• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. This whole thing is over. Better to focus on the coming inevitable storm over changing the court irreparably for the rest of our lives when a liberal justice resigns/dies.

But the important thing is that all of those so-called liberals stuck to there guns and didn't vote for Hillary or voted Third party because of rigged/email/speeches.

Doesn't matter that the supreme Court is fucked for another generation, their conscience clear.
 
But the important thing is that all of those so-called liberals stuck to there guns and didn't vote for Hillary or voted Third party because of rigged/email/speeches.

Doesn't matter that the supreme Court is fucked for another generation, their conscience clear.

I mean, at some point democrats have to figure out how/why those folks didn't vote for them and adjust their platform accordingly.

Court can go either way. But if a liberal judge passes away during the next few years forget it...it's a wrap
 

Amir0x

Banned
But the important thing is that all of those so-called liberals stuck to there guns and didn't vote for Hillary or voted Third party because of rigged/email/speeches.

Doesn't matter that the supreme Court is fucked for another generation, their conscience clear.

These precious angels deserve a cinnamon cookie for their purity and grace, so sweet of them to allow the poor and disenfranchised and minorities and LGBT to be fucked over for the next 30 to 40 years for their principles.

Apparently we have to give them something to vote for and not against if we don't want them being insufferably selfish pricks.
 
Two very important things:
- First, that quote should properly attribute the statement to Chris Gardner, Will Smith's character in the movie, not Will Smith.
- Second, the name of the movie is spelled wrong in the image. It's the Pursuit of Happyness.
You miss every shot you don't take
- Wayne Gretzky
- Michael Scott
 
Thank you Harry Reid for creating the nuclear option! Gorsuch will be a great Supreme Court Justice!

Harry Reid by no means created the nuclear method. The use of that particular manuver has been threatened since 1917, and Richard Nixon wrote a paper outlining the procedure and use of the tactic when he was VP (and thus President of the Senate) in 1957.

Also, SCOTUS filibusters have been effectively dead since 2005 anyway.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
We are far from Trump being impeached, but IF he is impeached along with some other people in his cabinet removed from office, is there any precedent for a SCOTUS nomination during a time like that and is it remotely feasible that Gorsuch could be removed to redo the process?

Because I assume the answer is no, and if so our government is pretty dysfunctional if a president and multiple cabinet members collided with another country yet something as important as a lifetime appointment will be upheld - especially considering the methods used by the GOP to obstruct nominations for a year and change the rules of the Senate to confirm a nomination.

There has only been one justice ever impeached.

The process of impeachment has, to my knowledge, never been used as a vote of no-confidence, for any federal official, judge, or legislator. That's a concept that's never been entertained or considered.
 
I'm not too broken up about this. Gorsuch is clearly talented. He made fools of almost everyone trying to ambush him during the confirmation hearings. However, I will be upset if Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer are replaced with Pryor, Sykes, and Hardiman. There are rumors that Kennedy will retire this summer, so I think Trump will get at least one more.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I mean, at some point democrats have to figure out how/why those folks didn't vote for them and adjust their platform accordingly.

Court can go either way. But if a liberal judge passes away during the next few years forget it...it's a wrap

500k more people voted for Gore.
5 million more people voted for obama.

3 million more people voted for Hillary.

The only times in my life (I turned 29 in March) the GOP candidate has won the popular vote:

1. 2004. George W Bush was an incumbent wartime president benefiting from a 9/11 bump.

2. 1988. George H W Bush won. I was 8 months old.

That's right, the last time a non-incumbent republican won the popular vote, I was a baby. a fucking baby.

But it's democrats that have problems getting people to vote for them? The Democrats' problem isn't getting people to vote for them. It's that the system cares too much about land and too little about people.
 
500k more people voted for Gore.
5 million more people voted for obama.

3 million more people voted for Hillary.

The only times in my life (I turned 29 in March) the GOP candidate has won the popular vote:

1. 2004. George W Bush was an incumbent wartime president benefiting from a 9/11 bump.

2. 1988. George H W Bush won. I was 8 months old.

That's right, the last time a non-incumbent republican won the popular vote, I was a baby. a fucking baby.

But it's democrats that have problems getting people to vote for them? The Democrats' problem isn't getting people to vote for them. It's that the system cares too much about land and too little about people.

I mean, ok. All I know is democrats lost the last election. It would behoove them to figure out why and adjust their tactics accordingly. That's all I'm saying.

I just hope it's not 8 years of Trump. Because the odds of a liberal justice retiring in that time frame is not insignificant.
 

Arttemis

Member
"Senate Republicans refused to consider Garland's nomination until after the November election, and Trump's surprise win meant a conservative would succeed Scalia."

Yet, weeks into his administration, we have a resignation, recusal, a reconsidered cabinet appointment because the nominee was an abusive sexist, multiple investigations of what amounts to treason, an investigation into the ethics of how one of those investigations is being run...

And yet, instead of waiting for the completion of the most historic investigation into any presidency, the GOP goes nuclear to push a politically charged judge into the Supreme Court.
 
God, this is so fucking digusting. The SCOTUS seat is basically the only reason I voted Hill instead of third party, and it did doodly squat. At least Gorsuch is not a nut (this arguably shifts the court slightly leftward in comparison to having Scalia on it), but the fact that so much of the country does not CARE about this happening and that this didn't engender an even bigger response than the attempted gutting of that ethics office is depressing. Gives me ammo for founding my America is Fucked, Let's All Focus On Space Party, however.
 
But the important thing is that all of those so-called liberals stuck to there guns and didn't vote for Hillary or voted Third party because of rigged/email/speeches.

Doesn't matter that the supreme Court is fucked for another generation, their conscience clear.
This would have happened if she won tho...
 

Amir0x

Banned
This would have happened if she won tho...

>This< would not have happened. What are you talking about? The president nominates candidates to the SCOTUS. The worst that could have happened is the Republicans decide to continue filibustering her candidate for four years. Still a better outcome than this.
 

guek

Banned
"Senate Republicans refused to consider Garland's nomination until after the November election, and Trump's surprise win meant a conservative would succeed Scalia."

Yet, weeks into his administration, we have a resignation, recusal, a reconsidered cabinet appointment because the nominee was an abusive sexist, multiple investigations of what amounts to treason, an investigation into the ethics of how one of those investigations is being run...

And yet, instead of waiting for the completion of the most historic investigation into any presidency, the GOP goes nuclear to push a politically charged judge into the Supreme Court.
Party

Before

Country

Always
 

hollomat

Banned
500k more people voted for Gore.
5 million more people voted for obama.

3 million more people voted for Hillary.

The only times in my life (I turned 29 in March) the GOP candidate has won the popular vote:

1. 2004. George W Bush was an incumbent wartime president benefiting from a 9/11 bump.

2. 1988. George H W Bush won. I was 8 months old.

That's right, the last time a non-incumbent republican won the popular vote, I was a baby. a fucking baby.

But it's democrats that have problems getting people to vote for them? The Democrats' problem isn't getting people to vote for them. It's that the system cares too much about land and too little about people.

By the same token you could argue that only 2 non incumbent democrat presidents have won the popular vote in your lifetime.

The problem is getting the democrats in the swing states to vote. Getting another million or so votes in California or New York means nothing. Sure it makes the popular vote count margin look higher, but it doesn't put a democrat in the White House. Whether or not the electoral college should be changed is up for debate, but the way the presidential election currently works, democrats had a big problem getting people in the swing states to vote in the last election and really need to work on this for the next election.
 

Ac30

Member
True. Meant to say Presidents. Guess my point on that doesn't stand, but my point about needing to get people out to vote in the swing states still does.

I really don't get the point of keeping the electoral college around; the argument for giving the small states equal say is crap, since Republicans would actually bother to show up in California for once, and candidates would need to give a shit about every state. It gives everyone a voice.
 
Scary to think that if RBG and Breyer pass suddenly we're gonna be getting a bunch of 7-2 or 6-3 decisions all in the conservative direction.
 

Plumbob

Member
I really don't get the point of keeping the electoral college around; the argument for giving the small states equal say is crap, since Republicans would actually bother to show up in California for once, and candidates would need to give a shit about every state. It gives everyone a voice.

We need to stop valuing people who live in Florida more than people who live in California.
 

DOWN

Banned
Thank you Harry Reid for creating the nuclear option! Gorsuch will be a great Supreme Court Justice!
He didn't create the idea at all, it's been threatened before. And maybe remember that he first did it on non-Supreme Court nominations because the GOP had begun unprecedented use of the filibuster to completely prevent many Obama nominees from getting vote sessions. This was completely new and ridiculous stalling that was going to go unchecked for 4 years if they didn't do something to stop the GOP.
 
Fuck the GOP, they stole the supreme court seat from Obama as a last fuck you sendoff as if they didn't give him enough shit already. They treated such an eloquent, respectful man like garbage and were rewarded for it. Great life lesson for future generations.

It amazes me that they will never get to appreciate how legendary of a human being Barack was and how lucky we were to have him lead the country, they have no fucking ability to respect greatness.
 

RobotHaus

Unconfirmed Member
I really don't get the point of keeping the electoral college around; the argument for giving the small states equal say is crap, since Republicans would actually bother to show up in California for once, and candidates would need to give a shit about every state. It gives everyone a voice.

The argument also goes the other way where candidates would only care about populous states since they hold the majority of electorate power.

A better idea would be to use a proportional electorate system. It would then be more accurate with candidates having to put more attention to states.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Terrible gamble.



Yup. He was too good of a man. He thought most people were decent and honest and ethical like him and michelle. He didn't realize that most people are scum.

At a certain point it stops being optimism and starts being ignorance. For just about any sane person that threshold was crossed at least four years ago.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
By the same token you could argue that only 2 non incumbent democrat presidents have won the popular vote in your lifetime.

The problem is getting the democrats in the swing states to vote. Getting another million or so votes in California or New York means nothing. Sure it makes the popular vote count margin look higher, but it doesn't put a democrat in the White House. Whether or not the electoral college should be changed is up for debate, but the way the presidential election currently works, democrats had a big problem getting people in the swing states to vote in the last election and really need to work on this for the next election.

There have been 3 non-incumbent republicans in my life time. only 1 has won the popular vote.

And you don't get to throw out California any more than I get to throw out 13 trump states. a voter is a voter.
 

Ac30

Member
The argument also goes the other way where candidates would only care about populous states since they hold the majority of electorate power.

A better idea would be to use a proportional electorate system. It would then be more accurate with candidates having to put more attention to states.

As in divide the EC votes per state by their popular vote margins? How would that be better than abolishing it?
 

watershed

Banned
I hate that McConnell's unprecedented purely partisan play worked out. And now this guy is gonna be on the bench for decades and any hopes of securing a left leaning SC are gone for another generation.
 

RobotHaus

Unconfirmed Member
As in divide the EC votes per state by their popular vote margins? How would that be better than abolishing it?

Because idiots love their old system. Better to change it and keep it rather than let the current one keep decaying democracy.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
These precious angels deserve a cinnamon cookie for their purity and grace, so sweet of them to allow the poor and disenfranchised and minorities and LGBT to be fucked over for the next 30 to 40 years for their principles.

Apparently we have to give them something to vote for and not against if we don't want them being insufferably selfish pricks.

You miss every shot you don't take
- Wayne Gretzky
- Michael Scott

Since both of you posted one after the other, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that both of you were quite wrong when this subject came up 5 years ago:

http://64.91.255.7/forum/showthread.php?t=460275&page=27

http://64.91.255.7/forum/showthread.php?t=460275&page=28

You guys should have known better.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
500k more people voted for Gore.
5 million more people voted for obama.

3 million more people voted for Hillary.

The only times in my life (I turned 29 in March) the GOP candidate has won the popular vote:

1. 2004. George W Bush was an incumbent wartime president benefiting from a 9/11 bump.

2. 1988. George H W Bush won. I was 8 months old.

That's right, the last time a non-incumbent republican won the popular vote, I was a baby. a fucking baby.

But it's democrats that have problems getting people to vote for them? The Democrats' problem isn't getting people to vote for them. It's that the system cares too much about land and too little about people.

This is true. However, you can't change the constitution without Republican consent. The constitution currently advantages the Republicans, so they won't give consent. Therefore, the fact when campaigning you need to weight land as well as people is just the rules of the game, a game that the Democrats have been playing for over a hundred years. Rather than venting anger at something that you have no ability to adjust, it seems more useful to vent anger at an extremely lacklustre election strategy and election candidate which has allowed the Republicans to win, and push the Democratic party toward a different electoral strategy and different type of electoral candidate.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom