spec4 Posted March 31, 2017 at 11:51 AM Share Posted March 31, 2017 at 11:51 AM Then again, Merrick Garland wasn't able to answer any questions because Republicans denied him a hearing, let alone a vote.Are you suggesting Garland should have had a vote? You do know that this situation was not a precedent right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted March 31, 2017 at 01:45 PM Share Posted March 31, 2017 at 01:45 PM Precedent? No. But there's no question Garland should have been given a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted March 31, 2017 at 03:04 PM Share Posted March 31, 2017 at 03:04 PM Precedent? No. But there's no question Garland should have been given a vote."No question?" I disagree. Uncle Joe had a "question." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted March 31, 2017 at 05:02 PM Share Posted March 31, 2017 at 05:02 PM I say stack the courts with originalists and see what happens. Shouldn't be political at all. They are there to interpret the law, not make it. Amen! + 1000% It shouldn't be political. The democrats have made it that way. It should be simply "does this law conflict with the Constitution"! And it sounds like Judge Gorsuch will be the right person for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted March 31, 2017 at 06:47 PM Share Posted March 31, 2017 at 06:47 PM Precedent? No. But there's no question Garland should have been given a vote."No question?" I disagree. Uncle Joe had a "question."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1SUn0zTGUQ Yes There's no question Garland have gotten a hearing, at the very least. Biden was talking about not announcing a nominee in July, which is after the Courts term for the year. Obama nominated Garland with nearly a year to go in his term. Regardless, Garland deserved a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTX63 Posted March 31, 2017 at 08:16 PM Share Posted March 31, 2017 at 08:16 PM Every Illinois/Republican gun bill that was drug thru the crack of Madigan's rear deserved a vote. Every Republican bill Harry Reid wadded up and dropped into the circular file deserved a vote. Political agendas poisoned and killed principals a long time ago. You can have targeted outrage for what good it does, but it would be foolish for one side to "play fair" because the other side cries foul, all the while they are stabbing them in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted March 31, 2017 at 10:01 PM Share Posted March 31, 2017 at 10:01 PM Precedent? No. But there's no question Garland should have been given a vote."No question?" I disagree. Uncle Joe had a "question." Yes There's no question Garland have gotten a hearing, at the very least. Biden was talking about not announcing a nominee in July, which is after the Courts term for the year. Obama nominated Garland with nearly a year to go in his term.Regardless, Garland deserved a vote. Uncle Joe said there shouldn't be an election year Supreme Court nomination. If so, Uncle Joe said the Senate Judiciary should "seriously consider" NOT scheduling confirmation hearings. That's exactly what just happened. The Senate refused to schedule confirmation hearings after Obama nominated Garland with less than a year left in Obama's term. There's "no question" about it? At the very least, Biden questioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilphil Posted April 1, 2017 at 09:09 PM Share Posted April 1, 2017 at 09:09 PM Just Durbin being Durbin.I got the same form letter back.My response to him: Sen. Durbin, All recent SCOTUS nominees have followed the lead set by Justice Ginsburg of not answering hypothetical questions. Judge Gorsuch answered exactly as Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor did and you voted for them.IThe vote for Justice Sotomayor was 68-31 which included 9 Republican votes and Justice Kagan won approval by a vote of 63-37 with 5 Republican votes. I can only hope Judge Gorsuch, who many say is more qualified than the two previous nominees, is extended the same courtesy by the Democrats. Your partisan NO vote against Judge Gorsuch earned you my NO vote in your next election.+100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 2, 2017 at 04:11 AM Share Posted April 2, 2017 at 04:11 AM If it weren't for double standards liberals would have no standards at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted April 2, 2017 at 01:38 PM Share Posted April 2, 2017 at 01:38 PM Just Durbin being Durbin.I got the same form letter back.My response to him:Sen. Durbin,All recent SCOTUS nominees have followed the lead set by Justice Ginsburg of not answering hypothetical questions. Judge Gorsuch answered exactly as Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor did and you voted for them.IThe vote for Justice Sotomayor was 68-31 which included 9 Republican votes and Justice Kagan won approval by a vote of 63-37 with 5 Republican votes. I can only hope Judge Gorsuch, who many say is more qualified than the two previous nominees, is extended the same courtesy by the Democrats.Your partisan NO vote against Judge Gorsuch earned you my NO vote in your next election.+100I failed to mention that Justice Ginsburg, who initiated the no hypothetical question strategy , was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Durbin is a partisan hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted April 2, 2017 at 06:30 PM Share Posted April 2, 2017 at 06:30 PM Just Durbin being Durbin.I got the same form letter back.My response to him:Sen. Durbin,All recent SCOTUS nominees have followed the lead set by Justice Ginsburg of not answering hypothetical questions. Judge Gorsuch answered exactly as Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor did and you voted for them.IThe vote for Justice Sotomayor was 68-31 which included 9 Republican votes and Justice Kagan won approval by a vote of 63-37 with 5 Republican votes. I can only hope Judge Gorsuch, who many say is more qualified than the two previous nominees, is extended the same courtesy by the Democrats.Your partisan NO vote against Judge Gorsuch earned you my NO vote in your next election.+100I failed to mention that Justice Ginsburg, who initiated the no hypothetical question strategy , was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Durbin is a partisan hack. We're Republicans, when they denied Garland a hearing OR a vote, "partisan hacks"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa Posted April 2, 2017 at 06:36 PM Share Posted April 2, 2017 at 06:36 PM Just Durbin being Durbin.I got the same form letter back.My response to him:Sen. Durbin,All recent SCOTUS nominees have followed the lead set by Justice Ginsburg of not answering hypothetical questions. Judge Gorsuch answered exactly as Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor did and you voted for them.IThe vote for Justice Sotomayor was 68-31 which included 9 Republican votes and Justice Kagan won approval by a vote of 63-37 with 5 Republican votes. I can only hope Judge Gorsuch, who many say is more qualified than the two previous nominees, is extended the same courtesy by the Democrats.Your partisan NO vote against Judge Gorsuch earned you my NO vote in your next election.+100I failed to mention that Justice Ginsburg, who initiated the no hypothetical question strategy , was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Durbin is a partisan hack. We're Republicans, when they denied Garland a hearing OR a vote, "partisan hacks"?No more than Biden and his comrades were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted April 2, 2017 at 06:39 PM Share Posted April 2, 2017 at 06:39 PM No more than Schumer and his party of "no". You people lost. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec4 Posted April 2, 2017 at 08:27 PM Share Posted April 2, 2017 at 08:27 PM Just Durbin being Durbin.I got the same form letter back.My response to him:Sen. Durbin,All recent SCOTUS nominees have followed the lead set by Justice Ginsburg of not answering hypothetical questions. Judge Gorsuch answered exactly as Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor did and you voted for them.IThe vote for Justice Sotomayor was 68-31 which included 9 Republican votes and Justice Kagan won approval by a vote of 63-37 with 5 Republican votes. I can only hope Judge Gorsuch, who many say is more qualified than the two previous nominees, is extended the same courtesy by the Democrats.Your partisan NO vote against Judge Gorsuch earned you my NO vote in your next election.+100I failed to mention that Justice Ginsburg, who initiated the no hypothetical question strategy , was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Durbin is a partisan hack. We're Republicans, when they denied Garland a hearing OR a vote, "partisan hacks"? No, I believe they were fighting fire with fire. Turnabout if fair play, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 3, 2017 at 12:22 AM Share Posted April 3, 2017 at 12:22 AM Can't give into the Democrats whining or threats. They have put the most illogical outrageous judges on the Supreme Court as well as the Circuit Courts of Appeal. What happened in Peruta is an outrage. If you've listened to the orals in Woolard and Kwong, it is obvious that these liberal judges in no way feel bound by the Constitution of the United States. Their hubris knows no bounds. Its time to fricken stomp their f-ing guts out ! Pound them into the f-ing dirt, drive them like a tent peg! Pull out the nuclear option, kick their communists *****, and restore some sanity to this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanook Posted April 3, 2017 at 02:13 AM Share Posted April 3, 2017 at 02:13 AM I notice that whenever the dems are the minority party, they're all about "reaching across the aisle" and "bipartisanship". Oh, and don't forget "we all have to work together". When they're the majority party, like with the last president "elections have consequences". "Get to the back of the bus". Funny how that works. Garland is another left wing judge by all accounts. I'm glad he never got a chance. We already have too many left wing judges on this court. Hopefully some of them will retire soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipshot Percussion Posted April 3, 2017 at 01:58 PM Share Posted April 3, 2017 at 01:58 PM Can't give into the Democrats whining or threats. They have put the most illogical outrageous judges on the Supreme Court as well as the Circuit Courts of Appeal. What happened in Peruta is an outrage. If you've listened to the orals in Woolard and Kwong, it is obvious that these liberal judges in no way feel bound by the Constitution of the United States. Their hubris knows no bounds. Its time to fricken stomp their f-ing guts out ! Pound them into the f-ing dirt, drive them like a tent peg! Pull out the nuclear option, kick their communists *****, and restore some sanity to this country.Don't sugar coat it... tell us what you really think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted April 3, 2017 at 03:35 PM Share Posted April 3, 2017 at 03:35 PM in 2016, there’s an actual vacancy on the high court, while in 1992, there was not. People forget the rest of what Biden said on the Senate floor. in the same remarks, Biden added that if the then-Republican president “consults and cooperates with the Senate, or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” That doesn’t sound like a call for a partisan blockade against any and all nominees There’s also the matter of the date: Biden’s 1992 speech was delivered at the end of June, not long before Congress’ summer recess. That’s not at all similar to declaring in