Gorsuch

Yes I Have Balls · Post by **Yes I Have Balls** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:03 pm

TerryB wrote:
Yes I Have Balls wrote:Little birdy tells me we're not gonna have to worry about Gorsuch. The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.
You haven't been right on any prediction yet.

This is not my prediction.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:26 pm

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Little birdy tells me we're not gonna have to worry about Gorsuch. The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

Take care of your little birdy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-br ... 34354.html

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:41 pm

Gorsuch was a reasonable candidate. Now that the whole 60 vote thing is blown up, the next one will probably be Steve Bannon.

powerlifter54 · Post by **powerlifter54** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:12 pm

Say hello to Ted Cruz. Bad play by the Dumbs.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:43 pm

I don't see the point in getting lathered over Gorsuch. There's plenty to disagree with him on politically if you want to but he's clearly a principled and qualified jurist.

Pinky · Post by **Pinky** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:34 pm

nafod wrote:Gorsuch was a reasonable candidate. Now that the whole 60 vote thing is blown up, the next one will probably be Steve Bannon.

Trump's son-in-law is the obvious pick.

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:38 pm

well, now...THE NOOOCLLLEEEUUUUR option has been used.

What a pack of stupid fucking cunts we have in office. Every single one of them.

climber511 · Post by **climber511** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:29 pm

I don't that much one way or the other about Gorsuch but changing the rules is F....ing Stupid!

JimZipCode · Post by **JimZipCode** » Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:31 am

powerlifter54 wrote:Say hello to Ted Cruz. Bad play by the Dumbs.

Bullshit. Bending over for the threat is not smarter than bending over for the reality.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:53 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I don't see the point in getting lathered over Gorsuch. There's plenty to disagree with him on politically if you want to but he's clearly a principled and qualified jurist.

butthurt over garland, also a principled and qualified jurist whom the r's buried based on no principle whatsoever

the use of naked power in a democracy is not something the cheer, even when "your" side wins

The Ginger Beard Man · Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:03 pm

climber511 wrote:I don't that much one way or the other about Gorsuch but changing the rules is F....ing Stupid!

Thank Harry Reid. He set this up when he changed the rules for the lower courts.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:35 pm

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:
climber511 wrote:I don't that much one way or the other about Gorsuch but changing the rules is F....ing Stupid!
Thank Harry Reid. He set this up when he changed the rules for the lower courts.

Was Mitch McConnell filibustering all of Obama's nominees? From a 2013 fact checking...

By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.

Fuck Mitch McConnell.

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Not govern, or accomplish something. Just interfere.

Mission accomplished, I guess.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:25 pm

By the end of its fifth year, Obama had a nomination pace similar to Clinton’s. (Table 1) About a quarter of judicial nominations came in 2013. The press marveled that “Obama, after an extraordinarily slow start, has moved way ahead of Bush II on nominations
.” That is true, however, only because President Bush made a mere handful of nominations during his fifth year. (He submitted few circuit nominations, battling instead to get long-standing nominees confirmed. There were few district nominations because he had been highly successful in filling vacancies in his first four years.)

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... d-fiction/
Don't forget that he had a greater opportunity to pack the courts within his first two years in office than any modern POTUS too.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06 ... ook-office

The only way to look at this is as an unforced error by Obama and Reid-- they had a chance to pack the courts with young liberal judges that could have advanced Democrat policy for decades from the bench and chose not to.

climber511 · Post by **climber511** » Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:45 pm

Wouldn't it be great if we were governed by "Americans" instead of Democrats and Republicans?

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:42 am

I think we need a new Judiciary Act.

The Judiciary Act of 2017.

IGX

Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch

Re: Gorsuch