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
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    Roberts sided with Texas last year in that abortion case. You have more faith in him than is warranted.
    If 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.
    Originally posted by BobbyBrady
    Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
      What 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 day when something like this would have passed you wouldn't have needed them to begin with.
      Originally posted by BobbyBrady
      Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

      Comment


      • #78
        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


        • #79
          Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

          Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
          What 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?
          I don't think we should require a supermajority for appointments.

          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


          • #80
            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


            • #81
              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
              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.
              What does that say about the other party?
              Originally posted by BobbyBrady
              Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                What does that say about the other party?
                No idea. I do know what it says about humanity though.
                **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


                • #83
                  Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                  Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                  If 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.
                  Have you read that whole opinion? What do you mean by "strictly based on the legality?"

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                    If 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.
                    Of course you think he was. Now, as burd asked, care to explain what you mean by "strictly based on the legality"?
                    Last edited by unofan; 02-01-2017, 01:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                      Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                      What does that say about the other party?
                      That nobody ever went broke underestimating the American public?

                      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


                      • #86
                        Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                        Originally posted by burd View Post
                        Have you read that whole opinion? What do you mean by "strictly based on the legality?"
                        He 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!"
                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by burd View Post
                          Have you read that whole opinion? What do you mean by "strictly based on the legality?"
                          I 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.
                          Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                          Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            He 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!"
                            Except I'm pro-choice and don't have strong feelings either way.
                            Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                            Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                              The Texas legislature has the right to make laws, including those that fall under quality of medical care, which this does.
                              Nope. This was transparently a law designed to obstruct women from exercising a right guaranteed under the Constitution. The Texas legislature has no right to do so.

                              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


                              • #90
                                Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                                I 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.
                                If you have no time to read I have no time to explain it to me. Suffice to say the poor were trampled on in that ruling in a big way.
                                **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

                                Working...
                                X