• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Neil Gorsuch

haymarket said:
And what in there do you feel supports whatever point you think you have?
Click to expand...



I'm not doing the work for you man, it's right there.


Of course you are not going to rebut my point, even when backed up with the source. You are haymarket after all.
 
trouble13 said:
Im trying to understand how you see it.

I said when the repubs blocked garland they did with the argument of being close to a prrsidental election and allowing the voters to decide of they wanted the balanve of the court altered.

Your argument was we are going to do it back to them because they did it to us. Maybe hate is the wrong word but certainly vindictiness fits.

I dont think that argument is going to fly with anyone who isnt hard left.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have consistently stated that Gorsuch should get what Garland didn't, a fair hearing and a vote.

Your position is to defend what McConnell/Grassley did to Garland with bull**** political reasoning that was the last straw for the senate .
 
Fletch said:
You know damn well they will. I feel bad for the guy, hes in for a campaign of personal destruction like nothing we have ever seen. Liberals are in a state of complete meltdown and will not tolerate a Trump nominee of any kind. The Senate will have to revoke the filibuster to get anyone on the court.
Click to expand...

The shame is, borking this man would be a disservice to the Nation.
 
Renae said:
The shame is, borking this man would be a disservice to the Nation.
Click to expand...

democrats cannot stop gorsuch from being seated

But they can delay it for a short time

Maybe that helps them in some way politically because the left is building up to a total break with half the country

How far they plan to go is unclear

But I think california is serious about declaring itself a sanctuary city which means a total breakdown of cooperation between the federal government and the most populated state in the union

that could get very ugly
 
NIMBY said:
I have consistently stated that Gorsuch should get what Garland didn't, a fair hearing and a vote.

Your position is to defend what McConnell/Grassley did to Garland with bull**** political reasoning that was the last straw for the senate .
Click to expand...
My bad i missunderstood you. I agree he should be given a fair vote.

Im more forgiven toward the gop than you because of the circumstances. Obama already got two of his nominees voted but replacing scalia would of tilted the balance. Imo blocking garland was understandable and if the roles were reversed the dems would of been justified in blocking the gop nominating a con scoutus to replace ginsberg. She is a strong liberal voice on the court and i would expect the dems to do everything they can to replace her with another one.

Its a ligetime appointment of people who will influence how our laws are interuptted for generations.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
My bad i missunderstood you. I agree he should be given a fair vote.

Im more forgiven toward the gop than you because of the circumstances. Obama already got two of his nominees voted but replacing scalia would of tilted the balance. Imo blocking garland was understandable and if the roles were reversed the dems would of been justified in blocking the gop nominating a con scoutus to replace ginsberg. She is a strong liberal voice on the court and i would expect the dems to do everything they can to replace her with another one.

Its a ligetime appointment of people who will influence how our laws are interuptted for generations.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

what are the chances one of the flaming liberals will retire or die?

If they do the left will mass in S Carolina and fire on Ft Sumter again
 
Mac77 said:
what are the chances one of the flaming liberals will retire or die?

If they do the left will mass in S Carolina and fire on Ft Sumter again
Click to expand...
I think ginsberg is in her 90s but anything can happen. Nobody thought scalia was gonna pass anytime soon

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I think ginsberg is in her 90s but anything can happen. Nobody thought scalia was gonna pass anytime soon

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Exactly

progressives are resigned to one trump appointment that does not change the balance of the court

But two?
 
Mac77 said:
democrats cannot stop gorsuch from being seated

But they can delay it for a short time

Maybe that helps them in some way politically because the left is building up to a total break with half the country

How far they plan to go is unclear

But I think california is serious about declaring itself a sanctuary city which means a total breakdown of cooperation between the federal government and the most populated state in the union

that could get very ugly
Click to expand...

The only ones that would benefit are ones that are in heavy blue states. I would guess the senators from states that have elections in 2018 and went heavily in favor to Trump will support his nomination. It would basically be political suicide for them to block.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I'm not doing the work for you man, it's right there.


Of course you are not going to rebut my point, even when backed up with the source. You are haymarket after all.
Click to expand...

In other words - the usual HH flag of surrender when he is pressed and cannot back up his game. Got it loud and clear.

Still waiting for your math proof as to how four out of 30 equals 30%.


Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
They handled it the same way it was handled in 30% of all non-confirmed nominees..... your talking points didn't tell you that, did they?
Click to expand...

The chart in YOUR EVIDENCE shows 30 failed nominations of which 4 are listed as NO ACTION with Garland being one of them. How is four out of thirty equal 30% instead of 13.3%? Or is this a use of trumpian "alternate facts"?

Your own source says this

Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings on Garland, and Garland's nomination remained before the Senate longer than any other Supreme Court nomination.
Click to expand...

Which clearly and unmistakably makes your statement that it was handled in the same way as a falsehood.
 
So are we hearing any opposition to the Judge? Just waiting to find out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom