The US Supreme Court Thread

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Knave, Jan 31, 2017.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
  2. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Anyone wanna bet there's going to be cheering at the roll out?

    Might be a good drinking game.
     
  3. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    I'll give credit to Trump for this one, while he's not progressive, he's certainly not a socially conservative firebrand - which is what you'd have gotten with Ted Cruz. He seems to be far more moderate than the GOP party in fact.
     
  4. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Scalia-esque? Yeah, wonderful :rolleyes:
     
    Deadtigers repped this.
  5. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    From my very quick reading, Hardiman seems much more deferential to government than Gorsuch, so if the speculation is true that would be nice.
     
  6. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Maybe he'll just dissolve the Supreme Court.
     
  7. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Just look at those lil fingers
     
  8. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  9. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    Gotta tell you, guys ...

    I believe the Dems are going to go totally wobbly on this guy.
     
    bigredfutbol repped this.
  10. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    They should. He seems starkly less partisan than ScaLia, being an originalist isn't terrible.

    He's a nominee by a Republican President. About the best one could have hoped for all things considered
     
  11. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I'll be interested in seeing how the hard right views this.
     
  12. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is truly historic.

    Donald Trump may have just done the first non-dumb act of his Presidency.
     
  13. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    They'll be charmed by him. They'll hang their hat on the White and Kennedy clerkships. And they won't see him as "Trump's guy," which counts for something in terms of how deferential he'll be to the Trump administration.
     
  14. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    As I posted in the Trump thread, it's also a well laid trap for the Democrats. Don't fight this.
     
  15. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
  16. Val1

    Val1 Member+

    Arsenal
    Mar 12, 2004
    MD's Eastern Shore
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    He's the son on Ann Gorsuch - Burford, she was the administrator of EPA under Reagan and charged with contempt of Congress for something like grazing rights. I hated her then and geeze, I hate her son now...
     
    marek repped this.
  17. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why do you hate her son?
     
    Gamecock14 repped this.
  18. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    Geez...I'd only always heard about "The Sins Of Our Fathers"! :unsure:
     
    Gamecock14 repped this.
  19. Gamecock14

    Gamecock14 Member+

    May 27, 2010
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I have a feeling the supreme court nominees were asked specifically by the transition team on how they would vote when faced with the most likely supreme court cases coming up from likely laws/orders passed. The only good news is that they can't get fired if they rule in a way that opposes a branch of government or political party.
     
  20. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Because, we've become a nation of haters. Reminds me of another country, the one I grew up in.
     
    Moishe repped this.
  21. BlueDamian

    BlueDamian Member+

    Jun 7, 2005
    In the shade
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    I wasn't familiar with her. Tonight by chance I happened to catch the end of the Rachel Maddow show where she talked about her short and disastrous tenure with the EPA.
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...ion-revives-reagan-era-epa-story-867292227635
     
  22. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    I've decided that the Dems should oppose this nomination simply because it was brazenly stolen from the previous administration.
     
  23. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]

    Gorsuch is NOT a Scalia clone. He's slightly more conservative than either Scalia or Alito, but less conservative than Thomas. Additionally, he's 49 - he's gonna be there for forty years.

    This is why you people keep me here: basic game theoretic models suggest Democrats ought to fight this now. Here's why:

    1) Mitch McConnell is likely to end the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees the second they realize they cannot get Gorsuch on the Court without doing so.

    2) Forty-one Democrats will oppose Gorsuch (because we'll find out he has $5 million in Trump bucks or something slightly disqualifying from a liberal perspective).

    3) Trump is going to have at least one more nominee before his four years are up.

    4) Forty-one Democrats are going to oppose that nominee as well.


    If the Democrats do nothing here, and let Trump notch a bloodless win, Mitch will still take the filibuster away in a year, or two, or three. By obstructing now, when Merrick Garland is still fresh, they can force the death of the filibuster in a way that benefits them electorally. Moreover, they're not stopping either nominee, so what's the rush in waiting? Third, when Trump doesn't even have his Cabinet together, they can ask why he's trying to jam a SCOTUS nominee down our throats? After all, weren't Republicans okay with waiting all of last year? What's a little while longer? And where's the rush to stop talking about Trump's "excellent-working" Muslim ban?

    No, the strategy is to obstruct completely, and politically it's brilliant. Engaging in repeated play right now will do nothing for the Democrats because Trump does not engage in repeated play. Time for grim trigger all around.
     
    fatbastard repped this.
  24. beerslinger23

    beerslinger23 Member+

    Jun 26, 2010
    The senate dems should tell Trump no justices until the final year of his first term period. This would serve two functions:

    1)Republicans will be forced to nuke the filibuster
    2)If they do not nuke the filibuster it will likely keep the damage to one justice because I don't think Trump is getting a second term. Either way they prevented Obama's nominee from getting a hearing simply because of partisan politics. If the dems do not stand up to them and are always the party of compromise, the republicans will just keep doing this shit and taking advantage of their willingness to bend. How long is it going to take for democrats to learn to play hardball?
     
    bigredfutbol and Q*bert Jones III repped this.
  25. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    Most Americans don't give a crap about Senate parliamentary rules, and most moderates probably don't care that this is a stolen Obama pick. You'll have three outcomes of Dems making this a filibuster fight:

    A) Gorsuch gets nominated
    B) Dems lose public approval from political moderates
    C) Dems cheer their base
     
    stanger repped this.

Share This Page