-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Senate confirms Gorsuch to replace Scalia on Supreme Court
- Thread starter DOWN
- Start date
- Status
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
In a game of escalating brinkmanship, you can just point fingers all day at who started what to justify your own behavior. This is what's causing the political process to decay as we speak.
Not really comparitively. Have you not been paying attention? Trump's cabinet was hastily nominated and didn't have background checks and paperwork finished. Dems blocked a bit with what they could but all in all he got things through at a pretty normal pace, the exception being the positions he never even nominated in the first place.
...because republicans gutted the filibuster so they can't, or are you arguing that it is wrong for democrats to block or not block? What point are you making?
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Winning elections does not give Republicans a right to break the government though. SC appointments will never be the same again.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Not only was the pick stolen, and Garland very acceptable choice to both sides who couldn't even get a hearing, this admin is under active investigation.
Destroying the very institutional norms that keep our government functioning is not the status quo.
balladofwindfishes
Member
They have no power to do so. They literally can not stall his appointments.
B
bomb
Unconfirmed Member
it's called politics. The Dems didn't have the numbers in the seats. It's just funny when you play both sides of the coin. These types of political tactics have been going on for many years before Obama and will many years after Trump. The "it started with Obama" is just a big joke.
what ? no, SC justice is for life or if they retire
Yeah, in response to there being almost 500 open federal court seats that Republicans obstructed.
Maybe I'm too partisan to say this objectively at this point- But everything took a turn for the worse when Obama was elected. This really is the logical path that the country was going to take. Obstructionism was standardized, and now they're not letting the minority group exert the same power... I think it's obvious who we should be pointing the finger at.
Just not true, look at the historical voting record for SC judges. They used to have partisan support, but those days are gone.
82 seats blocked under Obama. 86 blocked under every other president combined before him. Don't even try to pretend its the same thing.
Captin Quacker
Member
Or we come be pissed at those who didn't vote?
To be entirely fair, democrats gutted the filibuster, because of unheard of obstruction by senate republicans. Though I don't have a single doubt republicans would have killed it the first cabinet position to be blocked (say DeVos).
Unprecedented blocking of seats and bills started under Obama. I'm totally willing to pull out receipts if you want them, but a simple google search would tell you the same thing if you want to put in the effort.
More filibusters and stalls were used to block Obama appointees than in the entirety of the history of the US.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
The big joke is equating the obstructionism Obama dealt with (and Hillary also would've) to anything that came before.
And obama overturned the lower court two third also.
There was precedent.
Now this though may bite the republicans in the ass in the future.
Now all democratic need is simple majority for all votes in future presidency
OuterLimits
Member
Pretty much. Republicans weren't going to consider Garland in an election year, especially since it was replacing the most conservative person on the court. Hell, Repubs got heat from their base for not fighting Sotomayor and Kagan.(about 25% of them voted for Sotomayor/Kagan)
I'm guessing if the Dems had a slim majority for the Scalia replacement pick last year, they would have gone nuclear. The base would have rightly demanded it. I know they nuked the filibuster for lower court picks.
I know that, I was wondering if the President being a criminal would affect the laws and appointments he made if he was a criminal while he did those things.
Not that I expect anything to happen, just curious if lawmakers had made any contingencies.
The Last Wizard
Member
Obama and dems should've changed how Election Day works. It should be a national holiday for everyone, no excuses. College students should get the day off. Also they need to start talking more about more than just presidential elections as everyone thinks that's all that matters.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Look, you can blame the DNC for propping up Hillary as much as they did, but in the end, the people voted for her in the primary and in the election. The voters were responsible for getting her to the national stage, just as the voters were responsible for who won the national election.
If you are someone who did not vote for her, then you cannot in good faith say you did not contribute to what we have now. Whether you liked her or not, that's the fact of the matter. No ideology will change that truth.
Not for bills. Only for appointments. The filibuster is all but gone for appointments, but no party has gotten rid of it yet for legislation. Democrats nuked the filibuster specifically for the ACA but no one has yet made it in general for all bills.
Kennedy replaced this summer (Cruz has referred to another seat opening up, and Kennedy has no clerk past this summer).
RBG next year
"Maybe" Thomas in there as well.
MiketheBSG
Member
Flying Toaster
Member
I see this administration getting one possibly two more seats. Kennedy might retire and RBG might not make it.
This is a horrible nightmare.
This is a horrible nightmare.
Seth Enosh
Member
They had no choice but to let it happen. 52 republicans united on holding the seat open until the election vs 48 democrats and independents, and polls showing the voters were mostly ok with it or didn't care enough to change their vote because of it. The GOP was in full command here and couldn't be stopped.
Forcing the nuclear option on this vote may have been a tactical mistake but it does return us to the pre-2003 state of affairs where executive nominations were not filibustered except for the bipartisan filibuster of Abe Fortas in 1968 for ethics issues.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Technically it gives them just that right. They, as the majority, decide whether the filibuster stays or goes.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
Obama's only mistake with the whole SC thing was picking Garland. Another white guy which didn't excite a single Democrat. At the end of his Presidency he went one last time "middle of the road" to appease the GOP and try to get them to work with him. He got exactly what he had been getting the past 7 years from them, a big fuck you.
jimmypython
Member
I know that. That's why my post didn't target any particular political party. I am just saying the system isn't sustainable anymore and has to change
metalslimer
Member
Comparing the nuclear option used for lower courts to now is how you know someone doesn't actually follow politics and wants to use the both sides arguments. Dems waited for years after Obama appointees were continually blocked for no reason than to block his appointees that everyone agreed were qualified. Republicans escalated this from the very beginning
SC justices aren't picked to excite people.
SC justices aren't picked to excite people.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
This is so off-the-mark. Garland was a moderate candidate with great credentials who would have been confirmed without issue under any previous political climate. He didn't need to "excite" anyone really, he was a solid pick that at the very least should have been able to meet with senators to move towards a vote. There is literally nothing Obama could have done differently, obstructing Garland had nothing to do with Garland and everything to do with Obama.
Having a majority doesn't make what you did right and blaming the victim gets you nowhere.
Also, Scalia wasn't the most conservative person on the court. The title of 'most conservative' belongs to Thomas, another stolen seat.
Just for the record:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/
The Republican Congress under Obama blocked more of his nominees than had ever been blocked throughout the history of the country.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/
The Republican Congress under Obama blocked more of his nominees than had ever been blocked throughout the history of the country.
OuterLimits
Member
Kennedy has always been the most unpredictable one in rulings. Although in the first Obamacare ruling it was surprisingly Roberts who was the pivotal vote, while Kennedy sided with the conservatives.
This is the scary shit. If RBG or Kennedy leave, we lose either a swing vote or a liberal vote and when that happens you bet your ass Republicans will gut social progress en masse. Goodbye gay marriage and Rowe vs wade for the next 3 decades.
Stolen seat
One such instance was lunch time in thr middke of orlando this guy was talking to 3 or 4 guys about it.
Actually they do, ive heard in passing and several friends that voted trump for the supreme court nomination(s).
One such instance was lunch time in thr middke of orlando this guy was talking to 3 or 4 guys about it.
Flying Toaster
Member
Are you serious. If any other President selected Garland the GOP would have been happy to sign off. The guy was a great pick for both sides.
Flying Toaster
Member
This is true but I would rather have Kennedy then a super ultra conservative. The GOP got their pick and they went Nuclear. Sky is the limit now.
there are people who voted Trump because they wanted a conservative SC
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Yeah, for plenty of Trump voters, SCOTUS is the silver lining regardless.
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Obama had a constitutional right to nominate a justice. They didn't even give Garland a hearing. This isn't how it works.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
All time worst mistake he made, told Putin "knock it off" with the Russia hacking
idiocy
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
One, if not both of them, will. RBG has had a few health problems, and Kennedy has already been talking about retirement I think. I could easily seeing them both going in the next 4 years. And Breyer is no spring chicken either.
So yah, Trump will get two picks. Possibly three. And if god REALLY hates us, 4.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
Obama had to play politics with the pick for the election. Nominate a black woman/man, Hispanic man, or hell even an Asian. The whole Garland issue came and went with barely a blip specifically because he was a concensus moderate. People don't go protest in the streets for that shit. That's what I mean by "excited".
Especially when before Obama even picked anyone McConnell already vowed to block.
The fact that it was great for "both sides" is precisely why Dems ended up not really giving a shit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked