better this way, really. The filibuster is a ridiculous practice.
We probably should make it law that congress has to have a hearing and vote on all presidential appointments within a realistic timeframe, though. The Garland thing was ridiculous.
-
I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.
Oh I understand the difference, just pointing out that you had to change it to get what you wanted. I find some (a lot) of irony in it/ your statement. It was perfectly legal, and allowed. Just funny to trumpet following rules, and instead changing them how you best see fit.
-
I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.
Oh I understand the difference, just pointing out that you had to change it to get what you wanted. I find some (a lot) of irony in it/ your statement. It was perfectly legal, and allowed. Just funny to trumpet following rules, and instead changing them how you best see fit.
Well, it's sort of Congress's job to change rules/laws.
-
I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.
Oh I understand the difference, just pointing out that you had to change it to get what you wanted. I find some (a lot) of irony in it/ your statement. It was perfectly legal, and allowed. Just funny to trumpet following rules, and instead changing them how you best see fit.
Well, it's sort of Congress's job to change rules/laws.
Agreed, hence the irony, not like the constitution ever evolves or cant change overtime, it was written by freaking demigods from on high who know better than you or I on how to properly run anything. Not like we changed it 27 times, or want to change it again, but no, got to be exactly what the framers said, no changes, no taksie backsies, unless you know, you see fit.
-
I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.
Oh I understand the difference, just pointing out that you had to change it to get what you wanted. I find some (a lot) of irony in it/ your statement. It was perfectly legal, and allowed. Just funny to trumpet following rules, and instead changing them how you best see fit.
Well, it's sort of Congress's job to change rules/laws.
Agreed, hence the irony, not like the constitution ever evolves or cant change overtime, it was written by freaking demigods from on high who know better than you or I on how to properly run anything. Not like we changed it 27 times, or want to change it again, but no, got to be exactly what the framers said, no changes, no taksie backsies, unless you know, you see fit.
You really need to sit this out bub. You're making a fool of yourself. Amendments are the constitutional way of changing the constitution. Not a handful of judges just making crap up to reach the result they want.
-
I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.
Relax Broham. I wasn't being super serial. When I make posts like this they usually get ignored. I'll stick to serious only posts in the pit moving forward.
-
Some people ITT don't understand irony. SAD!
-
Is it not strange that a law had to be changed to get a "by the books as they are written judge" in? Or have I missed something.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk
It wasn't a law that was changed. Just a standard operational procedure. I think it is better this way, really. The filibuster is a ridiculous practice.
We probably should make it law that congress has to have a hearing and vote on all presidential appointments within a realistic timeframe, though. The Garland thing was ridiculous.
I agree with all of that. :thumbsup:
-
Not sure how that kind of a law would work. If they don't approve the nomination in time, what's the penalty: automatically approved or automatically denied? Either way incentivizes one party to obstruct the process and make sure a vote is not held.
-
Not sure how that kind of a law would work. If they don't approve the nomination in time, what's the penalty: automatically approved or automatically denied? Either way incentivizes one party to obstruct the process and make sure a vote is not held.
Automatic approval. They wouldn't have to approve the nomination in time. They would have to have a vote and either approve or disapprove.
-
Not sure how that kind of a law would work. If they don't approve the nomination in time, what's the penalty: automatically approved or automatically denied? Either way incentivizes one party to obstruct the process and make sure a vote is not held.
Automatic approval. They wouldn't have to approve the nomination in time. They would have to have a vote and either approve or disapprove.
Gives a little more power to the prez if auto approve, little more power to the senate if auto denied. Prolly a wash.
-
Not sure how that kind of a law would work. If they don't approve the nomination in time, what's the penalty: automatically approved or automatically denied? Either way incentivizes one party to obstruct the process and make sure a vote is not held.
Automatic approval. They wouldn't have to approve the nomination in time. They would have to have a vote and either approve or disapprove.
Gives a little more power to the prez if auto approve, little more power to the senate if auto denied. Prolly a wash.
Currently, you have to have a majority to not have a vote, so auto-approve makes a lot more sense. The majority party shouldn't have that much trouble just voting no.
-
In a democracy, the majority rules. So, it's fundamentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to create a law that gives the minority power vested with the majority.
Not surprised the libtards prefer a dictatorship, just pointing out the obvious.
-
In a democracy, the majority rules. So, it's fundamentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to create a law that gives the minority power vested with the majority.
Not surprised the libtards prefer a dictatorship, just pointing out the obvious.
We have all sorts of checks on majoritarian rule. The senate is one of those. The electoral college is another example.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Majoritarian :D
-
Trump's guy is a prick. Imagine that.
Totenberg, a renowned court reporter who is friendly with several justices, noted that Gorsuch “ticks off some members of the court—and I don’t think it’s just the liberals.”
...
Biskupic notes that Gorsuch has “shaken relations at the high court,” creating “personal tensions” at a formerly placid workplace.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_rumors_of_a_gorsuch_kagan_supreme_court_clash_are_such_a_bombshell.html
-
Trump's guy is a prick. Imagine that.
Totenberg, a renowned court reporter who is friendly with several justices, noted that Gorsuch “ticks off some members of the court—and I don’t think it’s just the liberals.”
...
Biskupic notes that Gorsuch has “shaken relations at the high court,” creating “personal tensions” at a formerly placid workplace.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_rumors_of_a_gorsuch_kagan_supreme_court_clash_are_such_a_bombshell.html
Formerly placid workplace? I call bullshit. Nor would that even be desirable. Would you want so many important, generational decisions decided over friendly cocktails at the Yale Club?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Trump's guy is a prick. Imagine that.
Totenberg, a renowned court reporter who is friendly with several justices, noted that Gorsuch “ticks off some members of the court—and I don’t think it’s just the liberals.”
...
Biskupic notes that Gorsuch has “shaken relations at the high court,” creating “personal tensions” at a formerly placid workplace.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_rumors_of_a_gorsuch_kagan_supreme_court_clash_are_such_a_bombshell.html
Formerly placid workplace? I call bullshit. Nor would that even be desirable. Would you want so many important, generational decisions decided over friendly cocktails at the Yale Club?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The Yale club is pretty sick
-
Trump's guy is a prick. Imagine that.
Totenberg, a renowned court reporter who is friendly with several justices, noted that Gorsuch “ticks off some members of the court—and I don’t think it’s just the liberals.”
...
Biskupic notes that Gorsuch has “shaken relations at the high court,” creating “personal tensions” at a formerly placid workplace.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_rumors_of_a_gorsuch_kagan_supreme_court_clash_are_such_a_bombshell.html
Formerly placid workplace? I call bullshit. Nor would that even be desirable. Would you want so many important, generational decisions decided over friendly cocktails at the Yale Club?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The Yale club is pretty sick
Yes, but that's not the point.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/neil-gorsuch-and-samuel-alito-butt-heads (http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/neil-gorsuch-and-samuel-alito-butt-heads)
This is promising.
-
I don't really see the drama there, but somewhat interesting issue. Totally on Gorsuch's side on this one.
-
all in with gorsuch on this one.
-
eff yeah 4th amendment! :Woohoo:
-
I think the SC sometimes takes cases like these just for fun. FWIW, I side with the drug dealer/mule. If somebody willingly lends you a car, you assume that person's reasonable expectation of privacy. I'd say the same for a guest I invited into my home. I didn't read closely enough to see if that means I align with Gorsuch or Alito. I bet they're secretly best buds in private.
-
Completely unsurprised the libtards don't know that the conservatives are against the police state and the "liberals" are pro police state.
-
Yeah, they probably didn’t know Alito is liberal.
-
i've read a few decisions/dissents now and i am revising my gorsuch opinion from "fine" to "loser"
-
Alito v Gorsuch, another classic Lib vs Conservative show down
-
Completely unsurprised the lib[eff]tards don't know how many supremes there are.
-
Completely unsurprised the lib[eff]tards don't know how many supremes there are.
There is only one in your world.
-
Pretty sure there were three.
(https://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0000/481/MI0000481742.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
-
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/986247366809456640
-
kazz dubs winning so hard today :ROFL:
-
look at that swing vote
-
I guess it's sort of funny that Trump got stuffed by his own pick, but I'm personally in favor of deporting this legal resident twice convicted of burglary.
-
I take no joy in him dunking this hard on trump
-
Trumps team is certainly in a meeting right now being asked to figure out his options for firing gorsuch
-
Take ole Gor off the list of accomplishments...luckily the list is so long we won't notice.
-
Just as long as libs politicians keep warning criminals who are in the country illegally about ICE presence, everything is going to be okay.
The rest of the stuff is just fluff. Just make sure the criminal aliens can roam free.
-
Libs and Neil Gorsy
-
Just as long as libs politicians keep warning criminals who are in the country illegally about ICE presence, everything is going to be okay.
The rest of the stuff is just fluff. Just make sure the criminal aliens can roam free.
Is this right out of Gorsuch's opinion?
-
I believe the pair of Scalia (i.e., Gorsuch, aka Libtard Mephistopheles) and Ginsberg concurred at one of the highest rates of any judicial pair on the court, namely in matters of search and seizure.
So, this news is inly surprising to totalretards (i.e., the libtards).
-
Trumps team is certainly in a meeting right now being asked to figure out his options for firing gorsuch
Lol, probs
-
Not surprised that this is a huge trump win when his SC nominee dunks on him