Woody wrote:Sooo the CIA was in the bag for Trump, by that logic? I want to move to Denmark

jerseyhoya wrote:[we're more likely to get that from a court with Gorsuch on it than Garland

jerseyhoya wrote:

thephan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Gorsuch receives a well qualified rating from the ABA.

Hopefully the Dems are forced to filibuster by their base, so McConnell can unleash the nuclear option, allowing any other nominee from Mr. Trump who might actually change the balance of the court to be confirmed by majority vote. Easy to see Collins/Murkowski and maybe institutionalists like McCain unwilling to go nuclear in that situation when doing so for such a well qualified nominee filling a slot held by an arch conservative is significantly less difficult.

Gorsuch should be looked at as a gift as Trump & Friends could have done so many other horrible things. He is not a bad candidate, but in light of the stupidity of the Merrick Garland affair, it is sad. No one except crazy liars can make a reasoned case against Garland. Hell, he might have been the most seasoned, qualified and proven justice nominee in my life time. So the GOP brought that shame forward, and shows it has no actual interest in the proper governance of the US, only partisanship.

I would argue that in order to have proper governance the country needs a court that protects our constitutional rights without inventing new ones while serving as a check on the power of the federal government, and we're more likely to get that from a court with Gorsuch on it than Garland. So there was plenty of interest in the proper governance of the US. Democrats would've done the same if roles were reversed, and not because they are terrible partisans, but because the court is important and the parties disagree on it.

thephan wrote:Regarding the nuclear option, that would finish the decent into autocracy. If that route is taken, there is no real reason to believe in the system representing the will of the people. It is as simple as that. Honestly, as a frequent JH defended, and as at least on PM said apologist, the desire to use the nuclear option is truly the worse thing you have said in memory.

For those who have not lived under an actual nuclear threat, the term carries weight as it is assured unilateral destruction, which was omnipresent throughout my childhood. The fear, almost expectation, of total obviation was a source of constant threat whenever tensions were high, which was often. That is not the United States of America that the Founders established, in fact it is they type of tyrannical rule that they rebelled against.

The nuclear option would mean a simple majority of the Senate could end debate on nominations, rather than needing 60 votes. I don't know if this is satire or sarcasm or something from you, but Mitch going nuclear - bringing the same confirmation standards to SC justices as Harry Reid brought to the rest of the Senate Judiciary & executive branch nominees - is a somewhat different prospect than nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviet Union or tyranny or autocracy.

Woody wrote:Sooo the CIA was in the bag for Trump, by that logic? I want to move to Denmark

slugsrbad wrote:

Youseff wrote:"turns out the CIA actually hacked the DNC and made it look like the Russians." - a bunch of Conservative pundits right now, and a bunch of barking seal Trump cultists for the next however many years.

Come on, name their leader, besmirch the name of Sean Hannity.

CalvinBall wrote:dems need to appeal to those people!

pacino wrote:i don't see much of an anti-white sentiment from most people

i don't feel very hated

traderdave wrote:That video was fucking terrifying. I had to laugh at the Vietnam Vet though when he called liberals enemies of freedom. As my Dad used to say, "What a maroon".

traderdave wrote:That video was fucking terrifying. I had to laugh at the Vietnam Vet though when he called liberals enemies of freedom. As my Dad used to say, "What a maroon".