• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump's SCOTUS Nominee

The hilarious thing is that Pryor's stock is apparently dropping because he's being attacked from the right for joining an opinion that recognized transgender discrimination. When he's about the nuttiest right-winger on the list.

Gorsuch may be about as good as Dems could expect. He's well respected, and if we were in the world we should be where we approve judges based on their qualifications then he should be easily confirmed. Of course we're not in that world, especially post-Garland.
 
I don't know. I think maybe the Dems should just refuse to confirm anybody on the grounds that Trump lost the popular vote, and that we have another round of congressional elections coming in less than two years. Really should be up to the next Congress to confirm or deny judicial appointments, no?
 
birdman said:
I don't know. I think maybe the Dems should just refuse to confirm anybody on the grounds that Trump lost the popular vote, and that we have another round of congressional elections coming in less than two years. Really should be up to the next Congress to confirm or deny judicial appointments, no?
Click to expand...
Ugh. Seriously fuck those Republican dick heads for setting that precedent.
 
Junebug said:
Nuclear option would follow and Trump would nominate someone to the right of Scalia.
Click to expand...

Now that Trump is president, can we use a different word other than the "Nuclear option." I'm trying not to be paranoid but that phrasing makes me a bit nervous.
 
Junebug said:
Nuclear option would follow and Trump would nominate someone to the right of Scalia.
Click to expand...

Eh, I almost don't care about the nuclear option falling because the filibuster no longer provides Dems with any protection. Pubs will kill it for whoever Trump nominates, no matter how legitimate Dem complaints are. So I almost feel like Dems should filibuster just to make a point about how Garland was treated. They have nothing to lose.
 
There's a POTUS election in 4 years, we just need to wait for the next real president to nominate.

No sense in letting Trump do it now.
 
birdman said:
I don't know. I think maybe the Dems should just refuse to confirm anybody on the grounds that Trump lost the popular vote, and that we have another round of congressional elections coming in less than two years. Really should be up to the next Congress to confirm or deny judicial appointments, no?
Click to expand...

Dems lost the vote period! Just like Wake & UVa lost their games this weekend. Gotta get over it. If we had 32 minute basketball games, we could be 16-5 or better, but that is not the rule. So Dems need to realize that the Electoral College is and has always been the rule. Gorsuch would be the best it would seem as he was confirmed by a voice vote for his federal bench so it is hard to imagine the Dems finding things all of a sudden now. And many thanks to Harry Reid during his time for lowering the 60 vote "super majority" Senate vote on many things down to just a regular 51 vote margin. Now the Pubs get to play by those rules also.
 
TheReff said:
Dems lost the vote period! Just like Wake & UVa lost their games this weekend. Gotta get over it. If we had 32 minute basketball games, we could be 16-5 or better, but that is not the rule. So Dems need to realize that the Electoral College is and has always been the rule. Gorsuch would be the best it would seem as he was confirmed by a voice vote for his federal bench so it is hard to imagine the Dems finding things all of a sudden now. And many thanks to Harry Reid during his time for lowering the 60 vote "super majority" Senate vote on many things down to just a regular 51 vote margin. Now the Pubs get to play by those rules also.
Click to expand...

But the "Pubs" didn't play by the rules when Obama nominated Garland. Obama won the vote period! He had the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and he did. The Congress had the responsibility to consider his nominee (advise and consent). The Republican leadership failed to do this. So they shouldn't (but they will) complain when the Democrats use similar justifications and tactics against them.
 
Does anybody remember a time where SCOTUS nominee was definitely qualified but didn't even get a vote in the Senate? Would definitely be petty politics not to give such a person a vote. Elections have consequences - we can all agree one benefit of being president is ability to nominate justices to the SCOTUS and the Senate should give that nominee a vote right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top