Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Is bob dole even sentient anymore?

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Dole and Lott have a joint editorial in today's WaPo decrying the filibuster, and they somehow don't mention Garland once. Farkers.

Hate to see Dole covering for these stooges. Dole believed dumb things, but he wasn't evil.

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Hate to see Dole covering for these stooges. Dole believed dumb things, but he wasn't evil.

But he was as big a sellout as anyone. Remember when he tried to convince people smoking wasnt linked to cancer (cause Big Tobacco was a donor for his campaign)

Scooby,

We dont even need to get into what you posted...just remember that before Obama liked Garland his name was first brought up publicly by Orrin Hatch. The GOP loved Garland until Blacky McMuslimName nominated him. Then he wasnt fit for the position once he did.

I honestly think if Obama said "Republicans are the greatest men in the world" they would all quit the party and become Democrats. That is how stupid and ideological they are.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

He's confirmed.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The US Constitution is a living document that needs to be updated from time to time, due to technological change or a widespread change in what most people believe to be right and proper.

I don't think very many people would disagree with that statement.


A key question remains: how many people do we want to have the power to determine what those changes should be? A mere five people out of 235 million? or a larger number than that?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Some people might observe that the distribution of votes in the last election indicated that a majority of voters in 30 states decided that they want more than five people to make that determination for the rest of us.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Some people might observe that the distribution of votes in the last election indicated that a majority of voters in 30 states decided that they want more than five people to make that determination for the rest of us.

And some people might observe that despite these affectations you're just promoting your personal opinion with all the intellectual honesty of a Dartmouth Review editor at a Maureen Dowd poetry slam.

[Rover]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I know many will blame Harry Reid and the Democrats for this but read the following and tell me it's wrong before you do.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

And this, along with Merrick Garland are why we are here today.

This is correct. Had Senate Dems not take the action they did, it would have been 4 years of no judges being confirmed, and then the GOP + Trump would have changed the rules anyway once elected and filled all those seats with nutters.

But I keep coming back to it. Anybody who didn't vote Dem up and down the ballot because you thought there was no difference between the parties, do you really think Gorsuch would be on the SCOTUS if either Hillary had won or the Dems have won the Senate? Nothing like striking a blow against a corporate takeover of politics by.....letting the corporations get one of their own on the highest court in the land?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

This is correct. Had Senate Dems not take the action they did, it would have been 4 years of no judges being confirmed, and then the GOP + Trump would have changed the rules anyway once elected and filled all those seats with nutters.

But I keep coming back to it. Anybody who didn't vote Dem up and down the ballot because you thought there was no difference between the parties, do you really think Gorsuch would be on the SCOTUS if either Hillary had won or the Dems have won the Senate? Nothing like striking a blow against a corporate takeover of politics by.....letting the corporations get one of their own on the highest court in the land?

That appears to be the one thing we know for sure about Gorsuch. He loves Big Money and Big Business. Loves it.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I didn't vote a straight D ticket, but I came pretty dang close. My state Rep was the incumbent generic R, and I voted to leave him in because his D opponent was a retired PhD engineer with too much time and money to blow, and a lot of kooky, overthought ideas. I also voted for another country club R in one of the county positions.

[joecct]

This is correct. Had Senate Dems not take the action they did, it would have been 4 years of no judges being confirmed, and then the GOP + Trump would have changed the rules anyway once elected and filled all those seats with nutters.

But I keep coming back to it. Anybody who didn't vote Dem up and down the ballot because you thought there was no difference between the parties, do you really think Gorsuch would be on the SCOTUS if either Hillary had won or the Dems have won the Senate? Nothing like striking a blow against a corporate takeover of politics by.....letting the corporations get one of their own on the highest court in the land?

Geez Rover,

Of course not. If Harry was herding the Senate last year, Garland would have been seated after the nuclear option was invoked.

At some point We the People are going to say enough is enough and there will be hell to pay. Though I wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

At some point We the People are going to say enough is enough and there will be hell to pay. Though I wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime.

Congress reflects the people. The reason Congress is hyper-partisan now is because a non-trivial rump of the people has been trained by a media machine to be completely convinced in their view regardless of, even proudly in contradiction to, facts, and that anyone who doesn't share their view should be ground underfoot.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Geez Rover,

Of course not. If Harry was herding the Senate last year, Garland would have been seated after the nuclear option was invoked.

At some point We the People are going to say enough is enough and there will be hell to pay. Though I wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime.

You should work for Comedy Central.

[unofan]

Geez Rover,

Of course not. If Harry was herding the Senate last year, Garland would have been seated after the nuclear option was invoked.

At some point We the People are going to say enough is enough and there will be hell to pay. Though I wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime.

Of course not, considering you are part of the problem by constantly equating the two sides as equally responsible.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Geez Rover,

Of course not. If Harry was herding the Senate last year, Garland would have been seated after the nuclear option was invoked.

At some point We the People are going to say enough is enough and there will be hell to pay. Though I wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime.

They should have said it when the R's effed over Obama at every turn and Garland should have been the last straw.

[joecct]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Well we're finally back to IX Justices.