SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch - Destruction of Unions

2

Comments

  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,930
    Requiring an ID is not an assault on voting rights.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    unsung said:

    Requiring an ID is not an assault on voting rights.
    Hahaha but it is an assault on gun rights?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    Again, here is the belief and lie thing.
    I believe in Santa Claus, you're lying.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,882
    edited February 1
    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    Requiring an ID is not an assault on voting rights.
    Hahaha but it is an assault on gun rights?
    So turning that around...If requiring IDs is an assault on voters rights, wouldn't that also make it an assault on gun owner rights? I'm good with requiring a person to show IDs for both to prove citizenship actually...
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,205
    edited February 1
    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    The "Biden Rule".

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

    I have a faint memory of the name Biden and piggybacking legislation...don't recall where I heard that.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,882
    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    JC29856 said:

    Without knowing dick shit about the scotus nominees positions I'm fairly certain any and all trumps picks will be disastrous. That and trumps affection for Israel were my only real concerns with him being president.
    Reading that gorsuch is Scalia 2.0 is all I need to know.
    I'm not sure how Senate democrats can leverage their vote when they confirmed him in 2006 for the circuit.

    your last sentence was a point I read about yesterday. I think it was Ted Cruz that made it. it's hilarious though how he's bitching and moaning about dem's making this political by blocking whomever is nominated, when he was the one who stated that he'd block anyone who hillary nominated if she won. so much fucking hypocrisy.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 3,039
    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770

    JC29856 said:

    Without knowing dick shit about the scotus nominees positions I'm fairly certain any and all trumps picks will be disastrous. That and trumps affection for Israel were my only real concerns with him being president.
    Reading that gorsuch is Scalia 2.0 is all I need to know.
    I'm not sure how Senate democrats can leverage their vote when they confirmed him in 2006 for the circuit.

    your last sentence was a point I read about yesterday. I think it was Ted Cruz that made it. it's hilarious though how he's bitching and moaning about dem's making this political by blocking whomever is nominated, when he was the one who stated that he'd block anyone who hillary nominated if she won. so much fucking hypocrisy.
    Hypocrisy and the same recycled tic for tac BS year after year election after election. It boggles my mind how voters get behind these clowns.
    Like I said, today, democrats should be beating down the doors of their constituents who voted to affirm trump nominees, they should be calling for Pelosis head after stupid remark after stupid remark last night. It doesn't happen so the bs and hypocrisy will continue.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,930
    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    Requiring an ID is not an assault on voting rights.
    Hahaha but it is an assault on gun rights?
    I do not recall saying that it is.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    JC29856 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Without knowing dick shit about the scotus nominees positions I'm fairly certain any and all trumps picks will be disastrous. That and trumps affection for Israel were my only real concerns with him being president.
    Reading that gorsuch is Scalia 2.0 is all I need to know.
    I'm not sure how Senate democrats can leverage their vote when they confirmed him in 2006 for the circuit.

    your last sentence was a point I read about yesterday. I think it was Ted Cruz that made it. it's hilarious though how he's bitching and moaning about dem's making this political by blocking whomever is nominated, when he was the one who stated that he'd block anyone who hillary nominated if she won. so much fucking hypocrisy.
    Hypocrisy and the same recycled tic for tac BS year after year election after election. It boggles my mind how voters get behind these clowns.
    Like I said, today, democrats should be beating down the doors of their constituents who voted to affirm trump nominees, they should be calling for Pelosis head after stupid remark after stupid remark last night. It doesn't happen so the bs and hypocrisy will continue.
    I watched some highlights of her town hall yesterday. what stupid remarks are you referring to?
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770

    JC29856 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Without knowing dick shit about the scotus nominees positions I'm fairly certain any and all trumps picks will be disastrous. That and trumps affection for Israel were my only real concerns with him being president.
    Reading that gorsuch is Scalia 2.0 is all I need to know.
    I'm not sure how Senate democrats can leverage their vote when they confirmed him in 2006 for the circuit.

    your last sentence was a point I read about yesterday. I think it was Ted Cruz that made it. it's hilarious though how he's bitching and moaning about dem's making this political by blocking whomever is nominated, when he was the one who stated that he'd block anyone who hillary nominated if she won. so much fucking hypocrisy.
    Hypocrisy and the same recycled tic for tac BS year after year election after election. It boggles my mind how voters get behind these clowns.
    Like I said, today, democrats should be beating down the doors of their constituents who voted to affirm trump nominees, they should be calling for Pelosis head after stupid remark after stupid remark last night. It doesn't happen so the bs and hypocrisy will continue.
    I watched some highlights of her town hall yesterday. what stupid remarks are you referring to?
    Top of the list...?

    Yemeni woman dad died bec of lack of medicine and her mom cannot come to US...Pelosi reply: your family is suffering bec our pres is reckless and incompetent.
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,882
    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Only time will define this hypocrisy should the situation ever be reversed. I still call bullshit on Democrats having the high road on this one though. Politicians playing politics is nothing new...
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 24,533
    JC29856 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Can force them to get 60 votes right?

    Correct. There are procedures McConnell can do to get it to a simple majority, but I don't see that happening. I think they can easily get 8 Dems to cross over. He's a conservative pick, but he's not the worst out there. Lot of Dems up in two years (McCaskill in MO comes to mind) live in flippable states that Trump carried easily. They're the likely ones to flip.
    Republicans will save the nuclear option for the next Scotus nominee or at least threaten to. The "unanimous vote" part is very important.
    So if he is confirmed and Kennedy retires they can save the nuclear option and get this and the next more radical pick confirmed?

    I don't exactly follow what the nuclear option is, though I keep hearing about it. Why couldn't they potentially use it on both?
    Nuclear option is a form of cheating by changing the rules of the game, from super majority 60 votes to simple majority 51 votes.
    The republicans could use it for both but that means this nomination process gets ugly, the other point of not going nuclear is if you don't have to, then don't, save your trump card for the real cooky nominee.
    The more I think about it the more it seems to make sense to make them do it now. Let Kennedy see what they are willing to do and I am sure he understands that the next pick won't be so "mainstream". Put pressure on him to hold out.
  • He had me at fly fishing.
    . . . the in between is mine.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,930
    Sounds like he is a lot like Scalia, don't care for his police powers but at least a step in the right direction.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,771
    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Trump will do it if it a spot opens in his last year. Dems would have done it if they thought the race was going to tight this last election. No way they just sit back if they think there is the possibility of Trump or Ted Cruz getting elected.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    Jason P said:

    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Trump will do it if it a spot opens in his last year. Dems would have done it if they thought the race was going to tight this last election. No way they just sit back if they think there is the possibility of Trump or Ted Cruz getting elected.
    I was reading today, some insiders (whoever they are?) are saying one justice will retire over the next six months, depending on if/when gorsuch is confirmed and any unsettled business.
    the obvious is kennedy or ginsberg, pretty scary that trump could potentially pick two scotus in one year and three total!!!!
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,771
    JC29856 said:

    Jason P said:

    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Trump will do it if it a spot opens in his last year. Dems would have done it if they thought the race was going to tight this last election. No way they just sit back if they think there is the possibility of Trump or Ted Cruz getting elected.
    I was reading today, some insiders (whoever they are?) are saying one justice will retire over the next six months, depending on if/when gorsuch is confirmed and any unsettled business.
    the obvious is kennedy or ginsberg, pretty scary that trump could potentially pick two scotus in one year and three total!!!!
    Yeah, I don't think many people realized how important this election was in regards to the supreme court.

    The pendulum swings.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    Jason P said:

    JC29856 said:

    Jason P said:

    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Trump will do it if it a spot opens in his last year. Dems would have done it if they thought the race was going to tight this last election. No way they just sit back if they think there is the possibility of Trump or Ted Cruz getting elected.
    I was reading today, some insiders (whoever they are?) are saying one justice will retire over the next six months, depending on if/when gorsuch is confirmed and any unsettled business.
    the obvious isPOST /post/comment/?discussionid=263063 HTTP/1.1
    Host: community.pearljam.com
    User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/51.0
    Accept: application/json, text/javascript, */*; q=0.01
    Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
    Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
    Referer: http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/263063/scotus-nominee-neil-gorsuch/p2
    Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=UTF-8
    X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest
    Content
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 17,202
    PJPOWER said:

    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Only time will define this hypocrisy should the situation ever be reversed. I still call bullshit on Democrats having the high road on this one though. Politicians playing politics is nothing new...
    lol after 8 yrs of nothing but blocking every move Obama wanted to make now you want the Democratic party to just lay down and let every thing this Bafoon wants to just go thru , I say fuck that !
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,099
    unsung said:

    Sounds like he is a lot like Scalia, don't care for his police powers but at least a step in the right direction.

    unsung said:

    Sounds like he is a lot like Scalia, don't care for his police powers but at least a step in the right direction.

    Congrats on being the first person to ever use "Scalia" and "right direction" in the same sentence.

  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,882
    edited February 1

    PJPOWER said:

    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Only time will define this hypocrisy should the situation ever be reversed. I still call bullshit on Democrats having the high road on this one though. Politicians playing politics is nothing new...
    lol after 8 yrs of nothing but blocking every move Obama wanted to make now you want the Democratic party to just lay down and let every thing this Bafoon wants to just go thru , I say fuck that !
    lol, I didn't say they should, just saying that they would have done the same thing. And the dems are laying down. Did any of them show up to today's votes? The dems have hardly any power to not let anything "Bafoon" wants go through...Did you sleep through political science class? Protests are wonderful, but actual power to do shit?
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 17,202
    PJPOWER said:

    PJPOWER said:

    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Only time will define this hypocrisy should the situation ever be reversed. I still call bullshit on Democrats having the high road on this one though. Politicians playing politics is nothing new...
    lol after 8 yrs of nothing but blocking every move Obama wanted to make now you want the Democratic party to just lay down and let every thing this Bafoon wants to just go thru , I say fuck that !
    lol, I didn't say they should, just saying that they would have done the same thing. And the dems are laying down. Did any of them show up to today's votes? The dems have hardly any power to not let anything "Bafoon" wants go through...Did you sleep through political science class? Protests are wonderful, but actual power to do shit?
    You called bullshit on the dems for taking the high road I miss read that as them doing exactly what I don't want them to do just lay down my bad , the dems have been protesting his nominees specially his latest ...and the pressure is starting to get to some of the Dems to not vote for any of his nominees..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 12,960
    JC29856 said:

    Jason P said:

    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Kat said:

    I don't think the next SCOTUS nominee should be confirmed until the American voters have had their say in the next election.

    So if the tables had been turned and it was Trump's final months in office and he was going to try to hurry and appoint the next SCOTUS...would the Democrats have sat back and said "go right ahead"? I'm willing to bet they would have fought tooth and nail.
    I don't know that it is hurrying to nominate someone 11 months before you are out of office. Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February of Reagan's last year in office. Should they have blocked his hearing after the first nominee wasn't confirmed the previous fall? Several presidents have had nominees confirmed with little over a year to go, but now it's an issue.

    If it had been September or October, I think you'd have a case for hurrying, but basically what is being pushed here is that no president should ever be allowed to nominate at any time during their last year in office, which seems pretty stupid.
    Trump will do it if it a spot opens in his last year. Dems would have done it if they thought the race was going to tight this last election. No way they just sit back if they think there is the possibility of Trump or Ted Cruz getting elected.
    I was reading today, some insiders (whoever they are?) are saying one justice will retire over the next six months, depending on if/when gorsuch is confirmed and any unsettled business.
    the obvious is kennedy or ginsberg, pretty scary that trump could potentially pick two scotus in one year and three total!!!!
    RBG will not retire with this jackass in power. She would literally have to pass away while still serving for him to fill her seat, hopefully she lives another 100 years :)
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    Mruss...I found this for you

    http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/document/fact-sheet-supreme-court-nominee-judge-neil-gorsuch-s-record-democracy-issues

    Gorsuch says the only thing that should limit a "persons" campaign donations is their checkbook.

    Thoughts?
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 15,991
    JC29856 said:

    Mruss...I found this for you

    http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/document/fact-sheet-supreme-court-nominee-judge-neil-gorsuch-s-record-democracy-issues

    Gorsuch says the only thing that should limit a "persons" campaign donations is their checkbook.

    Thoughts?

    this is disqualifying from the bench for me. this tears it.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 15,991
    dems are spineless, and they are over a barrel on this one.

    they may filibuster, but then the GOP senate will change the rules and get this man affirmed.

    it is probably best for the dems to sit back and take this one. they should have fought harder when it was obama's chance, but they went along with waiting, like a proper adult would have.

    the dems problem is they treat the gop like they are normal human beings. they aren't. they don't fight fair. they are intransigent. if they don't like the rules, they will change them. the dems bring a knife to a gunfight, while the GOP rolls in in sherman tanks. you would think the dems would have learned this fact 25 years ago, but they didn't, and they won't. their base has gone to the left of their leaders. when that happens, the party is over.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.