SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch - Destruction of Unions

135

Comments

  • 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
    rgambs said:

    unsung said:

    Cliffy6745 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.
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,117
    JC29856 said:

    HughFreakingDillon 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.

    https://youtu.be/ipN98p7nswM

    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?
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    HughFreakingDillon said:

    JC29856 said:

    HughFreakingDillon 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.

    https://youtu.be/ipN98p7nswM

    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.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    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...
  • Cliffy6745
    Cliffy6745 Posts: 34,068
    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.
    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.
  • Release Mii
    Release Mii Posts: 58
    He had me at fly fishing.
    . . . the in between is mine.
  • 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
    Sounds like he is a lot like Scalia, don't care for his police powers but at least a step in the right direction.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Anyone think these actions in Yemen

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/15/us-bombed-yemen-middle-east-conflict
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/08/yemen-us-made-bombs-used-unlawful-airstrikes
    https://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/11/obama_is_killing_yemen_a_yemeni
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/cluster-bombs-yemen-saudi-united-states
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/12176705/Saudi-Arabia-is-bombing-in-Yemen-to-bring-peace-and-stability.html

    ...have anything at all to do with medicine getting to those that need it?

    Cluster bombs tend to kill innocent civilians, lots of them

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/a-cluster-bomb-made-in-america-shattered-lives-in-yemens-capital/2016/07/08/e3b722cc-283d-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_story.html?utm_term=.7c5420fe741a

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/banned-by-119-countries-u-s-cluster-bombs-continue-to-orphan-yemeni-children/
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,420
    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.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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!!!!
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,420
    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.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,211
    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 Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,689
    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.

  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited February 2017
    josevolution 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?
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,211
    PJPOWER said:

    josevolution 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 ....
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    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 :)
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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?
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,983
    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.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,983
    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.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."

Categories