Looks like the Senate has gone nuclear

[ivwshane]

If you're capable of adding something reasonably intelligent to these discussions...do it. Otherwise you give every appearance that you're a complete idiot who's too stupid to figure it out.

Irony

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Some self reflection would have been useful before posting this ^

You're right. And I've been thinking about this for quite a while actually...that being I'm an idiot for taking the time to post in this cesspool. It's quite apparent that you and your ilk really don't care to hear from anyone who doesn't share your perspective.

That said, there are definitely some liberals here that I highly respect as being highly intelligent, reasonable and are what I would call 'honest brokers'. But unfortunately I find that the overwhelming majority here to be political hacks (like brycejones, ivwshane, etc etc) who only lash out with incessant personal insults never making any attempt to engage in honest discussion...I can only conclude that they're intellectually or emotionally incapable of doing anything else. And this endless deluge of mindless crap here is starting to get to me. Hell, someone actually suggested that I kill myself a couple days ago. WTF is that?

Anyway, the incessant hate is getting way out of hand and I'm going to take a break from this hell hole for a while.

Good luck, have fun...and long live the bubble!

 

[Jhhnn]

Chuck Schumer didn't help with his interview with Maddow when he agreed with her that Dems should oppose all of Trumps SCOTUS picks for the duration of Trump's tenure. At that point the Reps were told that the Nuke was the only practical way the vacant seat would be filled and lets face it there is no such thing as a candidate acceptable to both sides.

It is what it is.

I don't think Dems would oppose Gorsuch nearly as much if the Old Turtle hadn't pulled a complete sleaze with Garland. He didn't just talk trash, he took partisanship to a new level of ugly & revealed complete disrespect for Garland, the institution of the SCOTUS & the obligations of the Senate. The whole fracas isn't really about Gorsuch but rather the astounding partisan hypocrisy of Repubs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think Dems would oppose Gorsuch nearly as much if the Old Turtle hadn't pulled a complete sleaze with Garland. He didn't just talk trash, he took partisanship to a new level of ugly & revealed complete disrespect for Garland, the institution of the SCOTUS & the obligations of the Senate. The whole fracas isn't really about Gorsuch but rather the astounding partisan hypocrisy of Repubs.

There's so much crap in this that I doubt anything abut any appointments are going the normal route anymore on either side. As I said before, this is the new normal.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Chuck Schumer didn't help with his interview with Maddow when he agreed with her that Dems should oppose all of Trumps SCOTUS picks for the duration of Trump's tenure. At that point the Reps were told that the Nuke was the only practical way the vacant seat would be filled and lets face it there is no such thing as a candidate acceptable to both sides.

It is what it is.

It is what it has been since the Democrats made "Bork" into a new word. This is all just the fallout of their behavior.

 

[dank69]

It is what it has been since the Democrats made "Bork" into a new word. This is all just the fallout of their behavior.

It's funny because 6 Republicans voted against Bork but it's all Democrats' fault.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's funny because 6 Republicans voted against Bork but it's all Democrats' fault.

Never mind, of course, that Dems have confirmed 6 Repub nominees since Bork, some serious stinkers among them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

[ivwshane]

You're right. And I've been thinking about this for quite a while actually...that being I'm an idiot for taking the time to post in this cesspool. It's quite apparent that you and your ilk really don't care to hear from anyone who doesn't share your perspective.

That said, there are definitely some liberals here that I highly respect as being highly intelligent, reasonable and are what I would call 'honest brokers'. But unfortunately I find that the overwhelming majority here to be political hacks (like brycejones, ivwshane, etc etc) who only lash out with incessant personal insults never making any attempt to engage in honest discussion...I can only conclude that they're intellectually or emotionally incapable of doing anything else. And this endless deluge of mindless crap here is starting to get to me. Hell, someone actually suggested that I kill myself a couple days ago. WTF is that?

Anyway, the incessant hate is getting way out of hand and I'm going to take a break from this hell hole for a while.

Good luck, have fun...and long live the bubble!

Lol! DSF does what dsf does best, takes his ball and goes home...until he comes back when he thinks everyone forgotten the last time he did the same thing. Good riddens!


Some self reflection would do you some good dsf, unfortunately it looks like you aren't done projecting.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think Dems would oppose Gorsuch nearly as much if the Old Turtle hadn't pulled a complete sleaze with Garland. He didn't just talk trash, he took partisanship to a new level of ugly & revealed complete disrespect for Garland, the institution of the SCOTUS & the obligations of the Senate. The whole fracas isn't really about Gorsuch but rather the astounding partisan hypocrisy of Repubs.

Had the repubs actually held a hearing for garland I would have expected the dems to do the same.

 

[Jhhnn]

Had the repubs actually held a hearing for garland I would have expected the dems to do the same.

Had Repubs given Garland a hearing they'd have found no grounds to deny his confirmation. It wasn't about Garland or fulfilling the obligations of the Senate but about screwing Obama, one last time.

 

[sportage]

Look....
This country needs safe abortion because republican 13 year old girls get PG too and no republican wants their sweet little future lawyer or doctor to end up flipping burgers at Mc Donald's just because she had to give up college for a baby carriage, not to mention the family disgrace from it all.

And a nation without affordable healthcare is not a nation at all.
If republicans had it their way, and I really do not understand this, the full cost of medical care would fall completely on the shoulders of the patient. No assistance at all including no employer base system.
And no such thing as calling 911. Forget 911.
People would literally die in the streets, if the republican Freedom caucus had their way.
And every medical emergency would absolutely lead to personal bankruptcy.

A nation needs clean air and clean rivers.
And food that will not kill you from toxins.

All of that will be no more now that republicans have succeeded in robbing a US Supreme court seat out from under our very noses.
Say good bye to clean air, safe abortion, trusted foods, affordable healthcare in any form, and say goodbye to 911.
Beginning Monday with the swearing in of Gorsuch, if you are in the streets and near death your only hope will be someone clubbing you over the head with a hammer to put you out of your misery.

This is the world Paul Ryan envisioned.
Sold their souls to gain.
And now they can have that. They can have it all exactly as they planned by taking an axe to senate rules and stealing a US Supreme court seat. Just as Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks and shot innocent people, the US Supreme court is about to become that death panel everyone so feared.

There is no turning back now people.....
Enjoy this president you so desperately wanted.

 

[nickqt]

Democrats started this unrelenting partisan bullshit in regard to judicial appointments in 2003. Yes, context is important.

Sure the fuck is.

It started before 2003, champ.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[werepossum]

Schumer doesn't have an iron grip on the D senators. 3 of them voted for cloture on an extremist like Gorsuch, I don't see how you can argue that a more centrist candidate couldn't have gotten 60 votes.

The Republicans stole the seat and then rammed an extremist through by arguing - without evidence - that the Democrats would do what only they themselves had already done.

The good news is that, thanks to Obama and the Dems, your health insurance has to cover the extensive mental illness therapy you need to recover from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[theeedude]

The good news is that, thanks to Obama and the Dems, your health insurance has to cover the extensive mental illness therapy you need to recover from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Also thanks to the fact that the entire intellectual might of the Republican party can't come up with anything better in 7 years

 

[werepossum]

I find it interesting that it took some time of constant blocking and obstruction from the GoP for all over the place for the Dems to make even a watered down version of this move. The very instant the Dems try to fillibuster once when the tables are turned and the GoP immediately takes it to a greater extreme than the Dems ever did.

Um, no. The Democrats began wholesale political filibusters on Bush II's nominees. They then abolished the filibuster on all nominations short of SCOTUS when they had the Senate to get through Obama's nominations when the Pubbies doubled down. Remember, when they had the Senate and the White House, they did not have the opportunity to rush through a SCOTUS justice. The Pubbies do, so once again they have extended a Democrat precedent.

It's important to remember that such well-known unabashedly liberal lions as Stevens (confirmed 98-0) and Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3) enjoyed full Republican support based on their qualification, even though their judicial philosophy and political bents were anathema to those same Republicans. Even Kagan, with zero judicial experience and an extensive background in liberal activism and Democrat politics, and "wise superior decisions Latina" Sotomayor were confirmed with significant Republican support. (Seven of thirty-one for Kagan and nine of forty for Sotomayor.) Yet since Reagan, Democrat Senate policy has been that any Republican nominee is automatically an extremist. Alito received only four Democrat votes and Thomas none, despite both being well-qualified and no more conservative than Stevens, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor are liberal. Finally, the GOP has begun matching them in political activism.

I won't claim it's a good thing because it isn't, but the Pubbies are following the Dems' lead here.

 

[werepossum]

Also thanks to the fact that the entire intellectual might of the Republican party can't come up with anything better in 7 years

lol +1

Soon to be 11, unfortunately for those of us whose health insurance has become "send us lots of money and pay your own damned bills."

 

[werepossum]

Lol, speaking of misleading and dishonest, let's talk about the highlighted section. From the exact report you pulled that chart from:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...minations-and-confirmations-fact-and-fiction/

The article you cited explicitly told you that the comparison you just tried to make was wrong but you did it anyway. Either you didn't read the article and just pulled the first thing that you thought supported your point (most likely) or you're yet again proving yourself to be a liar. All that aside, nice attempt to shift the goalposts from 'DEMOCRATS ABUSED THE FILIBUSTER!' to something else once you realized the facts didn't support your bullshit.

Wait - we shouldn't compare time to confirmation because Democrats were taking three to five years?

That first line of your quote says it all - it isn't profitable to the far left represented by the Brookings Institute to compare processing times for Bush and Obama nominees.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think Dems would oppose Gorsuch nearly as much if the Old Turtle hadn't pulled a complete sleaze with Garland. He didn't just talk trash, he took partisanship to a new level of ugly & revealed complete disrespect for Garland, the institution of the SCOTUS & the obligations of the Senate. The whole fracas isn't really about Gorsuch but rather the astounding partisan hypocrisy of Repubs.

