Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
Republicans can put government in gridlock...Democrats don't have the power to wipe their own butt....Forget it, Democrats will never be the equal of Republicans............
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
Please read this webpage through 2 times and carefully study it:
Republicans did not block Obama's nominees, in fact. Did Obama ever present a nomination instead of this man? And in this situation, the seat is vacant because a strong conservative (deceased). So why shouldn't it be filled by a conservative?
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
Please read this webpage through 2 times and carefully study it:
Republicans did not block Obama's nominees, in fact. Did Obama ever present a nomination instead of this man? And in this situation, the seat is vacant because a strong conservative (deceased). So why shouldn't it be filled by a conservative?
Please b.. Stop trying to rewrite historical facts. It just makes a guy look dumb.
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
I actually think Trump wants them to filibuster. Remember, his goal is to wreck the place, tear it down. So he wants them to filibuster so he can push for the nuclear option to remove the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees the same way that the democrats removed it from all the other court nominees.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
Please read this webpage through 2 times and carefully study it:
Republicans did not block Obama's nominees, in fact. Did Obama ever present a nomination instead of this man? And in this situation, the seat is vacant because a strong conservative (deceased). So why shouldn't it be filled by a conservative?
Please b.. Stop trying to rewrite historical facts. It just makes a guy look dumb.
Two radical leftist appointments sailed through to the Supreme Court. This last one did not for a few good reasons: Obama had mere months left in his term during a lame duck president, and the guy (passed away) so (suddenly), and a leftist would have turned the court overwhelmingly radical leftist. We need a balanced court.
Besides the SC, Obama had hundreds of nominations sail through to the federal court.
So those are the facts. But leftists are sticking to their Tu quoque logical fallacy and they are going to obstruct everything President Trump does. Every appointment. Every nominee. Every order. Every policy.
Republicans blocked appointments made by Obama on a wide scale. Not just a SCOTUS nominee. Had they taken it to a vote and Garland had been rejected you would have a point. But you don't. You never have a point.
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
I actually think Trump wants them to filibuster. Remember, his goal is to wreck the place, tear it down. So he wants them to filibuster so he can push for the nuclear option to remove the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees the same way that the democrats removed it from all the other court nominees.
Agreed, once again Sundance over at CTH nails it why Schumer will not filibuster Trump's nominee.....
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will not filibuster the nomination.
Relax, it’s 100%. 100%. Done.
Judge Gorsuch will take the bench with the customary vocal goofball moonbattery of the far-left, perhaps with some Trump Derangement Syndrome sprinkled on top, but he will take the bench.
Senator Schumer’s only play is to delay the confirmation process because he doesn’t want Gorsuch on this year’s SCOTUS rulings, which by itself is doubtful if McConnell finds his balls, but Schumer will NOT block the overall nomination. Here’s why.
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
I actually think Trump wants them to filibuster. Remember, his goal is to wreck the place, tear it down. So he wants them to filibuster so he can push for the nuclear option to remove the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees the same way that the democrats removed it from all the other court nominees.
Agreed, once again Sundance over at CTH nails it why Schumer will not filibuster Trump's nominee.....
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will not filibuster the nomination.
Relax, it’s 100%. 100%. Done.
Judge Gorsuch will take the bench with the customary vocal goofball moonbattery of the far-left, perhaps with some Trump Derangement Syndrome sprinkled on top, but he will take the bench.
Senator Schumer’s only play is to delay the confirmation process because he doesn’t want Gorsuch on this year’s SCOTUS rulings, which by itself is doubtful if McConnell finds his balls, but Schumer will NOT block the overall nomination. Here’s why.
Yeah, the Republicans already dropped a mini nuke on the democrats. They were blocking the confirmation of Price and Mnuchin by simply not being present at the committee meeting. The rules called for at least one democrat to be present for a vote to happen. When for two days straight the democrats deliberately did not show up the republicans changed the rules and voted without them 14-0 to pass it to the Senate floor for a full vote.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
It seems to me the Republicans have acted solely in their own best political interests, and damn the Constitution, being reasonable, or behaving civilly.
So, should the Democrats reward the Republicans misbehavior by being reasonable? Or give them the exact same medicine they gave Obama, and damn the consequences?
I'm not sure what is the best answer. But the Democrats are coming across as weak and worthless by always being the "reasonable" ones, which means the Republicans end up getting what they want while the Democrats get the shaft.
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
It seems to me the Republicans have acted solely in their own best political interests, and damn the Constitution, being reasonable, or behaving civilly.
So, should the Democrats reward the Republicans misbehavior by being reasonable? Or give them the exact same medicine they gave Obama, and damn the consequences?
I'm not sure what is the best answer. But the Democrats are coming across as weak and worthless by always being the "reasonable" ones, which means the Republicans end up getting what they want while the Democrats get the shaft.
LOL....@ dems being the reasonable ones......
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
...that brings up the problem of whether Democrats should dispense their duties properly and vote on him or act like the Republicans and block him by filibustering him.
Gorsuch is eminently prepared for the role and has the right credentials. He even seems to be a likable man of good character and honesty.
But the seat he's getting wasn't obtained honestly. It is tainted by the GOP's refusal to follow the Constitution and take up Garland's nomination as directed in our founding documents. Gorsuch is a good and qualified guy but he's effectively receiving stolen goods in the form of a Supreme Court appointment that should have been filled a year ago.
Normally, I'd say simply confirm Gorsuch. Be honest legislators and not deceptive obstructionists. And yet, deceptive obstructionism worked so well for the GOP - and the public rewarded them for it.
If the Republicans can be rewarded for making the government a dysfunctional mess, then why shouldn't the Democrats follow the same playbook?
It seems to me the Republicans have acted solely in their own best political interests, and damn the Constitution, being reasonable, or behaving civilly.
So, should the Democrats reward the Republicans misbehavior by being reasonable? Or give them the exact same medicine they gave Obama, and damn the consequences?
I'm not sure what is the best answer. But the Democrats are coming across as weak and worthless by always being the "reasonable" ones, which means the Republicans end up getting what they want while the Democrats get the shaft.
The future of any filibuster is in doubt...In about two years that option will be permanently removed from the Senate Rules.....Democrats will be taught to sit in the back of the bus..............
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)