Do I think this rule change is a good thing? No.

Do I think this is the only way to do business in today's political environment? Yes.

Do I think the democrats' opposition was pretty much baseless? Yes.

What would I have done? Tried to bring people together. My approach would have been naming Garland as the replacement for the next lefty to step down (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) in exchange for democrats' agreeing not to filibuster Gorsuch.

(04-07-2017 09:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Have the DEMS ever refused to hold a hearing on a GOP nominee for nearly a year?

Well back in 2007 they promised that the would....

(04-07-2017 05:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Have the DEMS ever refused to hold a hearing on a GOP nominee for nearly a year?

Well back in 2007 they promised that the would....

So no. Thanks.

(04-07-2017 04:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do I think this rule change is a good thing? No.

Do I think this is the only way to do business in today's political environment? Yes.

Do I think the democrats' opposition was pretty much baseless? Yes.

What would I have done? Tried to bring people together. My approach would have been naming Garland as the replacement for the next lefty to step down (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) in exchange for democrats' agreeing not to filibuster Gorsuch.

Dems would never do that if the shoe was on the other foot. You can't unilaterally disarm as the Republicans have been doing for too long.

I'm inclined to think the filibuster has outlived its usefulness. It is no longer used for its original purpose, but instead, is used to create a super majority not specified in the constitution.

(04-07-2017 04:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My approach would have been naming Garland as the replacement for the next lefty to step down (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) in exchange for democrats' agreeing not to filibuster Gorsuch.

Why throw a bone to them like that? Elections have consequences including being able to appoint SCJ's of the administration's preference.

(04-10-2017 10:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 05:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Have the DEMS ever refused to hold a hearing on a GOP nominee for nearly a year?

Well back in 2007 they promised that the would....

So no. Thanks.

So the GOP has never filibusterd a dem nominee and the Dems have never withheld a vote on a GOP nominee..

Hey look at that... Two wrongs, I'm sure there is a right in there somewhere.

If you think, for a second, the dems would not have done the same to Bush, then you're delusional. The entire notion of not appointing a SC in the last year of a lame ducks term was *INVENTED* out of whole cloth by Charles Schumer and Harry Reid.

They invented Borking, they assassinated (and continue to assassinate) Thomas' character.... There has always been a political bent to the process byt the dems have been doing some next level shaq on the court for 20+ years.

(04-06-2017 07:04 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 12:19 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Ginsberg to be replaced by William Pryor (currently 55 yrs old)
Kennedy to be replaced by Mike Lee (46 yrs old)
Bryer to be replaced by Ted Cruz (47 yo)

You think three judges get in in the next four years...

I have real doubts about Trump winning anything in 2020.

What makes you think that Trump is losing in 2020 ? Massive voting from democrats ?

Sent from my SM-N910C using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-10-2017 10:20 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 10:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 05:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Have the DEMS ever refused to hold a hearing on a GOP nominee for nearly a year?

Well back in 2007 they promised that the would....

So no. Thanks.

So the GOP has never filibusterd a dem nominee and the Dems have never withheld a vote on a GOP nominee..

Hey look at that... Two wrongs, I'm sure there is a right in there somewhere.

If you think, for a second, the dems would not have done the same to Bush, then you're delusional. The entire notion of not appointing a SC in the last year of a lame ducks term was *INVENTED* out of whole cloth by Charles Schumer and Harry Reid.

They invented Borking, they assassinated (and continue to assassinate) Thomas' character.... There has always been a political bent to the process byt the dems have been doing some next level shaq on the court for 20+ years.

The Dems don't have the spine. It took an unprecedented amount of blocking of Obama's judicial appointments by the GOP for dingy Harry to even get rid of the filibuster for them.

If anything, the Dems would have at least held a hearing.

You guys always go back to the Biden comments...but that situation was not close to the nearly full year that Obama had left and it was only a hypothetical as there was no vacancy at the time anyway!

(04-10-2017 10:27 AM)Curumim Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 07:04 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 12:19 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Ginsberg to be replaced by William Pryor (currently 55 yrs old)
Kennedy to be replaced by Mike Lee (46 yrs old)
Bryer to be replaced by Ted Cruz (47 yo)

You think three judges get in in the next four years...

I have real doubts about Trump winning anything in 2020.

What makes you think that Trump is losing in 2020 ? Massive voting from democrats ?

Sent from my SM-N910C using CSNbbs mobile app

I think the dems will be very energized and his thin wins in WI/MI/PA go away...

(04-10-2017 10:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The Dems don't have the spine. It took an unprecedented amount of blocking of Obama's judicial appointments by the GOP for dingy Harry to even get rid of the filibuster for them.

Two things

1 - Harry did nuke the filibuster where it suited him
2 - The dems filibustering this nominee was also unprecedented

Quote:If anything, the Dems would have at least held a hearing.

We may find out in 2019 or 2023, but I think they would have did what schumer proposed...

Quote:You guys always go back to the Biden comments...

Because he and schumer invented the notion... Not one I like, by the way.

(04-06-2017 07:04 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 12:19 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Ginsberg to be replaced by William Pryor (currently 55 yrs old)
Kennedy to be replaced by Mike Lee (46 yrs old)
Bryer to be replaced by Ted Cruz (47 yo)

You think three judges get in in the next four years...

Better than 50-50. Kennedy will retire after this term.

Ginsberg (who truly pissed off the progs for not retiring during Obby's term) won't make another two years.

Breyer is the wild card. He might hold on hoping for a Dem in 2020.