B-Man Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Russ Feingold: If Gorsuch is confirmed, the legitimacy of the US supreme court won’t recover.Let me translate for you................... “We democrats don't expect to control the Supreme Court for at least a decade, so we are starting to de-legitimatize it now" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Russ Feingold: If Gorsuch is confirmed, the legitimacy of the US supreme court won’t recover. Let me translate for you................... “We democrats don't expect to control the Supreme Court for at least a decade, so we are starting to de-legitimatize it now" Ok, Russ. How about winning your old seat back and then you can have a legitimate voice on the confirmation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Wow.............nice going California. Ummm, WAT? Kamala Harris says she will not vote for Gorsuch because he values ‘legalisms’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Wow.............nice going California. Ummm, WAT? Kamala Harris says she will not vote for Gorsuch because he values ‘legalisms’ If only he was a wise latina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 I just got an email from 1 of my Senators telling me she is voting No on Gorsuch. There was a long section on how seriously she takes this blah, blah, blah, but really it's just because he's Trump's boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Wow.............nice going California. Ummm, WAT? Kamala Harris says she will not vote for Gorsuch because he values ‘legalisms’ Anyone who knows Kamala Harris knows she cares little for the rule of law. It started when she went with DOJ into the house of David Daleiden to confiscate his undercover Planned Parenthood videos. It's essentially how she got the WH to back her Senate run for Boxer's seat. She's a complete pig of a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Schumer is the poster boy for bad politics right now. Yes the Garland thing was pig disgusting BS. But it's over. If you want to be the bigger person, play the game the way it is supposed to be played, not the way the Rs just played it. That would be high character and a proper way to treat Gorsuch and the process. I will applaud the Dems who vote yes on Gorsuch. I hope some show the spine to do it. Move the country forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 I think Gorsuch is a excellent choice and will get the 60 votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 I think Gorsuch is a excellent choice and will get the 60 votes. He is, but I don't think he will. There might be a few Dem Senators from the Rockies that could vote for him, but there won't be 10. IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Garland was not going to be confirmed by the 114th Senate. And even if they had gone through the pointless dog and pony show of holding hearings, the Dems were still going to be pissed off. I agreed with them that the next president should pick the next SCJ, and even some Dems said this in years past. The Repubs took a big risk because if Hilly won, there's a chance she'd nominate an even more liberal SCJ, but it paid off for them. If they filibuster, I say go nuclear. You reap what you sow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Not letting Obamas nominee get approved really poisoned the process. The GOP might not have the votes to kill the filibuster so this could be a long process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 In an ideal world some other Justice would retire, Trump would nominate Garland to replace them, and the parties would actually reconcile their differences in a compromise by approving Garland and Gorsuch. But I only expect things to get messier from here. This gridlock BS is bad for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 I'd swap Garland for RBG in a heartbeat. Speaking of heartbeats, how many does she have left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Not letting Obamas nominee get approved really poisoned the process. The GOP might not have the votes to kill the filibuster so this could be a long process If certain key Dems had never in the past said that the Senate doesn't need to confirm a SCJ in the last few months of a president's term, and if Filthy Harry hadn't used reconciliation to get what he wanted, you'd have a better argument. If anyone poisoned the process... And Barry already appointed 2 SCJ's. Has any president appointed 1/3 of the SCOTUS, or more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 If certain key Dems had never in the past said that the Senate doesn't need to confirm a SCJ in the last few months of a president's term, and if Filthy Harry hadn't used reconciliation to get what he wanted, you'd have a better argument. If anyone poisoned the process... And Barry already appointed 2 SCJ's. Has any president appointed 1/3 of the SCOTUS, or more? Reagan appointed O'Connor, Kennedy, & Scalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Reagan appointed O'Connor, Kennedy, & Scalia. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) Garland was not going to be confirmed by the 114th Senate. And even if they had gone through the pointless dog and pony show of holding hearings, the Dems were still going to be pissed off. I agreed with them that the next president should pick the next SCJ, and even some Dems said this in years past. The Repubs took a big risk because if Hilly won, there's a chance she'd nominate an even more liberal SCJ, but it paid off for them. If they filibuster, I say go nuclear. You reap what you sow. Your attitude is the exact problem. They are doing it so why can't I? Second grade logic that doesn't help the country.. Edited March 25, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) didnt read thru all the pages, but did watch quite a bit of the hearing over the 2 days of intense questioning.. a few observations .. gorsuch is beyond highly qualified if there is such a thing.. schumer and the dems now saying they will filibuster is a national disgrace and the MM should call them out , but will not.. al franken questioning a supreme court nominee says it all about the state of affairs in the country.. pretty obvious .. and has has been said, the republicans need to go nuclear Edited March 25, 2017 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Your attitude is the exact problem. They are doing it so why can't I? Second grade logic that doesn't help the country.. Tell that to your masters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts