Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

[interchange]

The first case was underhanded bullshit. The senate should have simply voted against Obamas appointment rather than play foolish games. Regardless, it was legal. This time there isn't anything the least bit shady going on. A justice passed away, Trump gets to appoint a new one, the senate votes yes or no. End of story. Pretending that there is something nefarious going on is absurd. Pretending that RBG has some right to determine who or when her replacement is seated is even more absurd.

Oh it's not illegal. But it is very nefarious. It is another step in the undoing of our system of government. There is only so far these things can go before the house of cards collapses.

 

[interchange]

If anyone thought Romney was a savor because he did what he did during impeachment, you clearly do not know his “conservative” creed. He was a oligarch who ran for President. He was jerb creatur. He loves an underpaid work force who is financially strapped so he can acquire the company, take the employee pension for himself and keep them destitute. To think he would not fall in line with this nomination was foolish. Like I said on another thread, I am surprised Alito and Thomas have not resigned to get two more long-term conservatives on the court.

Yep this has nothing to do with Trump. Republicans don't want Trump. They want to fulfill their mission to take over the judiciary. Trump is their useful idiot.

Unfortunately, I don't think they realize that there may soon not be an America left to control.

 

[sportage]

It was silly to assume that any republican would resist Trump. Remember, it’s a cult.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well, here is the first salvo. Thought there was basically nothing that could be done at the Senate level. It seems there's a little super glue to put in the locks.

Schumer invokes "two-hour rule" to block Senate committee hearings

 

[blackangst1]

Yep this has nothing to do with Trump. Republicans don't want Trump. They want to fulfill their mission to take over the judiciary. Trump is their useful idiot.

Unfortunately, I don't think they realize that there may soon not be an America left to control.

And Democrats dont?

lololololol

 

[Jhhnn]

The first case was underhanded bullshit. The senate should have simply voted against Obamas appointment rather than play foolish games. Regardless, it was legal. This time there isn't anything the least bit shady going on. A justice passed away, Trump gets to appoint a new one, the senate votes yes or no. End of story. Pretending that there is something nefarious going on is absurd. Pretending that RBG has some right to determine who or when her replacement is seated is even more absurd.

So dishonest. Had McConnell allowed his caucus to vote their consciences Garland very likely would have been confirmed. That's why McConnell wouldn't give him a hearing. And if "Let the people decide" was right in 2016 then it's right today. They're inseparable. Well, if McConnell had anything vaguely resembling integrity. He does not, and neither does Trump.

 

[Jhhnn]

And Democrats dont?

lololololol

We haven't resorted to skullduggery to achieve it, unlike McConnell.

 

[blackangst1]

We haven't resorted to skullduggery to achieve it, unlike McConnell.

lol

 

[interchange]

And Democrats dont?

lololololol

Please show me where I said anything about Democrats.

lol

I eagerly anticipate your presentation of similar tactics employed by Democrats.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So are "the people" the electorate? If so, then the Senate should wait for a new president as in 2016.
If "the people" are represented by the current president, then Garland should have been confirmed in 2016.
You can't say it belonged to the people in both 2016 and 2020 and have two different outcomes

What Mitch did broke tradition but was unfortunately Constitutionally legal and also an unnecessary escalation of the increasingly partisan fighting and maneuvering over judicial appointments. Packing the courts would simply be another legal but partisan self serving escalation.

 

[blackangst1]

Please show me where I said anything about Democrats.

You didnt. You implied Dems dont do the same thing.

I eagerly anticipate your presentation of similar tactics employed by Democrats.

How about when Democrats used the filibuster to attempt blocking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

 

[nickqt]

You didnt. You implied Dems dont do the same thing.




How about when Democrats used the filibuster to attempt blocking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Southern Conservatives voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Everyone else was in favor of it, including the Southern Democratic President who signed it.

Have any more easy-to-answer shit-tier questions you can use as an attempt to move the goalposts?

 

[blackangst1]

Southern Conservatives voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Everyone else was in favor of it, including the Southern Democratic President who signed it.

Have any more easy-to-answer shit-tier questions you can use as an attempt to move the goalposts?

What party filibustered the bill?

 

[DaaQ]

You didnt. You implied Dems dont do the same thing.




How about when Democrats used the filibuster to attempt blocking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

John M. Read

Although his family had been Federalists, he became an ardent supporter of the Free Soil wing of the Democratic Party.
From 1837 to 1841, Read was the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 1845, President John Tyler nominated him to the Supreme Court of the United States; but, his earlier stance against the expansion of slavery into the territories caused the southern Democratic Senators to oppose his nomination and it was withdrawn.

Point is the Democrats of that time are not comparable to the Democrats of today, Just as the GOP of the 80s no longer represent the GOP of today.

Context matters.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Well then either Scalia’s seat was stolen or RBG’s seat will be stolen. Can’t have it both ways.

Not at all, Scalia's seat was filled a bit late is all. The Republicans will make up for it by filling Ruthie's seat quickly.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

We haven't resorted to skullduggery to achieve it, unlike McConnell.

Bullshit

 

[soulcougher73]

You didnt. You implied Dems dont do the same thing.




How about when Democrats used the filibuster to attempt blocking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

lol. not this shit again, do they ever learn or retain information?

 

[blackangst1]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States



Point is the Democrats of that time are not comparable to the Democrats of today, Just as the GOP of the 80s no longer represent the GOP of today.

Context matters.

Oh THAT argument. LOL

 

[nickqt]

What party filibustered the bill?

So you are using the dumbest fucking method you possibly can to move the goalposts.

Southern Conservatives voted against the bill. I already told you.

You want to lock Strom Thurmond in as a Democrat just because that's the party he was a member in 1964? How about Rick Perry, clearly he's a Democrat today because he was in 1980.

You're a joke, and your attempt to move the goalposts is fucking hilariously bad.

 

[soulcougher73]

Not at all, Scalia's seat was filled a bit late is all. The Republicans will make up for it by filling Ruthie's seat quickly.

lol fuck off idiot

 

[blackangst1]

lol. not this shit again, do they ever learn or retain information?

Apparently you dont

 

[blackangst1]

So you are using the dumbest fucking method you possibly can to move the goalposts.

Southern Conservatives voted against the bill. I already told you.

You want to lock Strom Thurmond in as a Democrat just because that's the party he was a member in 1964? How about Rick Perry, clearly he's a Democrat today because he was in 1980.

You're a joke, and your attempt to move the goalposts is fucking hilariously bad.

But you cant name the party? Ill do it for you. Democrats.

 

[cytg111]

lol. not this shit again, do they ever learn or retain information?

Thats a negative on the learn and retain sir.

 

[DaaQ]

Oh THAT argument. LOL

Cherry picking I see, I mean since you're all pragmatic and stuff, that link might actually give you more bull shit to revise.

 

[blackangst1]

Cherry picking I see, I mean since you're all pragmatic and stuff, that link might actually give you more bull shit to revise.

So when did Democrats go from conservative to liberal, and vice versa for Republicans?