Originally posted by unofan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by BobbyBrady
Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year
-
Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View PostWhat would be the impact if we changed "critical" appointments to the following:
--require 60 votes
--require a committee hearing within 30 days
--require full floor vote within 90 days
--remove the filibuster
Is something like this workable? Any other requirements?
Complete pipe dream?Originally posted by BobbyBrady
Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
you guys,
with the way things are going this could be the last year of Trump's presidency.
Precedent says we should leave it up to the next president to fill this vacancy.
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View PostWhat would be the impact if we changed "critical" appointments to the following:
--require 60 votes
--require a committee hearing within 30 days
--require full floor vote within 90 days
--remove the filibuster
Is something like this workable? Any other requirements?
Complete pipe dream?
The current problem with the government is gridlock. It operates in two different ways. Most obviously, nothing gets done. But just as importantly, candidates and sitting Members can propose stupid red meat stuff they know will never get past cloture. There is no penalty for doing this because the other party will rescue them by forcing amendments as a condition to reach cloture. Then the majority can run around telling its constituents it would have made guns mandatory in preschool and legalized the stoning of gays but the evil Democrats stopped them.
If the majority had the power to enact on a simple majority it would also have nowhere to hide. Most of the stupidity we see emanating from the GOP is them playing their slaves, er, voters. A 50+ rule would ensure they could no longer do that.
And given that we are a democratic republic, if the people want to live in a neofeudal conservative hellhole where rights are prorated by wealth (I mean, even more of one than they've already foisted on us), then their votes should matter. We can always, I dunno, get our butts to the polls to beat them. There are more of us. And, once we have 50+, our own legislators would then be bound to follow us or suffer.Last edited by Kepler; 02-01-2017, 01:26 PM.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
As long as one party is willing to burn the ****ing house down there's not a single thing anyone can do. Especially when people keep voting for that party over and over and over again.**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View PostAs long as one party is willing to burn the ****ing house down there's not a single thing anyone can do. Especially when people keep voting for that party over and over and over again.Originally posted by BobbyBrady
Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Originally posted by Drew S. View PostWhat does that say about the other party?**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Originally posted by Drew S. View PostIf you put personal feelings aside and look at it strictly based on the legality, he was on the right side. I understand why the court ruled how they did though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Drew S. View PostIf you put personal feelings aside and look at it strictly based on the legality, he was on the right side. I understand why the court ruled how they did though.Last edited by unofan; 02-01-2017, 01:36 PM.
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Originally posted by Drew S. View PostWhat does that say about the other party?
But you and Gorsuch are right. We need to convince people, not ramrod them, and we're paying the price now of not being capable of countering the GOP's mountain of bullsh-t.
Make no mistake, this is our fault. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and we have done nothing to break the stranglehold the GOP media misinformation machine has over the middle half of the nation.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Originally posted by burd View PostHave you read that whole opinion? What do you mean by "strictly based on the legality?"Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Originally posted by burd View PostHave you read that whole opinion? What do you mean by "strictly based on the legality?"
The Texas legislature has the right to make laws, including those that fall under quality of medical care, which this does. Does this law fall create a conflict with restricting abortion? You could make that argument based on some clinics closing, but it is flimsy at best.Originally posted by BobbyBrady
Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kepler View PostHe likes the outcome. That's the only "merit" the GOP cares about. Drew has already said on another topic "the end justifies the means." That's all you need to know about the current mentality of the right. "F-ck everything else; I'm gonna get my way!"Originally posted by BobbyBrady
Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Originally posted by Drew S. View PostThe Texas legislature has the right to make laws, including those that fall under quality of medical care, which this does.
Try to expand your horizons a little beyond RedState and Townhall. You might learn something.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Originally posted by Drew S. View PostI have not, it's over 100 pages and abortion isn't something I have a ton of interest in.
The Texas legislature has the right to make laws, including those that fall under quality of medical care, which this does. Does this law fall create a conflict with restricting abortion? You could make that argument based on some clinics closing, but it is flimsy at best.**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
Comment