Sure. Schumer would be a fool if he forced someone like Manchin to vote lockstep with, say, Dianne Feinstein.
Neil Grouch nominated (now confirmed) for SCOTUS
- Thread starter LA4Bama
- Start date
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What on earth are you talking about, and what does it have to do with anything in this thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
The two articles below offer a better explanation ...
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/balkanized-america-identity-politics/
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/race-funhouse-mirror/
I am talking about a segment of the population that did not vote in 2008 or 2012 that came out in 2014 and 2016 ...
The two articles below offer a better explanation ...
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/balkanized-america-identity-politics/
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/race-funhouse-mirror/
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
The tit-for-tat does go back to Robert Bork's unfathomable torpedoing.
After that, both parties did stupid stuff. The penultimate was when Dems did the nuclear option on non-SCOTUS appointments. Then the Repubs did the same for SCOTUS.
Because a judge that was confirmed 95-0 to a lower court, was suddenly wholly unfit to serve on SCOTUS.
It's a sorry state, and I'm glad I'm too old to see the true ending.
The tit-for-tat does go back to Robert Bork's unfathomable torpedoing.
After that, both parties did stupid stuff. The penultimate was when Dems did the nuclear option on non-SCOTUS appointments. Then the Repubs did the same for SCOTUS.
Because a judge that was confirmed 95-0 to a lower court, was suddenly wholly unfit to serve on SCOTUS.
It's a sorry state, and I'm glad I'm too old to see the true ending.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
And we wonder why congress is so screwed up:rolleye2:
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Indeed, that's actually the beauty of our system and why it has worked for as long as it has. The entire system is setup to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority,' from the Electoral College to the filibuster (which has changed through the years) to the ever popular cliche 'how a bill becomes a law.'
One of my concerns is where this CAN end up - but as I noted yesterday, this was coming anyway. If HRC had won and the Democrats had won the Senate, this exact same result would have happened. Tim Kaine said it just days before the election. Harry Reid promised it.
Seriously - not one Democrat in that Senate can LEGITIMATELY complain about this since they were going to do it anyway.
And here's one for you: in the long run, the filibuster ONLY hurt the GOP anyway in regards to SCOTUS nominations. Republicans don't tend to - pardon the pun - go nuclear over SCOTUS nominations. This thing with Garland was the closest, and it entailed risk, too since HRC was under NO obligation to nominate Garland.
Let's be honest with each other - if Hillary had won and the Democrats had won the Senate, I suspect Garland, who is considered a moderate sort of liberal and not an extremist, would have been tossed and replaced with a left-wing nut.
And it would have been totally within the rules...but the same is now true of Gorusch as well.
Congress was screwed up long before now.
Indeed, that's actually the beauty of our system and why it has worked for as long as it has. The entire system is setup to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority,' from the Electoral College to the filibuster (which has changed through the years) to the ever popular cliche 'how a bill becomes a law.'
One of my concerns is where this CAN end up - but as I noted yesterday, this was coming anyway. If HRC had won and the Democrats had won the Senate, this exact same result would have happened. Tim Kaine said it just days before the election. Harry Reid promised it.
Seriously - not one Democrat in that Senate can LEGITIMATELY complain about this since they were going to do it anyway.
And here's one for you: in the long run, the filibuster ONLY hurt the GOP anyway in regards to SCOTUS nominations. Republicans don't tend to - pardon the pun - go nuclear over SCOTUS nominations. This thing with Garland was the closest, and it entailed risk, too since HRC was under NO obligation to nominate Garland.
Let's be honest with each other - if Hillary had won and the Democrats had won the Senate, I suspect Garland, who is considered a moderate sort of liberal and not an extremist, would have been tossed and replaced with a left-wing nut.
And it would have been totally within the rules...but the same is now true of Gorusch as well.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
After Bush beat Dukakis, the Dems decided they were going to destroy one of the Cabinet nominees and blast John Tower, a feat of wisdom that got them SECDEF Richard Cheney, future VP of the USA.
Then they went after Souter. In fact - to show you how things have changed - there were rumors at the time that the press had about Souter allegedly being gay that they never confirmed and never ran.
Then they went after Thomas.
Then the Republicans retaliated by destroying Zoe Baird (Clinton's first AG nominee) over hiring an illegal nanny. Then Clinton himself destroyed Kimba Wood, who had done the Zoe Baird thing but unlike Baird had actually paid taxes on the nanny and tried to help her attain citizenship. Indeed, the comedy in the Wood case was the following insanity:
"White House officials said they were angry at Judge Wood because she had not told Mr. Clinton and other officials about her baby sitter, even when she had been directly asked."
Yes, the Clintons for some reason thought you're supposed to tell everything honestly and truthful...except, of course, when your name is Clinton and you're under oath.
Then the Republicans destroyed Les Aspin and his chosen replacement, Bobby Ray Inman. Aspin's stupidity in Somalia gave them the ammo but Inman was brutally ripped and quit. The GOP went after Commerce Secretary nominee Ron Brown in the hearings.
And on and on it went. Wen Ho Lee, John Bolton, Bernard Kerik, on and on.
Years went by. And what became clear that was we had agreed to were "rules husband has to live by but NOT me." Fair enough. I'm done.
However - at the same time - any person who supported him for the lower appointment who is still in the Senate but now opposed ought to have to formulate a coherent response. If you're going to say he has "shown insensitivity to (name of identity group)," the press ought to be saying, "Which specific cases can you cite where this has occurred" and then pointing out, "Senator Schumer never answered the question." THAT is what press is actually supposed to do.
Pretty much. It's not that politics didn't enter the situation before so much as it was that everyone kind of figured it all evened out at the time.
And punched themselves in the fist with their noses, too.
After Bush beat Dukakis, the Dems decided they were going to destroy one of the Cabinet nominees and blast John Tower, a feat of wisdom that got them SECDEF Richard Cheney, future VP of the USA.
Then they went after Souter. In fact - to show you how things have changed - there were rumors at the time that the press had about Souter allegedly being gay that they never confirmed and never ran.
Then they went after Thomas.
Then the Republicans retaliated by destroying Zoe Baird (Clinton's first AG nominee) over hiring an illegal nanny. Then Clinton himself destroyed Kimba Wood, who had done the Zoe Baird thing but unlike Baird had actually paid taxes on the nanny and tried to help her attain citizenship. Indeed, the comedy in the Wood case was the following insanity:
"White House officials said they were angry at Judge Wood because she had not told Mr. Clinton and other officials about her baby sitter, even when she had been directly asked."
Yes, the Clintons for some reason thought you're supposed to tell everything honestly and truthful...except, of course, when your name is Clinton and you're under oath.
Then the Republicans destroyed Les Aspin and his chosen replacement, Bobby Ray Inman. Aspin's stupidity in Somalia gave them the ammo but Inman was brutally ripped and quit. The GOP went after Commerce Secretary nominee Ron Brown in the hearings.
And on and on it went. Wen Ho Lee, John Bolton, Bernard Kerik, on and on.
This whole deal literally reminds me of my ex. Before we got married we sat down and kinda lined out all what we wanted and how to proceed.
Years went by. And what became clear that was we had agreed to were "rules husband has to live by but NOT me." Fair enough. I'm done.
In defense of the Democrats, I don't think THIS is a particularly persuasive argument in and of itself. It depends upon the context. A Senate might support a nominee at the lower level and then feel that the judge had demonstrated he (or she) didn't have the proper temperament, stability, something. While I think it's obvious they would never support ANYONE Trump put up there (just as the GOP wasn't even going to hold hearings), I'm just not persuaded by the argument "but he was approved 95-0 forever ago."
However - at the same time - any person who supported him for the lower appointment who is still in the Senate but now opposed ought to have to formulate a coherent response. If you're going to say he has "shown insensitivity to (name of identity group)," the press ought to be saying, "Which specific cases can you cite where this has occurred" and then pointing out, "Senator Schumer never answered the question." THAT is what press is actually supposed to do.
Interesting take and good read. Thanks.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Libearal bodies from the gas chamber will taste better?
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Somehow saying liberals will go to the gas chamber under Trump? Reference was made to delicious tears. I'm trying to make pcfixup look a little less whacko.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
He thinks you'd go well with fava beans and a nice chianti.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
a) over the course of eight years, you have people who couldn't vote in 08 or 12 who vote now (most likely Dems)
b) you have those who couldn't vote in 08 but did vote in 12 (also most likely Dems who might be Reps now)
c) everyone who has died since they voted in 08 (up to a certain age they lean GOP and then go back Dem when
they're on Soc Security and Medicare)
Keep in mind you have these two groups moving at all times. The electorate is QUICKLY changing. You cannot even make much of a comparison in eight years. The electorate that cruised Reagan to a colossal landslide wasn't the same one that Clinton carried once and then a second time (e.g. eight and then 12 years later).
This whole "X is stirring up racial politics" is a red herring that will apparently never die. I guess it makes the losers feel good to pretend they lost because of something other than a lousy candidate (the GOP still hasn't accepted Bush's loss to Clinton had nothing to do with Perot, and that was 25 years ago).
The Democrats' problem going forward is the same one they've always had - as people get older and start to get wiser to things and make more money a SUBSTANTIAL number who voted Democrat at 18 are voting Republican at 30. For some reason, this lesson is lost on these alleged superior intellectuals. They go forward from year to
year assuming that the last electorate was almost theirs and another generation of young 18-21 year olds believing in the nanny state will bail them out. This is a problem they should have figured out forty years ago.
Of course, the GOP isn't any better. This is a party that will be in long-term trouble with non-whites. The one thing bailing them out at the Presidential level right now is the fact that while non-white voters vote against the GOP, they're heavily concentrated in large cities in states on the coasts that the GOP doesn't have to win.
If you're saying that in general white voters vote at a higher proportion most of the time, that is true. But I don't think it served the argument to make the comment, either.
Well, there's some flawed analysis for ya. I always love these analyses when they fail to take into account:
a) over the course of eight years, you have people who couldn't vote in 08 or 12 who vote now (most likely Dems)
b) you have those who couldn't vote in 08 but did vote in 12 (also most likely Dems who might be Reps now)
c) everyone who has died since they voted in 08 (up to a certain age they lean GOP and then go back Dem when
they're on Soc Security and Medicare)
Keep in mind you have these two groups moving at all times. The electorate is QUICKLY changing. You cannot even make much of a comparison in eight years. The electorate that cruised Reagan to a colossal landslide wasn't the same one that Clinton carried once and then a second time (e.g. eight and then 12 years later).
This whole "X is stirring up racial politics" is a red herring that will apparently never die. I guess it makes the losers feel good to pretend they lost because of something other than a lousy candidate (the GOP still hasn't accepted Bush's loss to Clinton had nothing to do with Perot, and that was 25 years ago).
The Democrats' problem going forward is the same one they've always had - as people get older and start to get wiser to things and make more money a SUBSTANTIAL number who voted Democrat at 18 are voting Republican at 30. For some reason, this lesson is lost on these alleged superior intellectuals. They go forward from year to
year assuming that the last electorate was almost theirs and another generation of young 18-21 year olds believing in the nanny state will bail them out. This is a problem they should have figured out forty years ago.
Of course, the GOP isn't any better. This is a party that will be in long-term trouble with non-whites. The one thing bailing them out at the Presidential level right now is the fact that while non-white voters vote against the GOP, they're heavily concentrated in large cities in states on the coasts that the GOP doesn't have to win.
If you're saying that in general white voters vote at a higher proportion most of the time, that is true. But I don't think it served the argument to make the comment, either.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Gorsuch writing for the unanimous majority in Henson v. Santander:
Gorsuch writing for the unanimous majority in Henson v. Santander:
Hopefully this line of thinking will be used more consistently by the Supreme Court going forward. But I'm not holding my breath.
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Early signs indicate that Gorsuch is in the mold of Justice Thomas:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...logy_seen_in_pairings_with_thomas_134290.html
Early signs indicate that Gorsuch is in the mold of Justice Thomas:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...logy_seen_in_pairings_with_thomas_134290.html
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 9
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-