Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 13:30:23
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
So, if th3e Dems are really serious about the Gorusch thing maybe they shoud do the Filibuster the old fashioned way? Actually have a rotation of senators stand up and keep talking for hours on end?
They have done it recently and made some progress. Maybe it is time to do it again? Make a Filibuster actually mean something this time around.
I personally have no problem with Gorsuch being sworn in, but still believe that crappy politics kept Garland out.
|
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 13:44:55
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Easy E wrote:So, if th3e Dems are really serious about the Gorusch thing maybe they shoud do the Filibuster the old fashioned way? Actually have a rotation of senators stand up and keep talking for hours on end?
They have done it recently and made some progress. Maybe it is time to do it again? Make a Filibuster actually mean something this time around.
I personally have no problem with Gorsuch being sworn in, but still believe that crappy politics kept Garland out.
A nice deal would be Gorsuch now and when one of the liberal justices retire then El Pres and Senate leaders quietly agree to nominate a moderate replacement at that time that would be amenable to moderate Democrats. Evidently deals are no longer done up there now.
But its a just a trend. Repubs should have followed forum course and allowed votes on lower level candidates to avoid Reid going fuel air. Obama shouldn't have nominated Garland to replace Scalia. Republicans should have put Garland to a vote. Etc etc.
Having said that, Trump was elected to maintain a 5-4 conservative vote. If he didn't nominate a decently hard core candidate to replace Scalia he would have been run out of town on a rail.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 13:54:33
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Frazzled wrote: Easy E wrote:So, if th3e Dems are really serious about the Gorusch thing maybe they shoud do the Filibuster the old fashioned way? Actually have a rotation of senators stand up and keep talking for hours on end?
They have done it recently and made some progress. Maybe it is time to do it again? Make a Filibuster actually mean something this time around.
I personally have no problem with Gorsuch being sworn in, but still believe that crappy politics kept Garland out.
A nice deal would be Gorsuch now and when one of the liberal justices retire then El Pres and Senate leaders quietly agree to nominate a moderate replacement at that time that would be amenable to moderate Democrats. Evidently deals are no longer done up there now.
No, because that's rewarding the Republicans for the crap they pulled regarding Garland.
Gorsuch has no business, at all, being a judge let alone on the Supreme Court.
But its a just a trend. Repubs should have followed forum course and allowed votes on lower level candidates to avoid Reid going fuel air. Obama shouldn't have nominated Garland to replace Scalia. Republicans should have put Garland to a vote. Etc etc.
The only qualifications for a judge, in the Republicans' own words, is that they be "fair and impartial". That's why they are trying to ram Gorsuch through remember?
Having said that, Trump was elected to maintain a 5-4 conservative vote. If he didn't nominate a decently hard core candidate to replace Scalia he would have been run out of town on a rail.
Trump was selected by the Electoral College.
He lost the popular vote.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 14:07:36
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Easy E wrote:So, if th3e Dems are really serious about the Gorusch thing maybe they shoud do the Filibuster the old fashioned way? Actually have a rotation of senators stand up and keep talking for hours on end?
They have done it recently and made some progress. Maybe it is time to do it again? Make a Filibuster actually mean something this time around.
I personally have no problem with Gorsuch being sworn in, but still believe that crappy politics kept Garland out.
If they kept talking about how they couldn't reward the GOP's crap I'd support that.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 14:14:40
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote: Easy E wrote:So, if th3e Dems are really serious about the Gorusch thing maybe they shoud do the Filibuster the old fashioned way? Actually have a rotation of senators stand up and keep talking for hours on end?
They have done it recently and made some progress. Maybe it is time to do it again? Make a Filibuster actually mean something this time around.
I personally have no problem with Gorsuch being sworn in, but still believe that crappy politics kept Garland out.
A nice deal would be Gorsuch now and when one of the liberal justices retire then El Pres and Senate leaders quietly agree to nominate a moderate replacement at that time that would be amenable to moderate Democrats. Evidently deals are no longer done up there now.
No, because that's rewarding the Republicans for the crap they pulled regarding Garland.
Gorsuch has no business, at all, being a judge let alone on the Supreme Court.
But its a just a trend. Repubs should have followed forum course and allowed votes on lower level candidates to avoid Reid going fuel air. Obama shouldn't have nominated Garland to replace Scalia. Republicans should have put Garland to a vote. Etc etc.
The only qualifications for a judge, in the Republicans' own words, is that they be "fair and impartial". That's why they are trying to ram Gorsuch through remember?
Having said that, Trump was elected to maintain a 5-4 conservative vote. If he didn't nominate a decently hard core candidate to replace Scalia he would have been run out of town on a rail.
Trump was selected by the Electoral College.
He lost the popular vote.
Your opinions are based on a partisan perspective. To those of us who aren't partisans, both sides are equally at fault for this mudbath. There have been no criticisms of Gorsuch or Garland outside of their respective talking points put out by each side respectively. Indeed aan excellent compromise could be agreed to re-run Garland when one of the three midliners retire.
If the Democrats fight this they will lose. Then the Republicans will run serious hardcores. Then the Democrats will run serious hardcores when they are in power. The US legal system does not need to be run by hardcore zealots. Its ok to have a few on each side in SCOTUS but you need moderates to maintain the system.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 14:19:44
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
And why shouldnt have Obama nominated Garland (or anyone for that matter)? Its his constitutional prerogative to do so.
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 14:38:47
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Frazzled wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote: Easy E wrote:So, if th3e Dems are really serious about the Gorusch thing maybe they shoud do the Filibuster the old fashioned way? Actually have a rotation of senators stand up and keep talking for hours on end?
They have done it recently and made some progress. Maybe it is time to do it again? Make a Filibuster actually mean something this time around.
I personally have no problem with Gorsuch being sworn in, but still believe that crappy politics kept Garland out.
A nice deal would be Gorsuch now and when one of the liberal justices retire then El Pres and Senate leaders quietly agree to nominate a moderate replacement at that time that would be amenable to moderate Democrats. Evidently deals are no longer done up there now.
No, because that's rewarding the Republicans for the crap they pulled regarding Garland.
Gorsuch has no business, at all, being a judge let alone on the Supreme Court.
But its a just a trend. Repubs should have followed forum course and allowed votes on lower level candidates to avoid Reid going fuel air. Obama shouldn't have nominated Garland to replace Scalia. Republicans should have put Garland to a vote. Etc etc.
The only qualifications for a judge, in the Republicans' own words, is that they be "fair and impartial". That's why they are trying to ram Gorsuch through remember?
Having said that, Trump was elected to maintain a 5-4 conservative vote. If he didn't nominate a decently hard core candidate to replace Scalia he would have been run out of town on a rail.
Trump was selected by the Electoral College.
He lost the popular vote.
Your opinions are based on a partisan perspective. To those of us who aren't partisans, both sides are equally at fault for this mudbath.
Did you really just sit there and try to pretend to be non-partisan?
There have been no criticisms of Gorsuch or Garland outside of their respective talking points put out by each side respectively. Indeed an excellent compromise could be agreed to re-run Garland when one of the three midliners retire.
Actually there has been significant criticism of Gorsuch. There wasn't of Garland.
Because Garland never even got a flipping hearing.
If the Democrats fight this they will lose. Then the Republicans will run serious hardcores. Then the Democrats will run serious hardcores when they are in power. The US legal system does not need to be run by hardcore zealots. Its ok to have a few on each side in SCOTUS but you need moderates to maintain the system.
No matter how it plays out, the Democrats lose. Republicans are a bunch of crybabies. Read McConnell's statements on the Democrats for this whole thing and it's just a big waaaaaaaaaaaah.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:10:52
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
WrentheFaceless wrote:And why shouldnt have Obama nominated Garland (or anyone for that matter)? Its his constitutional prerogative to do so. 1. You are correct. Its his Constitutional prerogative (congrats on the SAT word!!!  ) to do so. 2. I'll raise you one. In my opinion Garland was eminently qualified to do sit on the bench. My objection is only that he is a moderate and was nominated to replace the heart of the conservative wing and the arguably the greatest conservative thinker in jurisprudence in the 20th century. That was a thumb in the eye by Obama considering nominations by Sotamayor etc went without difficulty. Automatically Appended Next Post: Did you really just sit there and try to pretend to be non-partisan?
