What would it take?

[Chico23231]

Good pick last night, outstanding choice

[CRedskinsRule]

They have every right to protest, but when you protest everything it becomes meaningless.

I agree that the Republicans should have held hearings on Marland. A part of me wanted Trump to nominate him again to make the Democrats and Republicans freak out. (It was a small part of me, and i gave it a cupcake and it wandered off.)

Even had Marland gone to the full Senate, he wouldn't have been confirmed, so it isn't "stolen", but that doesn't minimize the wrong done by the Republicans in not holding hearings.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

They have every right to protest, but when you protest everything it becomes meaningless.



I agree that the Republicans should have held hearings on Marland. A part of me wanted Trump to nominate him again to make the Democrats and Republicans freak out. (It was a small part of me, and i gave it a cupcake and it wandered off.)



Even had Marland gone to the full Senate, he wouldn't have been confirmed, so it isn't "stolen", but that doesn't minimize the wrong done by the Republicans in not holding hearings.

Well, I don't think protest is ever meaningless.
This is my favorite so far,....

https://youtu.be/sqiwLYhwxAY

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Well, I don't think protest is ever meaningless.
This is my favorite so far,....

https://youtu.be/sqiwLYhwxAY

Well at least it's not a high school pep rally chant like most you hear broadcast

[JoeRedskin]

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Nailed it...everything ive read he is unbiased to the letter of the law type. I think the most important thing he said was...a good judge should never be happy with all his rulings.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.

That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.
That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.

Could you have imagined if Scaila would have criticized Obama as a nominee for President like Ginsburg did?

Funny, didn't hear liberals say a peep about this when it happened several months ago.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Lord knows you guys know how I feel about Trump but from what I have read and info I have seen an heard about this guy he is the best that we can expect from Trump and honestly he seems fine with me .The Dems need to pick their battles with Trump ....this one they should let go.

[CRedskinsRule]

both sides are taking it to new levels with each moment of obstruction. The Republicans just used the cabinet appointees as a shot across the bow that they will absolutely pass this SC nominee.

The other side of the Garland debate is that HAD Democrats had the majority in the Senate they would clearly have run him through, and the Republicans would have used the same tactics the Democrats are now using. At this point there is no greater imperative in DC at then to get your agenda through, and if the other side doesn't like it, win the seats and use whatever tactics you can while you have the power. It doesn't matter which side started it now, because both sides have done it repeatedly.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

both sides are taking it to new levels with each moment of obstruction. The Republicans just used the cabinet appointees as a shot across the bow that they will absolutely pass this SC nominee.



The other side of the Garland debate is that HAD Democrats had the majority in the Senate they would clearly have run him through, and the Republicans would have used the same tactics the Democrats are now using. At this point there is no greater imperative in DC at then to get your agenda through, and if the other side doesn't like it, win the seats and use whatever tactics you can while you have the power. It doesn't matter which side started it now, because both sides have done it repeatedly.

Which brings us full circle to the point that the Republicans are being headed up by a narcissistic con artist. Lol. He is a lightning rod like politics has never seen, and as long as he continues the drama, bold faces lies, and hateful comments about people, religions, races, and every thing else under the sun the tactics will continue.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Which brings us full circle to the point that the Republicans are being headed up by a narcissistic con artist. Lol. He is a lightning rod like politics has never seen, and as long as he continues the drama, bold faces lies, and hateful comments about people, religions, races, and every thing else under the sun the tactics will continue.

This all started way before Trump. I would say Pres Obama was a similar lightning rod (and not because of his skin color). I won't argue about Trump taking it to another level (I might argue Hillary would have taken it to the same that Trump is at) but it I would call it a downward spiral, and I have already said I pin the start of it somewhere around the middle of Bush 1.

[JoeRedskin]

Deleted Post.

[NC_Skins]

See, the GOP needed to put their foot down on this candidate selection.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-senate-...--finance.html

I'm not sure who is worse, this guy or Bannon.


I'm really surprised 2 Republicans voted no do Devos.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-repub...194138305.html


She has no business near our education system.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

See, the GOP needed to put their foot down on this candidate selection.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-senate-...--finance.html

I'm not sure who is worse, this guy or Bannon.


I'm really surprised 2 Republicans voted no do Devos.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-repub...194138305.html


She has no business near our education system.

Agree!!!