|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
02-01-2017, 11:38 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Trumps SCOTUS pick
Let the fireworks begin, this is going to be dramatic politics, and likely very divisive.
The GOP did not attempt to block Obama's picks of Kagan (who is fine, though I disagree with her often)) and Sotomayor (who is a maniac). But then they dug in their heels and refused to give the other guy a hearing.
If the GOP wants to block the filibuster with the nuclear option, on one hand, they can say that the Dems did the same thing. On the other hand, the dems can say (correctly) that they did it with lower court picks, but not SCOTUS picks. On the other hand, the GOP can say (correctly) they didn't force the Dems to consider the nuclear option for SCOTUS , because the GOP didn't try to block Kagan or Sotomayor. They went along with those two picks.
This pick does not change the makeup of the court - one staunch conservative replaced by another. There may be future picks that really change the makeup of the court. Ginsburg should maybe have retired when Obama and the GOP would have replaced her with a comparable liberal.
Also, I don't like hearing Schumer and Pelosi attack the nominee because his decisions have had adverse consequences for women. Have they ever taken high school civics? The role of the judge is to apply the law fairly, he isn't supposed to spend one second thinking about the outcome of the decision, or where his sympathies might lie. His only job is to apply the law equally to both parties. That's exactly why the statues of lady justice are blindfolded. The judge isn't supposed to care bout man/woman, rich/poor, or powerful/weak. If the law is flawed, it's the legislature's job to address that, not the judge's job. If he interpreted the law incorrectly, that is fair criticism. If he applied the law in a way that led to unfortunate consequences for a sympathetic party, that has no bearing whatsoever. A judge isn't supposed to be predisposed to rule in favor of groups he has personal empathy for. He is bound by the law.
This is going to be fascinating. In the end, if the Dems try to filibuster, I presume the GOP will borrow Harry Reid's trick and go nuclear. Unless there is something in his past that legitimately disqualifies him, he's going in. The Dems will have bigger SCOTUS battles down the road, than this pick. If kennedy, or god help the dems, Ginsburg, retires, there will be the possibility of really altering the curt to the right.
Last edited by Jim in CT; 02-01-2017 at 11:44 AM..
|
|
|
|
02-01-2017, 06:26 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,591
|
While everyone is freaking out about this in the next couple of days, the Dakota access pipeline is going to be given its final easement. I doubt the news will even cover it.
Sneaky aren't they?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-01-2017, 06:32 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
filibuster explained
what we see more often is a type of procedural roadblock based on the Cloture Rule (Rule XXII). Cloture is the process that brings debate to an eventual end by imposing a time limit of 30 hours on debate. To pass, cloture requires 60 votes, more than the simple 51 vote majority required to actually pass the bill itself. This means that 41 senators can prevent a vote on any bill or nomination that might otherwise pass with a vote of saw 55-45. What’s more, they don’t actually have to be on their feet talking or debating; they merely have to state their intention to filibuster, thus making the process quite painless and anonymous for themselves, which is how they like it. This has become known as the "silent filibuster," and it is a weapon wielded with increasing frequency by the Senate minority.
|
|
|
|
02-04-2017, 09:07 AM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not close enough to the water!
Posts: 403
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
While everyone is freaking out about this in the next couple of days, the Dakota access pipeline is going to be given its final easement. I doubt the news will even cover it.
Sneaky aren't they?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Yep. And they'll just keep doing just that, re-focusing the spotlight on a playground fight while they line their pockets and burn the planet.
But hey, don't worry- they're gonna fix Wall Street next. While everyone's busy watching The Apprentice (after all, it's important to the POTUS), they'll fix Dodd-Frank and the Volker rule to remove all the regs that were put in to prevent another meltdown. Soon you'll be able to buy a $750,000 home with nothing down and a $600 a week paycheck again. Ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
02-04-2017, 10:10 AM
|
#5
|
Idiot
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 2,287
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justfishin'
Yep. And they'll just keep doing just that, re-focusing the spotlight on a playground fight while they line their pockets and burn the planet.
But hey, don't worry- they're gonna fix Wall Street next. While everyone's busy watching The Apprentice (after all, it's important to the POTUS), they'll fix Dodd-Frank and the Volker rule to remove all the regs that were put in to prevent another meltdown. Soon you'll be able to buy a $750,000 home with nothing down and a $600 a week paycheck again. Ain't life grand?
|
While I don't believe in the sensationalist word choices, he kinda got it right...
https://youtu.be/PKZKETizybw
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
The artist formerly known as Scratch59.
|
|
|
02-06-2017, 07:46 AM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not close enough to the water!
Posts: 403
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
While I don't believe in the sensationalist word choices, he kinda got it right...
https://youtu.be/PKZKETizybw
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
While I had'nt seen that commentary- and thanks for putting it up-
he describes my fear.
And, as he says, what are we going to do about it?
|
|
|
|
02-06-2017, 09:00 AM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justfishin'
While I had'nt seen that commentary- and thanks for putting it up-
he describes my fear.
And, as he says, what are we going to do about it?
|
According to Olberman, there is nothing that "we" can do about it. He wanted to recommend a revolution, but figured that was not viable because the corporations make the guns and ammo. And the politicians are all bought and paid for by the corporations. So I guess we will have to just suck it up and become serfs for the corporate landlords.
Makes me wonder what will happen to corporate profits if all their customers are serfs.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:57 PM.
|
| |