SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch - Destruction of Unions

tbergs
tbergs Posts: 10,502
edited September 2017 in A Moving Train
Looks like we have a winner! Time to discuss.
It's a hopeless situation...
Post edited by tbergs on
«1345

Comments

  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    He's no Judge Reinhold

    https://youtu.be/CaK_FgrIlYY
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I preferred Napolitano.
  • InHiding80
    InHiding80 Upland,CA Posts: 7,623
    Great another asshole who doesn't believe in separation of church and state. Fuck him.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    "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" -Gorsuch
  • Cliffy6745
    Cliffy6745 Posts: 34,067
    Can force them to get 60 votes right?
  • jerparker20
    jerparker20 St. Paul, MN Posts: 2,529
    JC29856 said:

    "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" -Gorsuch

    Although I'm a solid blue progressive, there is a lot of truth in this statement.

    With that said, far right conservatives have been salivating to have a chance to legislate their own agenda through the high court. It goes both ways.
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    Cliffy6745 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.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    ledvedderman said:

    Cliffy6745 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.
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    I think you're very correct there, my friend. I'm not too concerned with this pick. If Trump gets another, that's where he could do some harm for generations.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • Wma31394
    Wma31394 Posts: 3,045
    Any dirt on this guy?
    "Going where the water tastes like wine!"
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,131
    Wma31394 said:

    Any dirt on this guy?

    Like having a Comet Pizza menu or frequent buyer card?
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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.

    https://youtu.be/ipN98p7nswM
  • Cliffy6745
    Cliffy6745 Posts: 34,067
    JC29856 said:

    ledvedderman said:

    Cliffy6745 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?
  • Cliffy6745
    Cliffy6745 Posts: 34,067
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Cliffy6745 said:

    JC29856 said:

    ledvedderman said:

    Cliffy6745 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.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    edited February 2017
    things getting personal in relation to the thread is understandable...following someone around constantly harassing them about unrelated topics is annoying af. Drop it already halifax...and all the other JC haters.
    Post edited by Drowned Out on
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,502
    JC29856 said:

    Cliffy6745 said:

    JC29856 said:

    ledvedderman said:

    Cliffy6745 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.
    Might be hard to convince any Dem to cross the line given what happened with Obama's nominee. It's just political bullshit.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    There's really no easy way to describe the nuclear option. The belief is amongst most senators that senate rules (being the upper chamber) are sacred and old school guys like McConnell swear to abide by the written rules of procedure...like 60 votes needed for Supreme Court justice. So the idea of tarnishing parliamentary procedure and requiring a simple majority on this is their equivalent of using nuclear weapons.
    It's all pompous bullshit though. Mitch likes to pretend to be a traditional member of the legislative body, yet he denied President Obama his pick.

    So, yeah. Makes no sense to me either.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    tbergs said:

    JC29856 said:

    Cliffy6745 said:

    JC29856 said:

    ledvedderman said:

    Cliffy6745 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.
    Might be hard to convince any Dem to cross the line given what happened with Obama's nominee. It's just political bullshit.
    Be pretty tough for Schumer to oppose now for Scotus when he nominated 10 years ago for circuit. That's a very very tough sell as Dem leader, other dems would have to take up the cause.

Categories