I am partisan. I am Libertarian and Bill of Rights fanatic. Actually there has been significant criticism of Gorsuch. There wasn't of Garland.
Nothing material. There was the same level of criticism of Garland used to justify holding his nomination. Neither criticism had weight. No matter how it plays out, the Democrats lose. Republicans are a bunch of crybabies. Read McConnell's statements on the Democrats for this whole thing and it's just a big waaaaaaaaaaaah.
It is important to hold your side blameless and lay all the faults of the world on the other side. Meanwhile others see the game for what it is. “Purple follows Purple Leader. Green follows Green Leader. “
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 15:19:36
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:23:32
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
Who are those guys and where are they hiding?
|
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:26:32
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Frazzled wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:And why shouldnt have Obama nominated Garland (or anyone for that matter)? Its his constitutional prerogative to do so.
1. You are correct. Its his Constitutional prerogative (congrats on the SAT word!!!  ) to do so.
2. I'll raise you one. In my opinion Garland was eminently qualified to do sit on the bench.
My objection is only that he is a moderate and was nominated to replace the heart of the conservative wing and the arguably the greatest conservative thinker in jurisprudence in the 20th century. That was a thumb in the eye by Obama considering nominations by Sotamayor etc went without difficulty.
Well thats just the cost of business in our hyper-partisan political climate these days. He has the right to nominate whoever of whatever politcal/ideolgical slant he wants, the court isnt required to have a conservative, or liberal slant (to be honest it shouldnt have a slant either way)
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:30:18
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote: Easy E wrote:So, if th3e Dems are really serious about the Gorusch thing maybe they shoud do the Filibuster the old fashioned way? Actually have a rotation of senators stand up and keep talking for hours on end? They have done it recently and made some progress. Maybe it is time to do it again? Make a Filibuster actually mean something this time around. I personally have no problem with Gorsuch being sworn in, but still believe that crappy politics kept Garland out. A nice deal would be Gorsuch now and when one of the liberal justices retire then El Pres and Senate leaders quietly agree to nominate a moderate replacement at that time that would be amenable to moderate Democrats. Evidently deals are no longer done up there now.
No, because that's rewarding the Republicans for the crap they pulled regarding Garland.
Reason 1,023,405,058,403 why things are so polarized. Gorsuch has no business, at all, being a judge let alone on the Supreme Court.
O.o No one has substantiated that Gorsuch is not a qualified jurist. But its a just a trend. Repubs should have followed forum course and allowed votes on lower level candidates to avoid Reid going fuel air. Obama shouldn't have nominated Garland to replace Scalia. Republicans should have put Garland to a vote. Etc etc.
The only qualifications for a judge, in the Republicans' own words, is that they be "fair and impartial". That's why they are trying to ram Gorsuch through remember?
Garland wasn't about the man himself. It was the process. Having said that, Trump was elected to maintain a 5-4 conservative vote. If he didn't nominate a decently hard core candidate to replace Scalia he would have been run out of town on a rail.
Trump was selected by the Electoral College. He lost the popular vote.
Correct. That's how it works. Automatically Appended Next Post: WrentheFaceless wrote:And why shouldnt have Obama nominated Garland (or anyone for that matter)? Its his constitutional prerogative to do so.
No one disagrees.
Obama *did* nominate Garland.
That's step 1.
Step 2 is for the Senate to decide whether or not to confirm.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 15:32:32
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:52:22
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
You could make the argument that an administration currently under investigation for criminal activities shouldn't be able to nominate judges to the court that could end up ruling on any potential cases.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:53:34
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
d-usa wrote:You could make the argument that an administration currently under investigation for criminal activities shouldn't be able to nominate judges to the court that could end up ruling on any potential cases.
If you made that argument, we would not have had a SCOTUS since Grant.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:57:17
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
d-usa wrote:You could make the argument that an administration currently under investigation for criminal activities shouldn't be able to nominate judges to the court that could end up ruling on any potential cases.
Or since Trump is still going to rallies and 'campaigning", that we should wait for the 2020, after the "election" haha.
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:58:29
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Besides replacing the blatantly partisan Scalia with someone who would actually follow the Constitution like Garland would be a plus. Now we have a Scalia clone nominated...there's an issue with that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 15:59:11
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:Dude... that's politics. Stahp believing that there's enough politicians who'd abide such social contract for the betterment of their institution.
