User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » SCOTUS Credibility Watch Page 1 ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9, Prev Next  
HCH
All American
3005 Posts
user info
edit post

Again, I think the republicans should have brought Garland to a hearing. Especially since they held the majority. But that in no way is a precedent for 4 years of obstruction.

2/1/2017 3:56:39 PM

ElGimpy
All American
2611 Posts
user info
edit post

I would argue it might be smarter to vote and keep the filibuster on the table for a later date. GOP won't think twice about getting rid of it right now, but if this comes up again in 2 years and they don't know who's going to win the next election they might think twice before going down that road.

2/1/2017 3:57:42 PM

dtownral
All American
19521 Posts
user info
edit post

what about the rest of your party's tenure, they had 8 years of obstructing everything they could. they fucking shut down the government for fucks sake.

2/1/2017 3:57:47 PM

HCH
All American
3005 Posts
user info
edit post

Can't get past the five year old child's argument, can you. It doesn't even relate to what we are discussing.

Reading some of the D.'s reactions to Gorsuch, I am not sure why they WOULDN"T want to hold a hearing and bring this to light:

Quote :
""If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine or in any other way, interact with the courts — this is a very bad decision," "
Nancy Pelosi. Seems like a logical response and in no way an overreaction.

2/1/2017 4:04:50 PM

dtownral
All American
19521 Posts
user info
edit post

i'm not making any argument, i'm wanting you to acknowledge that your party has been childish for the past 8 years

and our country is worse off because of it

2/1/2017 4:05:39 PM

HCH
All American
3005 Posts
user info
edit post

I 100% agree that politicians are childish. This is not confined to one side of the isle.

But saying, they did something wrong, so we can too, is an immature argument that you are making.

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 4:09 PM. Reason : 1]

2/1/2017 4:08:50 PM

dtownral
All American
19521 Posts
user info
edit post

now that you agree that your party has been childish obstructionists, hopefully you will recognize the compromises by the democratic party

it is not equal

2/1/2017 4:10:24 PM

AndyMac
All American
31386 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ You do realize that if one side is willing to compromise and the other side isn't, the side that doesn't compromise will eventually get everything they want.

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 4:36 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2017 4:36:16 PM

NeuseRvrRat
pwease no steppy
33437 Posts
user info
edit post

I hope the process gets drug out as long as possible.

2/1/2017 4:48:59 PM

kdogg(c)
All American
3324 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm with Judge Napolitano.

Also, you realize POTUS will probably be nominating two more justices after Gorsuch, right?

2/1/2017 5:04:43 PM

Exiled
Eyes up here ^^
5106 Posts
user info
edit post

POTUS nominates every judge.

2/1/2017 5:20:14 PM

kdogg(c)
All American
3324 Posts
user info
edit post

Got me there.

Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer are pre-historic and may not last eight, let alone four, years.

So that's Sotomayor, and Kagan with Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, with three more conservatives.

6/7 to 3/2 in most cases.

Or if Democrats block the others (25 D's up in 2018 vs 8 R's, with 10 D's from states Trump won), he'll still have at least a 4-2 majority.

Either way, Dems are realizing they should save their SUPER CRAZY RAGE and irrationality for then.

2/1/2017 7:05:18 PM

dtownral
All American
19521 Posts
user info
edit post

No worries, trump will be impeached well before then

2/1/2017 7:16:30 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
46817 Posts
user info
edit post

Love how this guy thinks Trump is gonna last 8 years. So cute.

2/1/2017 7:20:49 PM

dtownral
All American
19521 Posts
user info
edit post

Lol, this guy literally lead a fascist club

[Edited on February 2, 2017 at 6:59 AM. Reason : ac]

2/2/2017 6:59:11 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
4887 Posts
user info
edit post

Can't believe I'm gonna be using a Newsweek opinion piece as a manifesto in the coming weeks

http://www.newsweek.com/why-neil-gorsuch-must-not-be-confirmed-supreme-court-eichenwald-551429

2/2/2017 7:15:08 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
4887 Posts
user info
edit post

Gorsuch is pro-life and wrote a book about how assisted suicide should be criminal.

But he ?strongly? Supports the death penalty?
Quote :
"Just a few months ago, Gorsuch — now President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court — ruled against the estate of a man who was executed in one of the worst botched lethal injections in US history. Gorsuch and two other judges ruled that it was an “innocent misadventure” or an “isolated mishap,” but not cruel and unusual punishment.
In that case, Clayton Lockett’s estate sued the state of Oklahoma for constitutional violations in his 43-minute execution. Lockett was given a controversial sedative called midazolam, then two drugs that cause immense pain: a paralytic and a drug to stop the heart.

After he was injected with the drugs, Lockett raised himself on the gurney and said, “Shit is fucking with me.” Executioners had thought he was already dead.

Members of the state’s execution team examined his IV, which was set up near his groin and covered by a blanket. When they moved the blanket, they discovered the IV had infiltrated, creating swelling the size of between a golf ball and a tennis ball. The drugs weren’t going into his veins like they were supposed to.

The prison warden called it a “bloody mess.” The state attempted to call off the execution 30 minutes in, but Lockett died anyway 10 minutes later.
"



Note: Gorsuch was also instrumental in allowing midazolam to be used in executions (after several previous botched executions)

I'm not saying this is reason enough to disqualify him from the Supreme Court, but Jesus Christ, how does someone parse those positions?

2/2/2017 6:12:27 PM

Shrike
All American
8986 Posts
user info
edit post

His non-legal writings and arguments are also filled with profoundly unintelligent opinions, another trait he shares with Scalia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuch-wrote-the-book-on-assisted-suicide-heres-what-he-said/?utm_term=.ebce807103d8

Quote :
"Gorsuch rejected that view, writing it would “tend toward, if not require, the legalization not only of assisted suicide and euthanasia, but of any act of consensual homicide.” Posner’s position, he writes, would allow “sadomasochist killings” and “mass suicide pacts,” as well as duels, illicit drug use, organ sales and the “sale of one’s own life.”"


We can't legalize assisted suicide because of ....... mass suicide pacts? Brilliant!

2/2/2017 6:22:46 PM

kdogg(c)
All American
3324 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Lol, this guy literally lead a fascist club"


Man you swallowed that story like CNN swallowed Hillary's schlong.

2/2/2017 7:42:50 PM

dtownral
All American
19521 Posts
user info
edit post

#hottakealert

2/3/2017 6:58:21 AM

AndyMac
All American
31386 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ Don't you have some pizza joints to investigate?

2/4/2017 4:24:00 PM

JCE2011
All American
5146 Posts
user info
edit post

I like how the leftist media will reference the Comet Ping Pong hoax...

Yet they won't touch John "Spirit Cooking" Podesta with a 5 foot pole.

2/4/2017 10:14:31 PM

Cabbage
All American
567 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marina-abramovic-donald-trump_us_581cbdb5e4b0aac62483e73e

2/4/2017 11:24:58 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
4887 Posts
user info
edit post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-says-trumps-attacks-on-judiciary-are-demoralizing/2017/02/08/64e03fe2-ee3f-11e6-9662-6eedf1627882_story.html

Hmmmmmm...........

This could be nothing or it could be the beginning of .......

If he makes it to the actual confirmation hearings, every democrat is going to be trying to get him on record shitting on Trump. I don't see how Trump won't be able to respond. Popcorn GIFs incoming?

2/8/2017 6:52:24 PM

MONGO
Veteran
323 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/trump-hits-blumenthal-for-gorsuch-comment-claims-vietnam-lie.html

Quote :
"The White House told Fox News that, while Gorsuch had indeed used the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" during his meeting with Blumenthal, he was not specifically talking about Trump's public spat with the federal judge, and was instead speaking in generalities about attacks on the judiciary. "


Clearly nothing and TOTALLY not related to the immigration ban. FAKE NEWS! SAD!

2/9/2017 8:46:04 AM

kdogg(c)
All American
3324 Posts
user info
edit post

Gorsuch is still going to be on the bench.

Kennedy and Ginsburg will retire.

McConnell will complete the removal of the filibuster that Harry Reid started.

Trump will put two more conservatives on the bench.

Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Conservative1, Conservative2.

Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.

Bye bye liberal agenda!

2/9/2017 12:32:10 PM

dtownral
All American
19521 Posts
user info
edit post

2/9/2017 1:03:37 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
4887 Posts
user info
edit post

^too perfect lol

2/9/2017 1:22:36 PM

kdogg(c)
All American
3324 Posts
user info
edit post

Supreme Court is going to get that case and laugh at those judges and do what they do 80% of the time with the Ninth Circus: Overturn and rule that the President actually does have the Constitutional and legal authority to decide immigration matters for the US.

Thanks for playing.

2/10/2017 6:11:21 PM

moron
All American
29971 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Minutes after one White House official said the Trump administration would not appeal a 9th Circuit ruling upholding a temporary stay of the travel ban, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said the White House is “reviewing all of our options in the court system,” including possibly going to the Supreme Court."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-considers-rewriting-trumps-immigration-order/2017/02/10/ddcf5a6a-efb5-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.14c0622363b0

They weren't going to appeal to SC which is what legal experts are saying they should do (not appeal), but looks like they're still debating internally.

2/10/2017 6:32:33 PM

kdogg(c)
All American
3324 Posts
user info
edit post

He could sign another one and present it directly to the SC for a ruling.

2/10/2017 6:39:23 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
46817 Posts
user info
edit post

Is it embarrassing having to make excuses for these guys and their incompetence? I assume at one point you were a conservative and not a GOP hack so I'm curious when you made the change and what happened to you.

Like I voted for Obama but have rarely defended his foreign policy for instance. Surely you can't actually think Trump is moving conservatism forward.

2/10/2017 6:41:36 PM

bbehe
#TeamGyro
16586 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"He could sign another one and present it directly to the SC for a ruling.

"


I don't think that's how that works...

2/10/2017 7:04:45 PM

titans78
All American
3654 Posts
user info
edit post

^ yea it's not.

2/10/2017 9:58:07 PM

Kurtis636
All American
14983 Posts
user info
edit post

There's a pretty good chance they win in a SCOTUS appeal, the basis of the travel ban EO is consitutional. It was poorly worded and badly rolled out and there's a good chance that things like excluding green card holders would get ruled against, but ultimately the executive branch has broad discretion on immigration and border security.

I don't like it as a policy decision, it's hugely ineffective and unimportant from a security standpoint, but I suspect they'll win on appeal or re-draft it in a way that is much harder to challenge. I don't think it's surprising the 9th circuit decided to do an en banc hearing.

2/11/2017 4:26:24 PM

theDuke866
All American
51091 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^^ You're pretty much a Huntsman/Romney sort of Republican at heart, though, aren't you?

2/11/2017 6:47:26 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
32401 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ I'd gladly take that bet

2/11/2017 7:28:56 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51405 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Gorsuch is still going to be on the bench.

Kennedy and Ginsburg will retire.

McConnell will complete the removal of the filibuster that Harry Reid started.

Trump will put two more conservatives on the bench.

Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Conservative1, Conservative2.

Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.

Bye bye liberal agenda!"

Hey, dumbass, how will you like it when they remove the filibuster and there's a Dem senate and a Dem president? Pull your head of of your partisan ass and think for a minute.

^^^ I would agree with you, had he not specifically mentioned bans on Muslims during the campaign, much less his statements about Muslims and Christians while signing the order. Explicit statements of discriminatory intent usually get things struck down when there are 1st and 14th Amendment issues at play.

[Edited on February 12, 2017 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ]

2/12/2017 1:00:09 AM

kdogg(c)
All American
3324 Posts
user info
edit post

Dem senate? When is that going to happen? They have 25 seats in 2018 up, and 10 of those are in states Trump won bigly.

so if a D gets elected, it's just going to make the bipartisanship worse...so Thomas retires and the court is stuck at 8, but it's 6-2 constitutionalist to liberal

I can live with that.

2/12/2017 7:08:37 AM

Dentaldamn
All American
8964 Posts
user info
edit post

Pretty short sighted kdogg

2/12/2017 8:05:00 AM

Kurtis636
All American
14983 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I would agree with you, had he not specifically mentioned bans on Muslims during the campaign, much less his statements about Muslims and Christians while signing the order. Explicit statements of discriminatory intent usually get things struck down when there are 1st and 14th Amendment issues at play.
"


Yes, he certainly did that, and that was something the 9th leaned on, but they basically ignored the law and cited dissenting opinions from cases that went the opposite of the way the decided. They also just ignored 200+ years of case law and no one signed the opinion that came down. His words and comments carry much less weight than the actual wording of the EO.

I'm not a legal scholar, but most of the places that are usually right about this stuff (Ken White at Popehat, Dan Abrams of Lawnewz, etc.) don't think the 9th is correct on this one. Again, I think it's a shitty EO, but it's going to be hard to justify striking it down based on the years and years of precedent and the broad powers given to the executive.

2/12/2017 1:29:19 PM

kdogg(c)
All American
3324 Posts
user info
edit post

having a conservative court I think is the opposite of short-sighted.

congress could also change the law such that the court went down to 7 members

2/12/2017 2:30:17 PM

JCE2011
All American
5146 Posts
user info
edit post

It actually benefits Trump if the ban doesn't get through. He can now point at the left anytime there is an ISIS inspired shooting and blame them for the result.

2/12/2017 2:42:53 PM

AndyMac
All American
31386 Posts
user info
edit post

Trump will attempt to take credit for anything that does or doesn't happen and his pea brained supporters will probably eat it up.

Order overturned and an attack happens, he claims it's the fault of the court (he has already blamed them preemptively) even if the attacker is not an immigrant from one of the countries on the list.
Order passes and no attack that means his policy worked and should be made permanent/expanded.
Order passes and an attack happens it means we need even tougher laws, ban all Muslims, religious tests, etc.

The only thing he wouldn't try to capitalize on is if it's overturned and no attack happens. But if that were the case he would still use attacks that happen in Europe as proof we need the ban here.

[Edited on February 12, 2017 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2017 3:13:54 PM

Cabbage
All American
567 Posts
user info
edit post

^Another possibility is an attack is carried out by an American citizen and the attacker claims he was directly inspired by Trump's travel ban (because it separated him from his family, for example). I wonder how Trump would try to spin that.

2/12/2017 8:54:14 PM

aaronburro
Sup, B
51405 Posts
user info
edit post

^ "This is more proof that we need to vet people before we grant citizenship!"

2/12/2017 9:23:16 PM

bbehe
#TeamGyro
16586 Posts
user info
edit post

The most damaging thing to Trump would be if there is an attack by a Trump fanatic on a Judge, already the members of the 9th and other judges are getting death threats. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-attacks-judiciary-raise-safety-concerns-judges-45420719?cid=social_twitter_abcn

2/12/2017 9:34:16 PM

Fry
The Stubby
7640 Posts
user info
edit post

i hope this presidency cuts the power of EO/executive branch to push new rules and laws as a byproduct of all this insanity

2/12/2017 9:43:31 PM

NeuseRvrRat
pwease no steppy
33437 Posts
user info
edit post

^

eventually folks will realize that it's not democrat vs. republican, but people vs. the state. probably will be too late.

[Edited on February 12, 2017 at 9:45 PM. Reason : dfs]

2/12/2017 9:44:36 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
46817 Posts
user info
edit post

https://twitter.com/acosta/status/831974600934318151

Would be wrong to confirm a justice during a campaign. Let's let the people speak!

2/15/2017 6:51:02 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » SCOTUS Credibility Watch Page 1 ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.