Trump's SCOTUS
-
- Posts: 12950
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:27 pm
- Location: The Great Place
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
-
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:39 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Do you like this pick?Fife wrote:THE GOOD:
THE BAD:
THE UGLY:
Account abandoned.
-
- Posts: 28258
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Yep, both parties are playing politics on this issue. The Dems are going to lose, it's simply numbers. The GOP is in the drivers seat all across the country. The country has revolted against the BHO/Dem vision of the future.Kath wrote:Yes. Refusing to do the job is different from voting no. This isn't rocket science. Did the Senate go through confirmation hearings during Obama's last year? No, they did not. That's refusing to do the job.Speaker to Animals wrote:
That's what democrats were chanting last year.
PLATA O PLOMO
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
-
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:39 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Carlus, you need 60 senators to confirm SCOTUS.C-Mag wrote:Yep, both parties are playing politics on this issue. The Dems are going to lose, it's simply numbers. The GOP is in the drivers seat all across the country. The country has revolted against the BHO/Dem vision of the future.Kath wrote:Yes. Refusing to do the job is different from voting no. This isn't rocket science. Did the Senate go through confirmation hearings during Obama's last year? No, they did not. That's refusing to do the job.Speaker to Animals wrote:
That's what democrats were chanting last year.
Account abandoned.
-
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:56 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Robert Bork or GTFO.
Did we vote for Trump or some cucked Republican? Elections have consequences, motherfuckers!
Did we vote for Trump or some cucked Republican? Elections have consequences, motherfuckers!
Still got my foreskin thanks for asking. - Montegriffo.
-
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:39 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Not sure what you mean. I wasn't complaining about the nominee; I don't know anything except what Fife posted, so I don't have an opinion yet. He may be fabulous.
Stating that you need 60 votes is not controversial. It's just an actual fact; not the alternative kind. They'll need some Ds to agree with the pick. The D's don't have to side with the R's because the Rs control the Senate. That's not how it works. You don't know this?
Stating that you need 60 votes is not controversial. It's just an actual fact; not the alternative kind. They'll need some Ds to agree with the pick. The D's don't have to side with the R's because the Rs control the Senate. That's not how it works. You don't know this?
Account abandoned.
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Kath wrote:Do you like this pick?Fife wrote:THE GOOD:
THE BAD:
THE UGLY:
Of the three on the official/unofficial short list, I'll take Gorsuch all day long over the two Rehnquist Jrs.
I haven't read many of Gorsuch's opinions, but from what I have, he looks to be a good legal writer. No Fat Tony, but who is? I like his philosophy OK, and he is willing to hold the police and prosecutors to the letter of the law as actually written by the legislatures.
I've got quite a few potential candidates I would like better, but Gorsuch would not be bad, IMNSHO.
-
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:39 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
As long as he's not a facsist police-state lover, I'm probably fine. I like watching these hearings.... part serious, part comedy. Clarence was fun.
Account abandoned.
-
- Posts: 28258
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Are you intimating there is no way a Democrat will vote for a Trump nomination to the Supreme Court ?Kath wrote:Carlus, you need 60 senators to confirm SCOTUS.C-Mag wrote:Yep, both parties are playing politics on this issue. The Dems are going to lose, it's simply numbers. The GOP is in the drivers seat all across the country. The country has revolted against the BHO/Dem vision of the future.Kath wrote: Yes. Refusing to do the job is different from voting no. This isn't rocket science. Did the Senate go through confirmation hearings during Obama's last year? No, they did not. That's refusing to do the job.
I know, 60 votes.
Again, It's all about numbers. The GOP was able to hold the replacement for Scalia after he died of 'natural causes'. simply because the GOP had the numbers. The GOP will win this, they will get their 60 votes.
PLATA O PLOMO
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
-
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:39 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Nope. I didn't say that. I'm pointing out that the SCOTUS pick would be far more loony if the R team had 60 Senators. He has to have a semi-sane pick if he's going to get to 60.C-Mag wrote:
Are you intimating there is no way a Democrat will vote for a Trump nomination to the Supreme Court ?
I know, 60 votes.
Again, It's all about numbers. The GOP was able to hold the replacement for Scalia after he died of 'natural causes'. simply because the GOP had the numbers. The GOP will win this, they will get their 60 votes.
Account abandoned.