Dude, you need to get out of the bubble. Go read about politics in one of the truly failing democracies. Read about the republic of the Congo, or Azerbaijan or plenty of others. These are countries with sound constitutions, just like the US has, but 10 minutes reading about what goes on there will make you the US look like the very model of democracy in comparison. The difference is that truly anything goes in those countries, ruling powers can take what they want, and do what they want to ensure they keep power.
Spend some time learning about what really bad government looks like. You'll realise how far the US still is from that, but you should also become alarmed about where the US might fall to, if you continue to ignore the importance of culture and accepted practice.
Now that's some serious sky-is-falling fearmongering Seb.
We all can thank Harry Reid in pushing the Senate down that slippery slope.
That is the silliest of bs, and you make yourself look like nothing more than a cheerleader every time you post it.
And you ignoring the escalation when Reid crossing the Rubicon in nuking the filibuster.
Everytime you ignore this and lay all the blame squarely on GOP's actions, you're just as much as a Democrat-honk as I am a GOP-honk.
Just as it was irrelevant to Reid in nuking the filibuster in 2013 so that he can stack the appellate court. The "end" justified the means here...
And here you are using 'stack the appellate court' again. Remember we've been over this, on this exact terminology? Remember how I explained how politically loaded language hides lazy thinking?
You're thinking of ' Court Packing' during FDR's administration.
There were a butt feth ton of open Appellate/lower court seats that Reid/Obama filled post-nukage with liberal jurists.
So.. "stacking the appellate court" is a very apt description.
If you have an issue with my terminology uses, that's on you.
Frankly, you're ignoring the primary reasons why Reid felt justified in nuking the filibuster. (that is, to confirm as much Obama liberal jurist as he could).
Yup. Democrats want their scalp or at least an apparance of "fighting back".
Democrats want to make a show of fighting back, yep.
Yup... to their own detriment (as well as the future of the Senate).
Cat's already out of the bag man.
I think ultimately, at the core of what is wrong your political analysis, is that if a Democratic, particularly Harry Reid, does something wrong, then you treat it as the original sin, and try to bring it up whenever you possibly can. When a Republican does something wrong then you just shrug and say 'both sides'.
I do consider Reid's nukage as an 'original sin'. He crossed a line that forever changed the Senate.
I'm not absolving the GOP when they do 'bad things'... it takes two to tango.
However, I'm seriously angry at the most partisan donkey-cave we've seen in modern times... (that's is Reid if ya'll didn't get my drift).
It must be a shock to the system when Democrats "bork'ed" Robert Bork...
That's right, Teddy Kennedy set the 'bork' plan in motion. While SC nominations were increasingly political, Bork was the first time that a party decided to make the process a show for national news, as part of a political strategy of revitalising their base. It worked for Kennedy, he got his bounce and the Democrats extended their senate majority in the next year's elections.
It also led to a process of increasingly partisan, and highly public nomination battles. Kennedy shifted away from previously accepted practice, and made the process worse for all nominations to follow.
Indeed. Although to be honest, things we're really bad during the Vietnam era. I believe that's the seed of the hyperpartisanship. It wasn't one thing, or one bill. But collectively contributed to the ignition to the hyperpartisanshps we're seeing today.
See... here's where your bias is showing.
I don't see you complaining when Democrats broke accepted practice.
Pay more attention.
Okay.
The only instance in which you and I disagree on failing the process is that you claim Reid was bad for ending the filibuster on non-SC nominations, and that is only because you think a majority should just accept absolute obstruction on the chin, and do nothing about it, whereas I'm realistic enough to know that's never going to happen.
It is incumbant on the majority (ie, Reid) to try to get the obstructionists to the table. That's how that process was designed and preserved.
The idea that the minority weren't willing to come to the table is asinine. When you and others simply claim 'they won't', you're taking the easy way out.
And if the worst outcome is that nothing major gets done... THEN THAT'S OKAY. That means more work is needed to convince your cohorts and take your message to the people.
Did you miss the several posts that I don't want the filibuster to go away?
Have you read the posts in which I've explained that the filibuster is an impossibility in a partisan political environment?