With this I completely agree. Just as I oppose the filibuster on confirmation hearings and budget votes, we need hard requirements on time for vetting, committee, debate and votes. There is absolutely no justification for refusing to hold a vote on Garland. Every nominee deserves thorough investigation, a fair hearing, and an up or down vote. For a nominee with a discoverable record, this should not take more than six to nine months.

 

[theeedude]

lol +1

Soon to be 11, unfortunately for those of us whose health insurance has become "send us lots of money and pay your own damned bills."

That's actually what insurance should be, if you believe in market based cost control. Cover only catastrophic losses, so consumers have skin in the game. I bet you think a lot more about health costs than if you just had a co-pay. We have a choice of regular PPO with co-pay vs high deductible plan with HSA at work, which is cheaper regardless of your spend once you factor in tax savings and lower premiums, so we chose that. But even knowing that we have extra money to spend on deductibles, we still watch every penny of that spending.

 

[Jhhnn]

Um, no. The Democrats began wholesale political filibusters on Bush II's nominees. They then abolished the filibuster on all nominations short of SCOTUS when they had the Senate to get through Obama's nominations when the Pubbies doubled down. Remember, when they had the Senate and the White House, they did not have the opportunity to rush through a SCOTUS justice. The Pubbies do, so once again they have extended a Democrat precedent.

It's important to remember that such well-known unabashedly liberal lions as Stevens (confirmed 98-0) and Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3) enjoyed full Republican support based on their qualification, even though their judicial philosophy and political bents were anathema to those same Republicans. Even Kagan, with zero judicial experience and an extensive background in liberal activism and Democrat politics, and "wise superior decisions Latina" Sotomayor were confirmed with significant Republican support. (Seven of thirty-one for Kagan and nine of forty for Sotomayor.) Yet since Reagan, Democrat Senate policy has been that any Republican nominee is automatically an extremist. Alito received only four Democrat votes and Thomas none, despite both being well-qualified and no more conservative than Stevens, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor are liberal. Finally, the GOP has begun matching them in political activism.

I won't claim it's a good thing because it isn't, but the Pubbies are following the Dems' lead here.

Bullshit characterization seems to be your forte. Dems had the ability to either deny or filibuster every single Repub nomination from Bork forward but never did until now. OTOH, the Repubs seized the first opportunity they had in modern history to snub a Democratic president's nominee as they did with Garland, then add insult to injury with the nuclear option & Gorsuch.

 

[lopri]

Bork was such an unacceptable nominee even to some of the Republicans who were nonetheless willing to vote for him out of party loyalty. He lost their votes after the hearing. Furthermore, the most influential line of questioning during the confirmation hearing was conducted by then-Republican Senator Arlen Specter. The Senators would have voted for an ideological nominee, but not for a monster. Those who now use his confirmation battle as a political weapon are either 1) unaware of who Robert Bork was, or 2) simply being a partisan tool. His later work after the failed SCOTUS bid totally vindicated Senator Kennedy's famous speech.

To think even a nominee like Bork was granted hearing and floor vote yet Merrick Garland was not even considered is nothing short of insulting.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait - we shouldn't compare time to confirmation because Democrats were taking three to five years?

That first line of your quote says it all - it isn't profitable to the far left represented by the Brookings Institute to compare processing times for Bush and Obama nominees.

First, the Brookings Institute is now 'far left'? lol. As always, thanks for showing just how extreme to the right your own views are. If you're so far off the deep end that Brookings looks like the far left that's your problem, not theirs.

Second, even if they were in this thread it doesn't matter. Doc Savage Fan clearly thought they were a good enough source but his own cited piece contradicted him. You can't cite a source to make point X when the source you're citing explicitly says 'don't use me to make point X'.

Duh.

 

[bshole]

So the Republicans went nuclear to get their Supreme Court Justice in. The Democrats are vowing to bring back the filibuster when they get the power back. Apparently they enjoy Republicans blocking Democratic nominees.

One question: are these people barking mad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFYIuvuX5cI

 

[theeedude]

So the Republicans went nuclear to get their Supreme Court Justice in. The Democrats are vowing to bring back the filibuster when they get the power back. Apparently they enjoy Republicans blocking Democratic nominees.

One question: are these people barking mad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFYIuvuX5cI

Yeah that won't fly with the base.

 

[werepossum]

First, the Brookings Institute is now 'far left'? lol. As always, thanks for showing just how extreme to the right your own views are. If you're so far off the deep end that Brookings looks like the far left that's your problem, not theirs.

Second, even if they were in this thread it doesn't matter. Doc Savage Fan clearly thought they were a good enough source but his own cited piece contradicted him. You can't cite a source to make point X when the source you're citing explicitly says 'don't use me to make point X'.

Duh.

If by "now" you mean "always", then yes, the Brookings Institute is "now" far left.