mid-February that a Supreme Court vacancy must go unfilled for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted April 3, 2017 at 05:13 PM Share Posted April 3, 2017 at 05:13 PM Garland did not get a vote. Gorsuch WILL be on the Supreme Court. Ha Ha ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted April 3, 2017 at 05:24 PM Share Posted April 3, 2017 at 05:24 PM in 2016, there’s an actual vacancy on the high court, while in 1992, there was not. People forget the rest of what Biden said on the Senate floor. in the same remarks, Biden added that if the then-Republican president “consults and cooperates with the Senate, or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” That doesn’t sound like a call for a partisan blockade against any and all nominees There’s also the matter of the date: Biden’s 1992 speech was delivered at the end of June, not long before Congress’ summer recess. That’s not at all similar to declaring in mid-February that a Supreme Court vacancy must go unfilled for a year. Reaper, are you a gun owner? Would you rather have anti-gun Garland as a tie breaker over Gorsuch? What's your point from a 2nd Amendment standpoint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbrooks Posted April 3, 2017 at 06:27 PM Share Posted April 3, 2017 at 06:27 PM Chickens coming home to roost. GOP did the same for last 8 years (mostly). If the senate goes nuclear and gets rid of the filibuster, that means more conservative judges. That seems like the play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 3, 2017 at 11:43 PM Share Posted April 3, 2017 at 11:43 PM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hikLjcwFdD8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk5 Posted April 4, 2017 at 01:27 AM Share Posted April 4, 2017 at 01:27 AM Chickens coming home to roost. GOP did the same for last 8 years (mostly). If the senate goes nuclear and gets rid of the filibuster, that means more conservative judges. That seems like the play here.And how many hundreds of bills did Harry not call for a vote over the last 6 years? Who are the real obstructionists? not always the GOP but dems also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted April 5, 2017 at 03:16 AM Share Posted April 5, 2017 at 03:16 AM Every Illinois/Republican gun bill that was drug thru the crack of Madigan's rear deserved a vote. Every Republican bill Harry Reid wadded up and dropped into the circular file deserved a vote. Political agendas poisoned and killed principals a long time ago. You can have targeted outrage for what good it does, but it would be foolish for one side to "play fair" because the other side cries foul, all the while they are stabbing them in the back. Well said!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
67vtx1800 Posted April 5, 2017 at 04:00 AM Share Posted April 5, 2017 at 04:00 AM Just Durbin being Durbin. I got the same form letter back. My response to him: Sen. Durbin, All recent SCOTUS nominees have followed the lead set by Justice Ginsburg of not answering hypothetical questions. Judge Gorsuch answered exactly as Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor did and you voted for them. I The vote for Justice Sotomayor was 68-31 which included 9 Republican votes and Justice Kagan won approval by a vote of 63-37 with 5 Republican votes. I can only hope Judge Gorsuch, who many say is more qualified than the two previous nominees, is extended the same courtesy by the Democrats. Your partisan NO vote against Judge Gorsuch earned you my NO vote in your next election. +100 I failed to mention that Justice Ginsburg, who initiated the no hypothetical question strategy , was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Durbin is a partisan hack. We're Republicans, when they denied Garland a hearing OR a vote, "partisan hacks"? Do you think he would have gotten enough votes. I think not voting ended in the same result. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted April 6, 2017 at 01:22 AM Share Posted April 6, 2017 at 01:22 AM Did he get nominated yet? Can't find it anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted April 6, 2017 at 01:52 AM Share Posted April 6, 2017 at 01:52 AM Did he get nominated yet? Can't find it anywhere?They are still on the floor tonight with a vote expected Friday ..."The Senate is headed for a second long night as lawmakers battle over Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination. Senators are expected to stay on the Senate floor debating President Trump's nominee late into Wednesday night after Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) kept the Senate in all night to protest Gorsuch's nomination"... http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/327523-senate-heads-for-second-late-night-amid-supreme-court-fight Being broadcast on CSPAN2... Al Franken is speaking now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted April 6, 2017 at 03:38 AM Share Posted April 6, 2017 at 03:38 AM Democrats are really gonna blow a gasket when Ginsburg ends up face down in her soup !! I can't see her being able to function, yet alone being able to perform the duties expected of a Supreme Court Justice, much longer. Glad she didn't retire back in 2015 !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTX63 Posted April 6, 2017 at 09:32 AM Share Posted April 6, 2017 at 09:32 AM Ginsberg held her cards thinking she'd be doing the bidding of HRC for her swansong. Now she's going to be busy helping three other justices write dissents and work that pile down on her desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitter Clinger Posted April 6, 2017 at 02:09 PM Share Posted April 6, 2017 at 02:09 PM Well, when Ginsburg does finally blow a gasket, it will be a great day for America, freedom and liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.