Support NeoGAF

[Ac30]

It still amazes me that Republican had the gall to literally steal a pick from Obama. When the fuck did Mitch the Turtle and his cronies gain the power to rewrite the US constitution?

The Republicans had a senate majority, and I assume therefore did not need to hold a hearing if they decided not to.

 

[sssstententen]

There should be a fucking law that any President under investigation by the goddamn FBI should be barred from appointing any officials, especially lifetime term judges.

They should've fillibustered every thing he's done from the start, but as the saying goes, the best time was a long time ago, the second best time is now.

 

[tfur]

So the ghost of Harry Reid returns to nuke the fillibuster over a SCOTUS nominee that Democrats voted yes on 10 years ago. Well, okay guys.

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

 

[Rival]

It sucks that government is so broken that we can't even get a Supreme Court justice seated anymore. With republicans blocking Garland and now this. Let's just burn it all down and start over.

 

[plagiarize]

There should be a fucking law that any President under investigation by the goddamn FBI should be barred from appointing any officials, especially lifetime term judges.

They should've fillibustered every thing he's done from the start, but as the saying goes, the best time was a long time ago, the second best time is now.

They haven't had much chance yet. They did the sit in, and other things. They can't filibuster nothing, you know?

 

[Steel]

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

And republicans approved of Obama's last nominee for the appellate court and filibustered the fuck out of him. I fail to see the point.

 

[Veritigo_X]

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

So just so everyone is clear, you're in this thread to stan for Gorsuch, right?

 

[Haunted]

Democrats don't have a winning move here, all roads are shitty to tread.

Two party system is destroying the country and those in power continue to benefit.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

Why are you treating a 10th circuit position as the same as a Supreme Court position? i really don't understand this line of reasoning.

 

[Osiris397]

I'm glad...with every agent of trump finding it hard to locate the truth I just don't know whether it's worth making the effort to believe any of them and trust what they are saying.

 

[Ac30]

Democrats don't have a winning move here, all roads are shitty to tread.

Two party system is destroying the country and those in power continue to benefit.

There's really no other option, though. Itll always be a two party system unless everyone somehow implements MMP in the house or some crazy shit like that.

 

[Calamari41]

What's the strategy in the event that Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy's seat (or god forbid all three) open up before the Republicans lose control of the Senate? Seems to me that the only way to keep the court even close to moderate in that event would be some serious horse trading, like right now. The ages of those three are 84, 78, and 80 respectively. There is a very real possibility that at least one of their seats opens up before the 2021 inauguration. The possibility skyrockets in the event that Trump somehow wins re-election.

I assume Thomas will step down and be replaced by a younger conservative at some point in the next couple of years, as he was talking about retiring soon even when it was looking like Clinton would easily win the election.

 

[jurgen]

And republicans approved of Obama's last nominee for the appellate court and filibustered the fuck out of him. I fail to see the point.

Garland wasn't filibustered. He simply wasn't considered by Congress.

 

[tfur]

So just so everyone is clear, you're in this thread to stan for Gorsuch, right?

No.
But you are you in this thread to shill for Schumer, correct? To shill for hypocrisy, right?

I am stating that the democrats have history of obstruction that dates back decades, as listed by a few links. They claim how bad obstruction is, then go on today to set a new precedent of SCOTUS filibuster AND filibuster of the 1st SCOTUS pick from a President.

It is bad for the country.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

10th circuit = supreme court HUR DUR LOOK AT ME GUIS LOL

 

[Pai Pai Master]

No.
But you are you in this thread to shill for Schumer, correct? To shill for hypocrisy, right?

I am stating that the democrats have history of obstruction that dates back decades, as listed by a few links. They claim how bad obstruction is, then go on today to set a new precedent of SCOTUS filibuster AND filibuster of the 1st SCOTUS pick from a President.

It is bad for the country.

This situation doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are many reasons that Democrats would and should do this that have been gone over numerous times in this thread.

 

[Allard]

No.
But you are you in this thread to shill for Schumer, correct? To shill for hypocrisy, right?

I am stating that the democrats have history of obstruction that dates back decades, as listed by a few links. They claim how bad obstruction is, then go on today to set a new precedent of SCOTUS filibuster AND filibuster of the 1st SCOTUS pick from a President.

It is bad for the country.

Then lets nuke the filibuster, own the damn vote. Until that happens I am more then happy to see them do this shit after what the GOP did to Obama for no fucking reason, especially what happened to Garland.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

No.
But you are you in this thread to shill for Schumer, correct? To shill for hypocrisy, right?

I am stating that the democrats have history of obstruction that dates back decades, as listed by a few links. They claim how bad obstruction is, then go on today to set a new precedent of SCOTUS filibuster AND filibuster of the 1st SCOTUS pick from a President.

It is bad for the country.

You are really good at ignoring context.

"1st SCOTUS pick" as if the position opened up under Trump's presidency.