I get what you're saying... I simply disagree with your whole premise.
The Senate's direction is going to be a bunch of direct-elected Senators that's going to function like the House... only less accountable and more arrogant. Losing rules that forced this body to be more deliberative is not a good thing.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 16:02:40
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 16:06:34
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Frazzled wrote:
1. You are correct. Its his Constitutional prerogative (congrats on the SAT word!!!  ) to do so.
2. I'll raise you one. In my opinion Garland was eminently qualified to do sit on the bench.
My objection is only that he is a moderate and was nominated to replace the heart of the conservative wing and the arguably the greatest conservative thinker in jurisprudence in the 20th century. That was a thumb in the eye by Obama considering nominations by Sotamayor etc went without difficulty.
If we play alternate universes for a second, could it not be possible that, if Garland was brought in and confirmed, that it would start a trend to get a full bench of "moderate" judges, and a return to the much less politicized nature of SCOTUS rulings? I will grant that ALL SCOTUS rulings are political in some way shape or form, but what I'm saying is that I think it possible to step that aspect back a bit from where it's at.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 16:12:22
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Frazzled wrote: 1. You are correct. Its his Constitutional prerogative (congrats on the SAT word!!!  ) to do so. 2. I'll raise you one. In my opinion Garland was eminently qualified to do sit on the bench. My objection is only that he is a moderate and was nominated to replace the heart of the conservative wing and the arguably the greatest conservative thinker in jurisprudence in the 20th century. That was a thumb in the eye by Obama considering nominations by Sotamayor etc went without difficulty. If we play alternate universes for a second, could it not be possible that, if Garland was brought in and confirmed, that it would start a trend to get a full bench of "moderate" judges, and a return to the much less politicized nature of SCOTUS rulings? I will grant that ALL SCOTUS rulings are political in some way shape or form, but what I'm saying is that I think it possible to step that aspect back a bit from where it's at. Do you mean instead of Gorsuch or to replace another moderate when they retire (remember we have three that could be considered physically failing at this point)? Kennedy is moderate conservative. Ginsberg is moderate liberal. Breyer is moderate conservative but I think he stays around longer. EDIT: I would have no problem with Garland replacing one of these although Breyer is more conservative. The problem is have is that one vote could effectively eliminate the 2nd Amendment. The First is strongly defended but the 4th and 5th are almost a joke now.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 16:14:26
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 16:12:38
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Frazzled wrote:
1. You are correct. Its his Constitutional prerogative (congrats on the SAT word!!!  ) to do so.
2. I'll raise you one. In my opinion Garland was eminently qualified to do sit on the bench.
My objection is only that he is a moderate and was nominated to replace the heart of the conservative wing and the arguably the greatest conservative thinker in jurisprudence in the 20th century. That was a thumb in the eye by Obama considering nominations by Sotamayor etc went without difficulty.
If we play alternate universes for a second, could it not be possible that, if Garland was brought in and confirmed, that it would start a trend to get a full bench of "moderate" judges, and a return to the much less politicized nature of SCOTUS rulings? I will grant that ALL SCOTUS rulings are political in some way shape or form, but what I'm saying is that I think it possible to step that aspect back a bit from where it's at.
Sure...
On Earth-2, in the backdrop of a likely HRC White House, if Reid/Obama approached the Turtle that if they'd allow Gorsuch a floor vote, they'll promise to replace Ginsburg with another moderate. (ala, like another Gang of 14 agreement). I can see the GOP agree to that.
On Earth-1? feth no... everyone believes their ideological opponents has scabies in their brain.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 16:49:24
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
Unfortunately, no deal with Trump can be trusted. Welching on deals is his bread and butter. He thinks it makes him "smart".
|
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 17:02:10
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
feeder wrote:Unfortunately, no deal with Trump can be trusted. Welching on deals is his bread and butter. He thinks it makes him "smart".
I'll admit that there is great veracity to that statement as evidenced by the epic number of lawsuits his businesses have had.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 17:21:48
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Frazzled wrote: feeder wrote:Unfortunately, no deal with Trump can be trusted. Welching on deals is his bread and butter. He thinks it makes him "smart".
I'll admit that there is great veracity to that statement as evidenced by the epic number of lawsuits his businesses have had.
I dont even thing your dogs would eat Trump Steaks Fraz
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 17:35:33
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard
Catskills in NYS
|
It'll be intesresting to see how this turns out. I'm not sure a legal battle would be successful on the fed's side (as, AFAIK, there is nothing saying that state security officials have to enforce and carry out federal immigration law), but I'm not a lawyer. An economic attacks is very likely (pulling federal aid), although that might get the D's in CA even more riled up, which could be bad for the R's in the future.
|
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote:Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote:Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens BaronIveagh wrote:Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 17:38:52
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Co'tor Shas wrote:
It'll be intesresting to see how this turns out. I'm not sure a legal battle would be successful on the fed's side (as, AFAIK, there is nothing saying that state security officials have to enforce and carry out federal immigration law), but I'm not a lawyer. An economic attacks is very likely (pulling federal aid), although that might get the D's in CA even more riled up, which could be bad for the R's in the future.
You missed the recent decisioning with Arizona by SCOTUS.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 17:47:21
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Frazzled wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:
It'll be intesresting to see how this turns out. I'm not sure a legal battle would be successful on the fed's side (as, AFAIK, there is nothing saying that state security officials have to enforce and carry out federal immigration law), but I'm not a lawyer. An economic attacks is very likely (pulling federal aid), although that might get the D's in CA even more riled up, which could be bad for the R's in the future.
You missed the recent decisioning with Arizona by SCOTUS.
I'm a state rights honk... and even I don't think this'll pass judicial muster.
It's one thing to have a policy to NOT ask about your immigration status. (that is, if you don't know their status, there's no need to involve the Feds). That's kosher.
What's not kosher is CA officials actively hindering the Feds in the performance of their lawful duties.
There's another term for that: Obstruction of Justice.
Ya'll willing to believe the AG Sessions would look blindly at that?
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 17:57:27
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
I hope not. This is sowing the seeds of secession and civil war. As much as I make fun of California, I have no desire to see that happen to them.
" I wish they all could be California girls!"
-The Beach Boys.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 18:00:11
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
Wait, Arizona was about a state legislating and enforcing immigration laws, which is preempted. A state law that prohibits state governance from enforcing federal laws is perfectly fine. Normally, there are agreements to work together, but that is not mandatory. The feds can respond by tying up federal funds if they want to.
Obstruction is something else entirely, and not contemplated by the bill (see the provisions that provide for notification of federal agencies in certain circumstances, for example).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 18:01:26
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 18:00:49
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Co'tor Shas wrote:
It'll be intesresting to see how this turns out. I'm not sure a legal battle would be successful on the fed's side (as, AFAIK, there is nothing saying that state security officials have to enforce and carry out federal immigration law).
Maybe it's like how "'Advise & Consent" can mean "refuse to do anything" if that's what the majority wants to do.
I mean, can anyone show me where's it's mandated that a state may not pass a bill like this regardless of federal law?
.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/04 18:03:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 18:03:01
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Arizona v. United States struck down these things (via Wikipedia):
Section 3 of S.B. 1070, which made it a state crime to be unlawfully present in the United States and failing to register with the federal government;
Section 5, which made it a misdemeanor state crime to seek work or to work without authorization to do so;
Section 2, which in some circumstances required Arizona state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of people arrested, stopped, or detained; and
Section 6, which authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States based on probable cause.
So the basic summary of the case was that Immigration is a Federal issue, and not a state issue.
Which doesn't seem to invalidate multiple previous SCOTUS rulings that states cannot be required to enforce federal laws or cooperate with federal law enforcement. I don't remember what the most recent case was about (immigration, drugs, whatever, but I think it was drugs), but I think it basically came down to the ruling that if the Feds say something is illegal and the States say it's legal, then the Feds have the right to enforce the federal law inside that State but that the State cannot be forced to enforce it on behalf of the Federal government.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/04/04 18:03:02
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Supremacy clause of the Constitution of the United States Affirmed in the case of Lee vs. Grant (appeal denied) EDIT: oh wait, I remember there was an appeal in the case of Wallace vs. SCOTUS. I believe the 82nd Airborne heard that appeal, but it was also denied.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/04 18:05:43
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
|