Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > General Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 03-20-2017, 06:18 PM   #1
KingOrfeo
Loves Spam
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 39,184
Gorsuch confirmation hearings

Gorsuch Blistered in the Senate: Democrat Offers 4 Reasons Why He Should Worry All of Us, Even Trump Voters.

Former Law Student: Gorsuch Told Class That Women 'Manipulate' Maternal Leave.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 06:20 PM   #2
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is online now
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 86,636
Oh
good
lord
Here we go again...
__________________
Jenny Jenny who can I run to? (8675309)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 06:21 PM   #3
SyKoKo
Loves Spam
 
SyKoKo is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,359
yawn

lets just stipulate

ALL R's HATE WOMEN AND BLACKS AND GAZE AND TRANZ

lets move on
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 07:22 PM   #4
SyKoKo
Loves Spam
 
SyKoKo is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,359
Former Female Student Making Allegations Against Gorsuch Has Ties To Obama, Democrats…



Another Sandra Fluke.


https://www.google.com/search?q=Form...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Via The Daily Signal:

well, OF COURSE
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 07:25 PM   #5
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 4,332
What the republicans did was nothing short of a partisan power play travesty. It's absolutely ridiculous that they were rewarded for this bit of shenanigans. Party over country right.

Gorsuch should not be even in the running. However he most likely will be confirmed. Regardless of his legitimacy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 07:28 PM   #6
SyKoKo
Loves Spam
 
SyKoKo is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,359
teh LUNATIC is back
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 07:31 PM   #7
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 4,332
Ignoramus.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 07:33 PM   #8
SyKoKo
Loves Spam
 
SyKoKo is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,359
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 08:01 PM   #9
Colonel Hogan
Madness
 
Colonel Hogan's Avatar
 
Colonel Hogan is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Within easy reach
Posts: 17,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
What the republicans did was nothing short of a partisan power play travesty. It's absolutely ridiculous that they were rewarded for this bit of shenanigans. Party over country right.

Gorsuch should not be even in the running. However he most likely will be confirmed. Regardless of his legitimacy.
"Legitimacy"? Ah, yes, the old "L"-word again.

Quote:
The American Bar Association declared Judge Neil Gorsuch “well-qualified” to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, giving President Donald Trump’s pick to succeed the late Antonin Scalia the group’s highest rating.


***************

“The ABA’s ringing endorsement is no surprise given Judge Gorsuch’s sterling credentials and his distinguished decade-long record on the Tenth Circuit,” Grassley said. “Former Chairman [Patrick] Leahy and Minority Leader [Chuck] Schumer have called the ABA’s assessment the ‘gold standard’ in evaluating federal judicial nominations. In light of Judge Gorsuch's impeccable record, it’s hard to imagine any other result from the ABA's consideration.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-rating-235924
It's the same rating that the ABA gave to the equally "legitimate" former nominee Judge Merrick Garland.

And the Senate will confirm or reject Gorsuch's nomination under the very same governing rules that it followed in failing to schedule hearings for Garland. Partisan politics is ALWAYS at play in legislative bodies. Why is it only a travesty in the exceedingly rare occasion when Republicans have had the necessary number of votes to exert their will over the direction of the country?

Not to mention that there is never a guarantee about how a Supreme Court justice is going to vote on future cases once he is on the Court. Presidents of BOTH parties have been subsequently disappointed in the judicial decisions rendered and the philosophies displayed by their nominees after their confirmation.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 08:05 PM   #10
KingOrfeo
Loves Spam
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 39,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan View Post
And the Senate will confirm or reject Gorsuch's nomination under the very same governing rules that it followed in failing to schedule hearings for Garland. Partisan politics is ALWAYS at play in legislative bodies. Why is it only a travesty in the exceedingly rare occasion when Republicans have had the necessary number of votes to exert their will over the direction of the country?
In this case it is a travesty because of the Pubs' historically unprecedented dick move in refusing to set confirmation hearings for Garland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017, 08:10 PM   #11
NorthFloridian
Loves Spam
 
NorthFloridian is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
Ignoramus.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 01:55 AM   #12
Colonel Hogan
Madness
 
Colonel Hogan's Avatar
 
Colonel Hogan is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Within easy reach
Posts: 17,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOrfeo View Post
In this case it is a travesty because of the Pubs' historically unprecedented dick move in refusing to set confirmation hearings for Garland.
You're starting to be my favorite perpetually dumb ass poster. You're as dependable as catching starving fish from a barrel.

In this case, you are as fundamentally ignorant of historical precedent as you are about the law generally.

Quote:
The Longest Supreme Court Nomination Delay in History

The current controversy over Merrick Garland’s nomination has nothing on the longest Supreme Court delay of all time during John Tyler’s rocky presidential term. Currently, it has been 256 days since the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016. If Scalia’s replacement is confirmed after January 2, 2017, the delay would be 324 days at a minimum.

According to a Pew Research report, that would put the delay as the eighth-longest period for a Justice to be replaced on the court. Next on the list would be the 391-day period it took for Abe Fortas to be replaced by Harry Blackmun between May 1969 and June 1970.

With the exception of the Fortas replacement, the longest replacement periods took place in the 19th century, and the longest of them all was the 841-day period to replace Justice Henry Baldwin, who died on April 21, 1844 while visiting Philadelphia. Baldwin was known as a maverick on the Court who also help to start the practice of writing dissents. (He also offended Justice Joseph Story to the point where Story wrote that Baldwin was “partially deranged.”)

Robert C. Grier finally took the oath to replace Baldwin on August 10, 1846, after more than two years of nomination drama and a change of administrations. At the time of Baldwin’s death, President Tyler was estranged from most of the Washington political structure. In fact, the Whig Party, which Tyler represented as a vice presidential candidate in the 1840 election, expelled Tyler as a member in 1841.

Without congressional support, Tyler still sought to fill two Supreme Court vacancies. In all, Tyler made nine attempts to get a nominee confirmed, and he succeeded once.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...ay-in-history/
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 03:03 AM   #13
colddiesel
Literotica Guru
 
colddiesel's Avatar
 
colddiesel is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: in my shed
Posts: 1,844
The Republican Congress was disgraceful in not giving Garland a hearing, but that doesn't justify tit for tat either. Gorsuch is a first rate nominee.

The Dems shouldn't overplay their hand. Coupla days protest then wave him through - but I doubt they have that much sense. The Dems strategy should be to split the Pubs in Congress from the WhiteHouse. Protesting Gorsuch excessively will unite the Republicans
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 07:14 AM   #14
james_1957
Literotica Guru
 
james_1957 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 767
Gorsuch will be confirmed.

Schumer's ineffective.

It's Bernie's turn.

Last edited by james_1957 : 03-21-2017 at 07:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 07:22 AM   #15
james_1957
Literotica Guru
 
james_1957 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 767
Two for Tuesday...

March Madness

Spring Break

Neil who?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 07:25 AM   #16
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is online now
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 86,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by colddiesel View Post
The Republican Congress was disgraceful in not giving Garland a hearing, but that doesn't justify tit for tat either. Gorsuch is a first rate nominee.

The Dems shouldn't overplay their hand. Coupla days protest then wave him through - but I doubt they have that much sense. The Dems strategy should be to split the Pubs in Congress from the WhiteHouse. Protesting Gorsuch excessively will unite the Republicans
Specious point.

Remember, at the time all that was being reported was that Hillary was a lock, I mean the polls were devastating and it looked like Republicans were in trouble down ballot because of that. They rolled the dice and said, no, we will not let a Liberal President stack the court, we will let the American people determine the direction of the court.

It was a gamble, but it was a successful gamble. If the American people wanted a Liberal to make sure that Merrick was eventually seated on the court, then they would have given Hillary the victory. As we were admonished by the Democrats in 2009 and they were steamrolling the ACA right through the House and Senate, elections have consequences; we won.

To the victor goes the spoils.
__________________
Jenny Jenny who can I run to? (8675309)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 07:33 AM   #17
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 4,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan View Post
"Legitimacy"? Ah, yes, the old "L"-word again.



It's the same rating that the ABA gave to the equally "legitimate" former nominee Judge Merrick Garland.

And the Senate will confirm or reject Gorsuch's nomination under the very same governing rules that it followed in failing to schedule hearings for Garland. Partisan politics is ALWAYS at play in legislative bodies. Why is it only a travesty in the exceedingly rare occasion when Republicans have had the necessary number of votes to exert their will over the direction of the country?

Not to mention that there is never a guarantee about how a Supreme Court justice is going to vote on future cases once he is on the Court. Presidents of BOTH parties have been subsequently disappointed in the judicial decisions rendered and the philosophies displayed by their nominees after their confirmation.
Please cite the governing rules that supported and allowed the stonewalling of Garland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 07:39 AM   #18
FakeNews
Really Really Experienced
 
FakeNews's Avatar
 
FakeNews is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 448
Why the Senate doesn't have to act on Merrick Garland's nomination

Quote:
Does the Senate have to hold hearings and a vote on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court? The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.

The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ominee/482733/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 08:15 AM   #19
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
 
4est_4est_Gump is online now
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: GB Hall of Fame
Posts: 86,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
Please cite the governing rules that supported and allowed the stonewalling of Garland.
It's a Senate rule called the filibuster.

If they held hearings, if they put it up for a vote, the Whips of both parties knew they could not get him confirmed. That's simply how the sausage is made.

Now the Democrats will obstruct in retaliation. This is their privilege according to the rules. They will do that. But there is a new President and he is replacing an originalist with an originalist which does nothing more than maintain the balance that has existed for some time now and which both parties have supported in the past. The Democrats will come out looking small. They just lost a decisive election. It's sour grapes.

My advice, which will go unheeded because of the first stage of grief, anger, and somewhat the bargaining stage, but keep your powder dry for when Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg finally goes down for the count and you want to replace a die-hard SJW Liberal with a red-diaper doper baby replacement to maintain the balance of the court.

If you wanted to change the balance, then you should have run an energetic and un-hated candidate who would not take the white Union vote as a given and did not have so many ethical issues.

And be warned...,

When Harry Reid didn't like the rules, he simply changed them.

If y'all decide to "box" the Republicans in, they just might point to Reid and say, hey, fuck you, the rules didn't come down from the mountaintop carved in stone...
__________________
Jenny Jenny who can I run to? (8675309)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 08:33 AM   #20
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 4,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
It's a Senate rule called the filibuster.

If they held hearings, if they put it up for a vote, the Whips of both parties knew they could not get him confirmed. That's simply how the sausage is made.

Now the Democrats will obstruct in retaliation. This is their privilege according to the rules. They will do that. But there is a new President and he is replacing an originalist with an originalist which does nothing more than maintain the balance that has existed for some time now and which both parties have supported in the past. The Democrats will come out looking small. They just lost a decisive election. It's sour grapes.

My advice, which will go unheeded because of the first stage of grief, anger, and somewhat the bargaining stage, but keep your powder dry for when Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg finally goes down for the count and you want to replace a die-hard SJW Liberal with a red-diaper doper baby replacement to maintain the balance of the court.

If you wanted to change the balance, then you should have run an energetic and un-hated candidate who would not take the white Union vote as a given and did not have so many ethical issues.

And be warned...,

When Harry Reid didn't like the rules, he simply changed them.

If y'all decide to "box" the Republicans in, they just might point to Reid and say, hey, fuck you, the rules didn't come down from the mountaintop carved in stone...
He didn't even make it to committee hearings.

Try again.

What governing law/rule did they use justify/allow to not convene committee hearings?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 08:35 AM   #21
adrina
Heretic
 
adrina's Avatar
 
adrina is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In my mind and a few others, apparently.
Posts: 4,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump View Post
It's a Senate rule called the filibuster.

If they held hearings, if they put it up for a vote, the Whips of both parties knew they could not get him confirmed. That's simply how the sausage is made.

Now the Democrats will obstruct in retaliation. This is their privilege according to the rules. They will do that. But there is a new President and he is replacing an originalist with an originalist which does nothing more than maintain the balance that has existed for some time now and which both parties have supported in the past. The Democrats will come out looking small. They just lost a decisive election. It's sour grapes.

My advice, which will go unheeded because of the first stage of grief, anger, and somewhat the bargaining stage, but keep your powder dry for when Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg finally goes down for the count and you want to replace a die-hard SJW Liberal with a red-diaper doper baby replacement to maintain the balance of the court.

If you wanted to change the balance, then you should have run an energetic and un-hated candidate who would not take the white Union vote as a given and did not have so many ethical issues.

And be warned...,

When Harry Reid didn't like the rules, he simply changed them.

If y'all decide to "box" the Republicans in, they just might point to Reid and say, hey, fuck you, the rules didn't come down from the mountaintop carved in stone...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeNews View Post
And all of that ignores over 200 years of legal history and precedent.

It's an extrapolation at best.

What they did was a travesty and to try to justify it makes it so that you put party over country. Regardless of how you - or even the liberal leaning Atlantic - try to spin it.

It's like the five year old who says "well you didn't tell me I couldn't shave the cat".

Don't you expect better from your government than partisan temper tantrums?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 08:42 AM   #22
FakeNews
Really Really Experienced
 
FakeNews's Avatar
 
FakeNews is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 448
‘Can she eat more kale?’ Hordes of people want reassurance RBG’s health is good.

Quote:
On Tuesday evening, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s long-empty seat. On Wednesday morning, liberals woke up, did the math and realized it was time to be concerned about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fiber intake. Also bone density. Also exposure to airborne viruses (Madame Justice, what is your flu shot status?), and salmonella, and slippery ice, and also: Has anyone heard how scientists are coming along with a Zika vaccine?

“I’m very interested in this.” says Jeanette Bavwidinski, a community organizer in Pennsylvania. “I’m interested in what her daily regimen is. Like, what are you all feeding RBG? Is she getting enough fresh air? Is she walking? Is she staying low-stress? What is she reading? Is she reading low-stress things?”

“Can she eat more kale?” asks Kim Landsbergen, a forest ecologist in Ohio. “Eat more kale, that’s all I can say. We love you. Eat more kale.”

The facts in play: Ginsburg is 83 years old, the oldest justice by more than three years. She is one of the four reliably liberal jurists on the Supreme Court, and a mascot and hero to the left. There is one swing vote on the court, Anthony M. Kennedy, and there are three staunch conservatives. Adding Gorsuch would maintain the balance that existed when Scalia was alive: conservative replacing conservative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.2ac0ba89253d
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 08:46 AM   #23
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post

Don't you expect better from your government than partisan temper tantrums?
We've had decades of Democrat temper tantrums. Did they bother you as well?
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 08:49 AM   #24
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeNews View Post
LOL. Trump could appoint two more justices in his first term cutting liberal subversion of the Constitution even further. It's whimper time on the left.
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017, 08:49 AM   #25
Rightguide
Literotica Guru
 
Rightguide's Avatar
 
Rightguide is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrina View Post
He didn't even make it to committee hearings.

Try again.

What governing law/rule did they use justify/allow to not convene committee hearings?
Majority rule.
__________________
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods."
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24 AM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.