Supreme court

achilles28 said:
Trumps supreme court picks are Literalists.

You oppose them.

Therefore, you support a non-literal view of the Constitution.

This is what we call interpretationism.

Do you think that's not obvious?
More...

Where did you get an idea that I oppose them????
 
JamesL said:
They can have their sycophants in the media burrow so far up the ass of a nominee painting a negative an image of him/her to make the whole process as uncomfortable as possible making any potential think twice about accepting.
More...
Of course they will, and why they should they not. Garland was completely ignored. He should have gotten a down vote, there was almost a year left in Obama term
 
RedDuke said:
Of course they will, and why they should they not. Garland was completely ignored. He should have gotten a down vote, there was almost a year left in Obama term
More...
You forget that the democrats really didn't want to go on record with a vote before their election. The constitution states the President shall appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate a Justice. That's about all. They can simply vote no on any appointee.
 
They can filibuster. Sets a bad tone for ever getting anything done, but it's an option. Republicans can counter with nuclear option as Reid did in 2013 for lower court nominees, but from what I've read it's not as easy to do with the highest court. I think we'll see pretty quickly what Trumps deal making skills really are. My opinion, this gets off to an ugly start really fast, or deals get made really fast. If it's the latter I expect an era of reconciliation which would be great for the country at large.
 
CaptainObvious said:
They can filibuster. Sets a bad tone for ever getting anything done, but it's an option. Republicans can counter with nuclear option as Reid did in 2013 for lower court nominees, but from what I've read it's not as easy to do with the highest court. I think we'll see pretty quickly what Trumps deal making skills really are. My opinion, this gets off to an ugly start really fast, or deals get made really fast. If it's the latter I expect an era of reconciliation which would be great for the country at large.
More...
I agree, It gets to look bad when all the republican majority votes up and all the democrat minority votes down. Makes the minority look like sore losers and obstructionists. Republicans know how to handle those labels but it is kind of new for democrats. Trump's advantage is he walks in totally debt free and owes nobody not even those of us that voted for him anything since we are all such a mixed bag. But let's not neglect the hot button issue is abortion.
 
also, Did you notice all through the campaign, the Clinton friendly press never asked her if elected would she appoint Garland? The judges are not suppose to be political, but their appointment sure is.
 
java said:
also, Did you notice all through the campaign, the Clinton friendly press never asked her if elected would she appoint Garland?
More...
The press never asked her ANYTHING!
They just fawned over her and covered for her many many corrupt/incompetent acts.
 
Clubber Lang said:
The press never asked her ANYTHING!
They just fawned over her and covered for her many many corrupt/incompetent acts.
More...
And they paying the price for it now. They so much convinced everyone that she is the winner, that a decent number of people did not even bother to vote. Trump supporters were totally opposite, they went above and beyond, as would Sanders. And the end result is Trump presidency. I bet he thinks that electoral college is a beautiful thing now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top