So blatant...

 

[plagiarize]

No.
But you are you in this thread to shill for Schumer, correct? To shill for hypocrisy, right?

I am stating that the democrats have history of obstruction that dates back decades, as listed by a few links. They claim how bad obstruction is, then go on today to set a new precedent of SCOTUS filibuster AND filibuster of the 1st SCOTUS pick from a President.

It is bad for the country.

What new precedent?

 

[Armaros]

No.
But you are you in this thread to shill for Schumer, correct? To shill for hypocrisy, right?

I am stating that the democrats have history of obstruction that dates back decades, as listed by a few links. They claim how bad obstruction is, then go on today to set a new precedent of SCOTUS filibuster AND filibuster of the 1st SCOTUS pick from a President.

It is bad for the country.

Are you seriosuly sitting here and pretending that the GOP did not just reject even holding a hearing for a SCOTUS position that opened up under obama?

WHILE THE SAME GOP DID THE EXACT SAME THING WITH GARLAND YOU ARE TRYING TO DO WITH "LOOK AT THIS HYPOCRISY!"

Or do we need the confirmation rolls for Garland?

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

There should be a fucking law that any President under investigation by the goddamn FBI should be barred from appointing any officials, especially lifetime term judges.

They should've fillibustered every thing he's done from the start, but as the saying goes, the best time was a long time ago, the second best time is now.

Well under your line of thinking we would have to throw out all of Bill Clinton's officials since he was under FBI investigation. Better call up W and as him who he wants in Ginsburg and Breyer's seats since under your terms Clinton wouldn't have been able to appoint them.

 

[Armaros]

Well under your line of thinking we would have to throw out all of Bill Clinton's officials since he was under FBI investigation. Better call up W and as him who he wants in Ginsburg and Breyer's seats since under your terms Clinton wouldn't have been able to appoint them.

Because Bill was being investigated for possible collusion with foreign governments in influencing the Election in which he was elected? And that foreign government being a current international adversary named Russia?

I love all of these twisted logic comparisons.

Without a hint of irony to their context. It so laughable. If it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[Veritigo_X]

No.
But you are you in this thread to shill for Schumer, correct? To shill for hypocrisy, right?

I'm shilling for democratic senators representing me and acting how I want them to. If doing what I want makes them look like hypocrites, uh okay I guess? I don't really care.

I am stating that the democrats have history of obstruction that dates back decades, as listed by a few links. They claim how bad obstruction is, then go on today to set a new precedent of SCOTUS filibuster AND filibuster of the 1st SCOTUS pick from a President.

It is bad for the country.

There's a lot of stuff going on right now that's bad for the country, I don't know if you've noticed. We should figure out what is going on in the white house before we even consider confirming Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court. If the allegations against the Trump administration are true, having his nominee sitting on the SCOTUS seems problematic.

 

[plagiarize]

Spicy couldn't have phrased that worse.

"We urge Schumer and the Democrats to allow for an up or down vote."

LOLOLOL

 

[Veritigo_X]

Spicy couldn't have phrased that worse.

"We urge Schumer and the Democrats to allow for an up or down vote."

LOLOLOL

Is he speaking in Reddit terms? Spicer does look like the type of dude that browses Reddit all day.

 

[Mercury Fred]

No.
But you are you in this thread to shill for Schumer, correct? To shill for hypocrisy, right?

I am stating that the democrats have history of obstruction that dates back decades, as listed by a few links. They claim how bad obstruction is, then go on today to set a new precedent of SCOTUS filibuster AND filibuster of the 1st SCOTUS pick from a President.

It is bad for the country.

Wow, what a bizarre post!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Well under your line of thinking we would have to throw out all of Bill Clinton's officials since he was under FBI investigation. Better call up W and as him who he wants in Ginsburg and Breyer's seats since under your terms Clinton wouldn't have been able to appoint them.

Lying about cheating on your wife with an intern is the same as colluding with an antagonistic foreign power. Got it.

 

[Steel]

Garland wasn't filibustered. He simply wasn't considered by Congress.

Which is worse.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Lying about cheating on your wife with an intern is the same as colluding with an antagonistic foreign power. Got it.

That's not what Mortimer said. He was pointing out the flaws in sersteven's suggestion.

 

[jurgen]

Lying about cheating on your wife with an intern is the same as colluding with an antagonistic foreign power. Got it.

You do know that the Clinton administration had plenty of FBI investigations directed towards it outside of Bill Clinton's sex life, right?

 

[darkhunger]

It sucks that government is so broken that we can't even get a Supreme Court justice seated anymore. With republicans blocking Garland and now this. Let's just burn it all down and start over.

Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Checks & balances are set up to protect the government from moving too quickly on things after all. And we haven't had a one-sided government like this one in a long, long time.

 

[Costa Kid]

How can the republicans appoint him if the democrats filibuster?

 

[Plumbob]

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

Much of the hearing has focused on decisions Gorsuch made ON the 10th circuit.

Educate yourself before commenting.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

Is he speaking in Reddit terms? Spicer does look like the type of dude that browses Reddit all day.

He's been seen at anime conventions so it's not unlikely tbh.

 

[Mercury Fred]

You do know that the Clinton administration had plenty of FBI investigations directed towards it outside of Bill Clinton's sex life, right?

That false equivalence

 

[Calamari41]

That false equivalence

Not when the quote being discussed is "There should be a fucking law that any President under investigation by the goddamn FBI should be barred from appointing any officials, especially lifetime term judges."

There's no mention of separating out different types of investigations.

As an aside, it's also incredibly problematic because the FBI usually doesn't disclose when they have an investigation going on.

 

[mcfrank]

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

Its almost as if someone could be qualified for one job, but then not qualified for a higher level job. Lets not Peter Principle the Supreme Court.

 

[jurgen]

That false equivalence

Because there were no political scandals during either of Bill Clinton's two presidential campaigns that implied influence from an antagonistic foreign power? Okay.

Hooray. Hand-waving and "it's not the same." Glad we've reached this point by page five so I can be done with this thread. I fucking hate Trump but I'm growing sick of this angels and demons bullshit where we act like one side is exclusively twirling their mustaches and tying women to the train tracks.

 

[Mercury Fred]

As an aside, it's also incredibly problematic because the FBI usually doesn't disclose when they have an investigation going on.

Oh, you mean like Comey's last minute announcement about Clinton's emails right before the election?

 

[Calamari41]

Oh, you mean like Comey's last minute announcement about Clinton's emails right before the election?

No, that's an example of a time when the FBI did make an investigation public.

The Clinton example would be if he didn't do so and didn't close the investigation, she won, and then everyone found out that she wasn't allowed to appoint a Secretary of State because it turns out there's an investigation going on. That's a problematic way to run a government.

 

[Stumpokapow]

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

Is it possible that either:
a) there is a difference between the 10th circuit and the supreme court
or
b) some factor relevant to the vote has changed in the last 10 years

(also note Newsbusters, a proto-Trumpian site dedicated to calling regular media outlets fake news because they are not hard-right, is being used as the source to justify the argument -- not that the facts are incorrect, but that my presumption of good faith here is shaky at best.)

 

[TAJ]

It should've been Garland.

No, it shouldn't have. Garland was a misguided attempt at appeasement.

 

[zethren]

Good.

Typically I would be against this, but fuck this administration and fuck the current state of affairs.

 

[Dude Abides]

No, it shouldn't have. Garland was a misguided attempt at appeasement.

If anything, Garland is further evidence (if any more was needed) that there is absolutely no point in trying to compromise with the GOP as currently constituted.

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

Lying about cheating on your wife with an intern is the same as colluding with an antagonistic foreign power. Got it.

He wasn't just investigated for his extra marital affairs. That stuff came out after they started digging into Whitewater and other Arkansas era scandals. Besides I was just pointing out the absurdity of the comment saying being investigated by the FBI means a sitting president shouldn't be allowed to nominate anyone. It can cut both ways and would open up further shenanigans using the grey area it would create.

 

[Biske]

Is he speaking in Reddit terms? Spicer does look like the type of dude that browses Reddit all day.

Nothing to do with Reddit. This is how the votes are normally referred to as. Meaning. Have a vote. Whether you vote yes or no, let's have a vote on it

 

[Veritigo_X]

Nothing to do with Reddit. This is how the votes are normally referred to as. Meaning. Have a vote. Whether you vote yes or no, let's have a vote on it

It was a joke playing on "up or down votes."

 

[pigeon]

These are some of the Senators that approved him for the 10th,... but now its pearl clutching time.

https://twitter.com/AndrewWMullins/status/826598116904333312

I'd be happy for the Dems to consider a vote on Gorsuch right after the confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland.

 

[wandering]

Garland wasn't filibustered. He simply wasn't considered by Congress.

So even worse.

 

[Bishman]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/23/14982598/neil-gorsuch-democrats-nuclear-option-strategy

Is it important to punish Republicans for obstructing Merrick Garland? I hate to say this, but I’m afraid it’s time for some game theory. In the 1980s, the game theorists Anatol Rapoport and Robert Axelrod found that if you play the famous prisoner's dilemma game (where cooperation helps both parties but they face strong incentives to defect) again and again, one of the best strategies you can use is "tit for tat": do whatever your opponent did the last time.

As political scientist Seth Masket points out, in the case of the Supreme Court, this implies that Democrats should respond to the obstruction of Garland by obstructing Gorsuch. In the long run, tit for tat produces more cooperation than the alternatives, and showing Republicans that Democrats won't tolerate that kind of obstruction could have some long-term benefits for the party.

I love this point by Vox.