Mercury Fred
Banned
A federal investigation is more than enough to stop all action from this administration save for keeping the lights on. No changes to anything are appropriate until it's sorted.
-
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.
Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
The Republicans literally stole this seat, letting this issue go would just prove that they never have to allow Democrats to pick a justice again without them having a super majority. If Democrats don't fight they risk giving up the Supreme Court for good. I can't believe people would ever suggest they allow this pick to go through for the sake of the government "functioning". The government stopped functioning when the GOP pulled this stunt in the first place.
It's not. Show me in federal law where an investigation means largely shutting down the Executive branch.
Mercury Fred
Banned
When was the last time a new administration was under investigation for collusion with a foreign power?
Show me in Federal law where the President doesn't get to pick a supreme court justice if it's his last year.
Being "under investigation" is simply not enough to do what you are asking. That would give the investigative bodies of the government way too much power.
Huh? It doesn't have to be. It was wrong, but not illegal.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
If filling this spot means those ties now turn into rulings that hurt the rights of union workers, women, people of color, and LGBT Americans just as they did when Scalia was alive, why exactly do we want those ties to be broken?
Mercury Fred
Banned
It's actually more than enough in this case. And if we're talking about giving government bodies too much power, we need to discuss congress not allowing Obama a hearing on his SC appointment.
Because us not likening the result of those rulings is not enough to sabotage the body tasked with making them.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Putting Gorsuch on the court is sabotaging the body, as it presents the case that Democratic nominees are illegitimate but Republican nominees aren't.
It's not more than enough. We have laws, they need to be followed. The FBI can't bring the Executive Branch to a hault based on an investigation.
Mercury Fred
Banned
The executive branch currently has no legitimacy; the institution itself has been sabotaged. Getting worked up about waiting for an SC appointment now really seems somewhere between selective outrage and full on concern trolling, honestly.
ultratruman
Banned
The poster sincerely compared voting for Gorsuch to the Munich Agreement, I think 'ridiculous' was deserved in that case.
It's astounding the number of people who want to see this guy blocked. Gorsuch isn't Bork, he isn't a Trump crony, he isn't a nutter. He's a guy with conservative opinions who is perfectly qualified to be a SCOTUS judge.
Plenty of Republicans voted for Obama appointed judges, because they knew they were qualified and Obama had won the election.
What the Republicans did to Garland was shameful, their obstructionism throughout Obama's presidency was reckless and stupid. However, like it or not, the SCOTUS has become politicised. Can you imagine a Democratic Senate allowing Bush to appoint a replacement to Justice Ginsberg with 9 months left before the election?
You're wrong to want the Democrats to follow the GOP down this reactionary path. The right can do things that the left will never get away with. For example, imagine the reaction if a Democrat had restarted the US relationship with communist China, instead of Nixon.
The whole period between 1968 and 1992 is clear evidence that Democrats only win when they're capable of being trusted by the centre ground. Poisoning their legacy of responsible governance is the last thing Dems should be thinking about.
The Executive branch is absolutely legitimate until someone proves it's not.
Now, that fact makes me sick, but it's true.
In other words, there is no law that says that the executive branch shouldn't be allowed to confirm nominations either, but the Democrats could easily filibuster, demand cloture, and withhold unanimous consent on every motion.
The question is whether they represent their constituents or whether they're quislings like the GOP.
To be fair, it's not like Scalia stepped down of his own free will to vacate the spot for Obama's nominee.
Mercury Fred
Banned
It's already been proven, many times over.
I think it would actually just be their constitutional duty.
No, it hasn't.
Believing it to be true and wanting it to be true does not mean it has been proven.
Coriolanus
Banned
i like this stance you're taking pidg. 
And the whole period between 2008 and 2016 is evidence that even if they've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can be trusted by the centre ground, it will gladly tell the party to get fucked if a regressive/racist option is on the table.
The rules have changed, b. The orange cretin is quite the evidence of that.
And the whole period between 2008 and 2016 is evidence that even if they've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can be trusted by the centre ground, it will gladly tell the party to get fucked if a regressive/racist option is on the table.
The rules have changed, b. The orange cretin is quite the evidence of that.
Well, then we disagree.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
No law says that a SCOTUS nominee can't be blocked. That's how Republicans stole this seat! Why should we allow them to? All this sends as a message is "we're pushovers who will let you do whatever you want."
This guy thinks the Democrats should've run fucking Jim Webb last year.i like this stance you're taking pidg.
And the whole period between 2008 and 2016 is evidence that even if they've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can be trusted by the centre ground, it will gladly tell the party to get fucked if a regressive/racist option is on the table.
The rules have changed, b. The orange cretin is quite the evidence of that.
soundahfekz
Member
i like this stance you're taking pidg.
And the whole period between 2008 and 2016 is evidence that even if they've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can be trusted by the centre ground, it will gladly tell the party to get fucked if a regressive/racist option is on the table.
The rules have changed, b. The orange cretin is quite the evidence of that.
Dems are only gonna win anything if they grow a spine
The base is no longer the base. People are tired of watching Dems reach across the aisle only to have their hand chopped off
Mercury Fred
Banned
Flynn and Manafort are proof enough already. This administration is not legitimate and any/ everything it tries to do must be put on hold.
Sure, but I'm the one who remembers the oath you took to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
I don't even understand the comparison you are making. What does not voting on a SC nominee have to do with shutting down the Executive Branch?
darkistheway
Member
Now all you need is a federal judge who agrees with you...
That is absolutely not enough. Not nearly.
Mercury Fred
Banned
It's actually more than enough.
I hated this Alex Jones style logic coming from Republicans over Hillary's emails and Benghazi. I equally hate it coming from the left over political ties and acting as if Trump is a Manchurian President. if you think this is the sole reason that Trump is President and thus illegitimate, you're irrational. I hate the fucking Cheeto too but this manic conspiracy isn't going to change a thing. What's the best case scenario for you? Trump is tossed out? Pence too? That puts Paul Ryan in the White House, who came to power through the last 8 years presumably without Putin's machinations.
i like this stance you're taking pidg.
And the whole period between 2008 and 2016 is evidence that even if they've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can be trusted by the centre ground, it will gladly tell the party to get fucked if a regressive/racist option is on the table.
The rules have changed, b. The orange cretin is quite the evidence of that.
I think you're discounting the importance of populism and distrust of the "political elite" (Emphasis on quotes). Treating Hillary Clinton as the heir apparent for the last eight years has caused the party to sit around, twiddling their thumbs and doing fuck-all to prepare for the next generation while Republicans have gained 12 governorships, 60 house seats, and 10 senate seats with new blood.
Where are we at now on the left? Hoping that Warren becomes tolerable by the mainstream? Biden or Bernie are healthy enough to consider a presidential run and tenure? Cory Booker not shooting himself in the foot every other month? Republicans have a host of younger governors, senators, and reps ready to maintain their foothold and make up for any sabotage that Trump might cause their party.
What oath do you think I took?
And I find your arguments incredibly insulting, from comparing my position to the Munich agreement, to saying I do not defend the Constitution. Please dial it back.
Considering you have taken a position that really no one else has, it seems like that isn't the case.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
Uh
Mercury Fred
Banned
That's not a very sound argument.
I was going to say "of consequence," but that seemed demeaning.
No paper of record, no prominent political, no judge, no government body has adopted that stance.
ultratruman
Banned
i like this stance you're taking pidg.
And the whole period between 2008 and 2016 is evidence that even if they've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can be trusted by the centre ground, it will gladly tell the party to get fucked if a regressive/racist option is on the table.
The rules have changed, b. The orange cretin is quite the evidence of that.
Hillary Clinton is many things, but I've never read anyone claim that she is trusted by the centre ground.
Neither is your "no, it is enough!", but here we are.
Hopefully if there was sufficient wrongdoing on Trump's part, he will be removed from office.
Mercury Fred
Banned
So you're going to make/ not make a comment you find "demeaning" and also tell other posters to dial it back. OK.
And the notion of allowing him a lifetime appointment with the cloud hanging over this administration is nothing short of bizarre.
I didn't make such a comment, I explained what I meant and it isn't demeaning.
I've worked with him, he's a good man.
Where did he say the government should shut down?
Coriolanus
Banned
Are you using centre ground as a codename for white people?
Either way, you gotta factor that neither was The Don. And between the two, there was reason to believe that the democratic option was the least untrustworthy of the two.
Alas.
nitekrawlwer
Member
He didn't. He did say that Trump is not a legitimate president. Which is the position I believe is the position you were saying had no prominent politicals in your discussion with Mecury Fred.
No, I was arguing against the idea that the Executive Branch should be shut down over this investigation.
He has already done enough to warrant impeachment simply on the Emoluments Clause. He serves in office only because the GOP is unwilling to impeach him as long as they're afraid of the political backlash and think he'll sign their entitlement cuts.
Mercury Fred
Banned
I said paused, not shut down.
This should really have been in Hillary's ads. "This year, why not vote for the least untrustworthy candidate?"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked