PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on March 30, 2017, 11:25:15 AM
-
Politico has an article out today discussing the challenges in the Senate regarding the confirmation of Gorsuch. While they like to state how both sides don't want to use the "nuclear option", they admit that the Republicans will do it.
The Senate is careening toward a historic change to its filibuster rules that takes it one step closer to a version of the majority-rule House of Representatives.
But no one seems to care enough to save the Senate from itself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gangs-senate-gorsuch-236660
I stated from the beginning that I didn't think the "nuclear option" should be used if it could be avoided because it would lead to more issues and more division down the road. I stand by that. However, after watching the confirmation hearings in which liberal senators chose to play "gotcha" with him and ask him whether or not Merrick Garland was treated fairly (because Judge Gorsuch had so much to do with that), I say just confirm him by any means necessary. Use the Democrat's tactics against them and watch them cry foul while pointing out that it was Harry Reid that started this, not the Republicans. When they complain that this is unprecedented, remind them of the "Biden Rule".
Judge Gorsuch was treated very unfairly by the liberal Senators (no, I'm not surprised). He's incredibly qualified and is likely going to be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.
-
Should the Dems take the senate in the future, the filibuster will be dead and gone as quickly as Bill could nail an intern in the oval oriface.
So it may as well be gone now so the GOP Senate can actually get something done.
-
Harry Reid and the Dems Tee'd this one up.
-
Is there any way to undo it? Like activate the nuclear option for this vote and then turn it back off?
-
Is there any way to undo it? Like activate the nuclear option for this vote and then turn it back off?
Sure, the Republicans could always change the rules again back to what it currently is. But that's pointless because it'll have already been done at that point.
-
Gorsuch is the least response SCOTUS nominee in history. All he would say is "its precedent". GOP doesn't care, he's a conservative and that's all that matters. I hope the Dems filibuster.
-
Gorsuch is the least response SCOTUS nominee in history. All he would say is "its precedent". GOP doesn't care, he's a conservative and that's all that matters. I hope the Dems filibuster.
Guess he learned that from Ginsberg. You might want to go and listen to some of her testimony.
-
Gorsuch is the least response SCOTUS nominee in history. All he would say is "its precedent". GOP doesn't care, he's a conservative and that's all that matters. I hope the Dems filibuster.
Of course you do Steingar, of course you do.
We understand.
But fortunately, Charlie Reid showed us a way around that.
-
Gorsuch is going to be a great justice, not allowing his personal feelings get in the way of interpreting the law. If only the rest of the SC justices had that mentality.
-
Guess he learned that from Ginsberg. You might want to go and listen to some of her testimony.
Oh you mean the Ginsberg that hates the U.S. Constitution, and anything truly American?
-
Oh you mean the Ginsberg that hates the U.S. Constitution, and anything truly American?
All due respect Anthony, but that's BS.
Anyway, I believe that it was a mistake for Reid to nuke the filibuster (except for the Supremes). When Garland was nominated, the Senate had every right not to act, another mistake IMHO. So now Gorsuch is up, so the Reps should not be at all surprised or dismayed if the Dems filibuster, they have every right to do so. The Reps can then, if they choose, eliminate the filibuster for the SCOTUS showing they are no different than the Dems, so long as it suits their purposes.
Personally, think that Gorsuch would be a decent Justice.
-
Gorsuch is the least response SCOTUS nominee in history. All he would say is "its precedent". GOP doesn't care, he's a conservative and that's all that matters. I hope the Dems filibuster.
Right. I guess you would have preferred that he just lie his ass off like the Wise Latina who said in her confirmation hearings that she supported the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms in accordance with Heller, and then turned around and dissented in an individual RKBA case in McDonald.
The filibuster should properly die a quick death. The democrats have politicized it beyond recognition.
-
I'm getting the feeling it won't be filibustered.
-
I'm getting the feeling it won't be filibustered.
So far two Democrats have said they will support his nomination. Those are Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). There was speculation previously that Joe Manchin may switch his party to Republican. He supports gun rights and coal (former governor of West Virginia). For the most part he's been a moderate Democrat.
-
One thing I will say for Steingar, no matter what the topic, the only thing he can communicate is strictly party line bullshit.
Whether it be USSC nominees, or Health Care, the only way Steingar can share an opinion is for it to be force fed to him through the democrat talking points memo and then he is good to go.
To accuse Judge Gorsuch of being a poor nominee is as hypocritical as proclaiming that Hilary should be president because of her extensive record. It only fits as long as the lies of the left are the only facts in play.
However, if a small handful of democrats actually vote their conscience instead of bowing before the altar of ignorant hypocrisy, then Chuck-You will not be able to block the good justice.
-
All due respect Anthony, but that's BS.
Well, then how do you explain this?
As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring.
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."
As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court's break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the "exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state."
The U.S. Constitution is THE MODEL for the protection of individual rights, and freedoms. Although it has been abused by the judiciary, it still stands as the best document that exists. For a sitting SCOTUS Justice to disrespect the legal document she was sworn to uphold is ludicrous, and very telling. That statement borders on Sedition, considering her position.
Evidently, this legal scholar doesn't even know, or maybe purposely does not want to know that the U.S. is a Representative Republic, NOT a Democracy for mob rule.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html
-
Well, then how do you explain this?
The U.S. Constitution is THE MODEL for the protection of individual rights, and freedoms. Although it has been abused by the judiciary, it still stands as the best document that exists. For a sitting SCOTUS Justice to disrespect the legal document she was sworn to uphold is ludicrous, and very telling. That statement borders on Sedition, considering her position.
Evidently, this legal scholar doesn't even know, or maybe purposely does not want to know that the U.S. is a Representative Republic, NOT a Democracy for mob rule.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html
That would be like the Philadelphia Convention saying that they shouldn't use the Magna Carta as a foundation for the US Constitution because it's, and I quote, "so 13th Century, dude."
-
Well, then how do you explain this?
The U.S. Constitution is THE MODEL for the protection of individual rights, and freedoms. Although it has been abused by the judiciary, it still stands as the best document that exists. For a sitting SCOTUS Justice to disrespect the legal document she was sworn to uphold is ludicrous, and very telling. That statement borders on Sedition, considering her position.
Evidently, this legal scholar doesn't even know, or maybe purposely does not want to know that the U.S. is a Representative Republic, NOT a Democracy for mob rule.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html
I remember that well, and it disgusted me. How can anyone with so little respect for our Constitution be charged with protecting and defending it. That would be like Seal Team 6 guarding Bin Laden.
On the other hand; perhaps our Constitution is NOT a good model for some Arab Countries. Before they could adopt our Constitution as a model, they would have to learn respect for women, respect for other religions, and respect for life itself. If they were to adopt anything like our Constitution, it would be violated faster than Bill could nail an intern in the Oval office. (I stole that line form here, but I forget who said it first; Stan maybe?).
-
I remember that well, and it disgusted me. How can anyone with so little respect for our Constitution be charged with protecting and defending it. That would be like Seal Team 6 guarding Bin Laden.
On the other hand; perhaps our Constitution is NOT a good model for some Arab Countries. Before they could adopt our Constitution as a model, they would have to learn respect for women, respect for other religions, and respect for life itself. If they were to adopt anything like our Constitution, it would be violated faster than Bill could nail an intern in the Oval office. (I stole that line form here, but I forget who said it first; Stan maybe?).
Yea, that was me, but I called it the Oval Orifice. Bada bing. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
-
I remember that well, and it disgusted me. How can anyone with so little respect for our Constitution be charged with protecting and defending it. That would be like Seal Team 6 guarding Bin Laden.
On the other hand; perhaps our Constitution is NOT a good model for some Arab Countries. Before they could adopt our Constitution as a model, they would have to learn respect for women, respect for other religions, and respect for life itself. If they were to adopt anything like our Constitution, it would be violated faster than Bill could nail an intern in the Oval office. (I stole that line form here, but I forget who said it first; Stan maybe?).
I am not saying that Arab, or other countries should adopt the U.S. Constitution, as there are complex TRIBAL, and other differences. Also, as you state Muslim Sharia Law (Islam), and western civilization, including the U.S. Constitution don't mesh well. However, when a sitting Justice slams the document she is sworn to uphold, DUE TO HER PERSONAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE FEELINGS, I have a problem with that. I am sure she recommended the S. Africa Constitution because it probably addresses Apartheid in a very strong manner. (I haven't read it.) Instead ours just says, all men (mankind) are created equal, plus whe have the Civil Rights Act, and other laws, but I guess that isn't enough for a SJW.
She is a far left LOON.
-
I am not saying that Arab, or other countries should adopt the U.S. Constitution, as there are complex TRIBAL, and other differences. Also, as you state Muslim Sharia Law (Islam), and western civilization, including the U.S. Constitution don't mesh well. However, when a sitting Justice slams the document she is sworn to uphold, DUE TO HER PERSONAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE FEELINGS, I have a problem with that. I am sure she recommended the S. Africa Constitution because it probably addresses Apartheid in a very strong manner. (I haven't read it.) Instead ours just says, all men (mankind) are created equal.
She is a far left LOON.
Agree completely. I hope my previous response didn't make you think otherwise.
-
To be clear, I am NOT a fan of the nuclear option because of what it will mean later when the pendulum of power inevitably swings the other direction but the Dem's are clearly demonstrating that whether or not the Republicans can get their shit together as the party in power, they (the Dems) have zero intention of letting Trump actually govern, and will not hesitate to abuse the judiciary to do so which makes SCOTUS incredibly important so I quote one Warrant Officer Ellen Louise Ripley....
'Gimp
-
Well, then how do you explain this?
Amazing how different opinions can result from the same written words! Unfortunately, the video of that conversation (from the Fox News link) isn't available, so we have no idea of the context or the entire quote.
Edit - video can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMXqcK4Nrg
Your quote:
As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring.
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."
As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court's break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the "exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state."
I see no language there where Justice Ginsberg disrespected or otherwise dissed the Constitution. The Constitution was written by the Founders using the knowledge and culture of the times. An amazing document that has served us very well over the years. If the Egyptians are to write their own Constitution they need to take in to account the very different history, culture, religion and customs of their own society. I can understand Justice Ginsberg's warning that adopting our Constitution isn't the best of ideas. In no way, shape or form is that disrespect. The Egyptian Constitution needs to be their document, not ours. Clearly, Justice Ginsberg has a measure of respect for the South African Constitution, a more recent document. The fact that Justice Ginsberg admires the SA Constitution is no reflection or criticism of our own. I am 100% sure that Justice Ginsberg knows the difference between a representative republic and mob rule.
It is interesting that Justice Ginsberg and former Justice Scalia were the best of friends, socialized together, traveled together and developed a long term relationship based on mutual respect, even though they often had major differences. I find it impossible to believe that Justice Scalia would have maintained that relationship with someone that hated America or our Constitution.
-
I see no language there where Justice Ginsberg disrespected or otherwise dissed the Constitution. The Constitution was written by the Founders using the knowledge and culture of the times. An amazing document that has served us very well over the years. If the Egyptians are to write their own Constitution they need to take in to account the very different history, culture, religion and customs of their own society. I can understand Justice Ginsberg's warning that adopting our Constitution isn't the best of ideas. In no way, shape or form is that disrespect. The Egyptian Constitution needs to be their document, not ours. Clearly, Justice Ginsberg has a measure of respect for the South African Constitution, a more recent document. The fact that Justice Ginsberg admires the SA Constitution is no reflection or criticism of our own. I am 100% sure that Justice Ginsberg knows the difference between a representative republic and mob rule.
It is interesting that Justice Ginsberg and former Justice Scalia were the best of friends, socialized together, traveled together and developed a long term relationship based on mutual respect, even though they often had major differences. I find it impossible to believe that Justice Scalia would have maintained that relationship with someone that hated America or our Constitution.
I don't think she would come out an openly say she disrespects the U.S. Constitution, but her actions, and many opinions show that she believes the Constitution needs to be interpreted, and molded based on HER feelings, and her societal/social justice leanings. No country should just "adopt" another country's Constitution for the exact reasons you stated. However, I do think it is a good starting point that has stood the test of time unlike more recent adaptions.
-
Is there any way to undo it? Like activate the nuclear option for this vote and then turn it back off?
Change the Senate parlimentary procedures. That takes a 2/3 vote.
The procedure that allows this is not new. It is part of the long standing senate parlimentary procedue. What we know as the nuclear optin was first threathened in 1917, in 1975, 2013 and now it appears that politicians have finally become fanatical enough that it will be used. The option has been there for over a century. There is no on and off.
Isn't it sad that wikipedia is better informed than the entertainment media?
-
Gorsuch is the least response SCOTUS nominee in history. All he would say is "its precedent". GOP doesn't care, he's a conservative and that's all that matters. I hope the Dems filibuster.
So disagreeing with a judge's political pursuasion is grounds for keeping them out of the court. When Republicans adopt that too, how do you figure there will ever be another judge appointed anywheere?
Fillabuster the next on too? And the one after that? And keep going until Democrats are in power again so the Republicans can filibuster you nominations? Is that your general plan?
-
I was just watching this on CSPAN. Gorsuch clearly won the popular vote!
-
The Senate changed the rules setting up a simple majority vote for Gorsuch. He will very shortly be Associate Justice Gorsuch.
-
The Senate changed the rules setting up a simple majority vote for Gorsuch. He will very shortly be Associate Justice Gorsuch.
Wonder how long it will take an AG to file a suit with the 9th Circus in an attempt to invalidate the senate rules?
-
The Senate changed the rules setting up a simple majority vote for Gorsuch. He will very shortly be Associate Justice Gorsuch.
I sure wish the Democrats never opened that door. Even so, I am torn about the Reps using it.
If the Dems voted their conscience rather that following the party line (with a very few exceptions), this wouldn't have been necessary.
-
I sure wish the Democrats never opened that door. Even so, I am torn about the Reps using it.
If the Dems voted their conscience rather that following the party line (with a very few exceptions), this wouldn't have been necessary.
It was necessary because fanaticism has broken our government. Hamilton claimed that if we ever reached a point where this happened that The People would fix it. But so far, I am doubting that he is right.
The Senate did not break today. It's been broken for a long time.
-
I sure wish the Democrats never opened that door. Even so, I am torn about the Reps using it.
If the Dems voted their conscience rather that following the party line (with a very few exceptions), this wouldn't have been necessary.
The Democrats chose to stand their ground on Gorsuch instead of compromising. Now, if Trump gets to nominate another SCOTUS justice, the Democrats won't have the ability to say or do anything about it. They should've made a deal on this one to confirm Gorsuch and save this from happening. They didn't, and now they'll find out what happens if Trump gets another nomination.
-
They didn't, and now they'll find out what happens if when Trump gets another nomination.
FTFY. With the current ages of several justices, it's only a matter of when.
-
Change the Senate parlimentary procedures. That takes a 2/3 vote.
The procedure that allows this is not new. It is part of the long standing senate parlimentary procedue. What we know as the nuclear optin was first threathened in 1917, in 1975, 2013 and now it appears that politicians have finally become fanatical enough that it will be used. The option has been there for over a century. There is no on and off.
Isn't it sad that wikipedia is better informed than the entertainment media?
1917? I didn't think the filibuster was around that long.
More importantly, if McConnell wants to keep it for legislation, that tells me it should be abolished for that as well. Let's get something done for once.
-
I sure wish the Democrats never opened that door. Even so, I am torn about the Reps using it.
If the Dems voted their conscience rather that following the party line (with a very few exceptions), this wouldn't have been necessary.
Joe, we are well past that. The reason today was extraordinary is that time after time after time after time the GOP get into a bare knuckle brawl with the Democrats, but leave their fucking gloves on. They have no idea how to actually win, or to act like they own the majority.
Wasn't it McConnell who, when the Senate was 50-49-1 with Lieberman caucusing with the Dems, gave 50% of the chairmanships to democrats, only to have a Senator switch from R to D and switch the balance of power in the Senate? Don't hold me on all those facts, but suffice to say that when the GOP extends the olive branch to the Dems, they get the snot beat out of them with it. Every. Single. Time.
-
Joe, we are well past that. The reason today was extraordinary is that time after time after time after time the GOP get into a bare knuckle brawl with the Democrats, but leave their fucking gloves on. They have no idea how to actually win, or to act like they own the majority.
Wasn't it McConnell who, when the Senate was 50-49-1 with Lieberman caucusing with the Dems, gave 50% of the chairmanships to democrats, only to have a Senator switch from R to D and switch the balance of power in the Senate? Don't hold me on all those facts, but suffice to say that when the GOP extends the olive branch to the Dems, they get the snot beat out of them with it. Every. Single. Time.
I believe that was Jeff Jeffords who voted like a democrat far more often than republican, and I think he became an independent and CHOSE to caucus withe democrats intentionally giving them the majority as long as Gore was VP
-
Yet in the House they pulled Nunes from the Russia investigation just because the Obama and Soros backed groups filed ethics complaints. Fucking Republicans just don't know how to stand up for themselves.
-
Yet in the House they pulled Nunes from the Russia investigation just because the Obama and Soros backed groups filed ethics complaints. Fucking Republicans just don't know how to stand up for themselves.
But look who they replaced him with, Trey Gowdy.
Now the real fun begins.
-
1917? I didn't think the filibuster was around that long.
Much longer. Sometime in the 1850s.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
-
But look who they replaced him with, Trey Gowdy.
Now the real fun begins.
Exactly lol.
-
But look who they replaced him with, Trey Gowdy.
Now the real fun begins.
Until they find some crap to file against Trey Gowdy. They need to grow a set.
-
Until they find some crap to file against Trey Gowdy. They need to grow a set.
Guarantee you before tomorrow morning they will be filing complaints. Trey Gowdy is not one to back down.
-
Much longer. Sometime in the 1850s.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
That article doesn't properly discuss the rule changes in the 1970s (George Will explained in the followed oped piece, which links to the James Fallows article mentioned below): senators could now effectively filibuster without having to do a Jimmy Stewart "Mr. Smith" exercise in stamina.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-filibuster-isnt-what-it-used-to-be-its-time-to-bring-the-old-way-back/2017/03/29/f8242af0-13e9-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.fb3151a50954 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-filibuster-isnt-what-it-used-to-be-its-time-to-bring-the-old-way-back/2017/03/29/f8242af0-13e9-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.fb3151a50954)
James Fallows (a pilot) back in 2012 wrote the following article about how the modern faux-filibuster came to be:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/how-the-modern-faux-filibuster-came-to-be/255374/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/how-the-modern-faux-filibuster-came-to-be/255374/)
-
That article doesn't properly discuss the rule changes in the 1970s (George Will explained in the followed oped piece, which links to the James Fallows article mentioned below): senators could now effectively filibuster without having to do a Jimmy Stewart "Mr. Smith" exercise in stamina.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-filibuster-isnt-what-it-used-to-be-its-time-to-bring-the-old-way-back/2017/03/29/f8242af0-13e9-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.fb3151a50954 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-filibuster-isnt-what-it-used-to-be-its-time-to-bring-the-old-way-back/2017/03/29/f8242af0-13e9-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.fb3151a50954)
James Fallows (a pilot) back in 2012 wrote the following article about how the modern faux-filibuster came to be:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/how-the-modern-faux-filibuster-came-to-be/255374/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/how-the-modern-faux-filibuster-came-to-be/255374/)
That all may be true. But you said the filibuster didn't exist in 1917. I linked an article that said it did, nothing more.
Now if you want to complain about the article because it doesn't explain the full history of the filibuster, have at it. Of course it has changed.
-
That all may be true. But you said the filibuster didn't exist in 1917. I linked an article that said it did, nothing more.
Now if you want to complain about the article because it doesn't explain the full history of the filibuster, have at it. Of course it has changed.
No, it was me, and I didn't say it didn't exist in 1917, I said that I didn't THINK it existed it existed in 1917. I was wrong.
Good articles above.
-
Gorsuch has just been confirmed by the Senate. Excellent.
-
Gorsuch has just been confirmed by the Senate. Excellent.
Now watch the Liberal media go on yet another witch hunt. They will find someone that swears he did something 30 years ago that wasn't nice.
-
Now watch the Liberal media go on yet another witch hunt. They will find someone that swears he did something 30 years ago that wasn't nice.
They already tried that this week with the allegations that he plagiarized something from years ago. It was quickly debunked.
-
Sit back and enjoy the Alt Left liberal progressives become further unhinged.
-
They already tried that this week with the allegations that he plagiarized something from years ago. It was quickly debunked.
Yeah, but that won't stop them from continuing. Any thing they find will make Trump look bad, and at this point, that is their only goal.