Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch To Supreme Court (washingtonpost.com)

halfEvilTech quotes a report from Washington Post: The U.S. Senate confirmed Neil M. Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. On a vote of 54 to 45, senators confirmed Gorsuch, 49, a Denver-based judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. He will become the 113th person to serve on the Supreme Court and is scheduled to be sworn in Monday. Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of a rule change in the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used the power of his position to change the rules of the Senate to lower the threshold on Supreme Court nominations to end debate from 60 to 51 votes. Therefore, "all presidential nominees for executive branch positions and the federal courts need only a simple majority vote to be confirmed by senators," reports Washington Post.

It is unclear as to what exactly Gorsuch's confirmation means for the tech industry. However, it is certain that Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises, from copyright and privacy to intellectual property rights and data storage," writes Issie Lapowsky via Wired.

Comments

God Dammit

[rsilvergun]

so much. Whatever else you think about Gorsuch's politics (and unless you own a large corporation they're awful) it's a fact the Republicans just stole that seat. It really angers me to see them doing so much wrong and getting away with it again and again...

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

You can thank the howling incompetence of the Democratic party, along with the weak platform it stands on. They obsess over things that affect practically no one in the real world ("social justice") and things that only cost them elections, such as gun control, while their opponents are free to drag us back into a possibly-literal Dark Age.

Gonna get worse... a lot worse... before it gets better.

Re:God Dammit

[blogagog]

"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

They really didn't steal it. Would you have rather them just vote every person President Obama nominated down? Wasting their time and our money? Because Democrats didn't have the votes to stop that, and that's what would have happened. (Alternatively, keeping him in limbo was a way to get someone semi-moderate in case of a Clinton *shudder* win.)

Don't forget, Joe Biden pulled the same thing during the Bush presidency. Sure, length of time was different.

Any event suck it up. Your party lost. To quote your god, "Elections Have Consequences." Your party alienated most (in terms of land mass) of the nation around 2010 and that's why you had a congress that obstructed. The majority of people in the majority of states hate you now. So go have some wine with your whine and better luck next time!

Anyway, this shouldn't be on Slashdot. This place is becoming more like /r/politics than Tech News...

Re:God Dammit

[Fwipp]

31% of Americans are white men. The rest are definitely affected by "social justice."

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not "flamebait". Please mod this appropriately.

Re:God Dammit

[Triklyn]

stole from whom? up or down vote, garland would have lost, i can almost guarantee it. biden suggested, before he left the senate that the appropriate course of action for supreme court nominees after the election season commenced was to wait until after the election to confirm. democratic obstruction of bush nominees initially started the fillibustering of judicial nominees in the circuit courts, which the republicans turned around and used on the democrats during obama's term. after which the democrats got fed up with the obstruction and killed the fillibuster for lower court confirmations. yet during that period kagan and sotomayor were confirmed without a hitch.

was it legal to neglect to hear garland? yes. was it right, as right as any of the political maneuvering in washington.

mcconnell gambled, and everybody thought he was a fool because if hillary won, it would have been someone politically left of garland for that seat. but he won his bet.

constitutionally, it was well within mcconnell's powers to refuse to hear garland. it's been done before, about 150 years ago.

it was the democrats that killed the fillibuster. don't forget that, the only reason it didn't cover supreme court nominations was because none of the supreme court nominations were fillibustered.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it bother you when Obama's crew neutered the process for lower judicial appointments too? It's too late to protest much now...

Re:God Dammit

[fustakrakich]

Republicans just stole that seat.

No they didn't. The voters gave it to them.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wake up. It's nobody's "party" who lost. It's the American people.

An R or a D next to your name means nothing when the only difference between the two is specifically which corporation lobbying for the same particular deregulation bought you out.

All this "party" crap is little more than an artificial wedge issue created to keep all of you at eachother's throats to notice it's someone else strangling you both.

Re:God Dammit

[El Cubano]

31% of Americans are white men. The rest are definitely affected by "social justice."

Can I start a new movement? We are the 69%!

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

so much. Whatever else you think about Gorsuch's politics (and unless you own a large corporation they're awful) it's a fact the Republicans just stole that seat. It really angers me to see them doing so much wrong and getting away with it again and again...

It's a little more complicated than that.

The rule change extends the 51-vote (instead of 60) requirement to Supreme Court nominees. It was previously downed to 51 for all other judicial nominees during the Obama administration, when it was the Republicans being obstructionist in minority rather than (as now) the Democrats.

Also a president nominated someone to the Supreme Court, in accordance with Constitutional process. The Senate changed its rules, but they—whatever you or I may think of the rules they make for themselves—is as a body absolutely in control of what rules apply to their internal processes and deliberations and can change them at any time. The rule change (as far as I know) followed the rule-changing process. Yes, the rules say they can change the rules. Following the rules is pretty much the antithesis of stealing.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary said she would stand by Garland.

Garland had just won confirmation from a majority of Republicans. That's why Obama picked him. He would have been an easy approval. If they thought they had the votes, they would have allowed the process to proceed. But they decided to STEAL IT.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."

"Officials at the White House and on Capitol Hill noted that Mr. Biden had also said in the 1992 speech that he would support a future Supreme Court nominee by Mr. Bush as long as the president consulted with the Senate or chose a moderate. Mr. Biden made that observation (the one quoted above, ed.) as he discussed how the confirmation process could be changed “in the next administration,” should he remain as chairman."

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

In Obama's first four years. Republicans filibustered his appointees to an astonishing degree, in fact using the tactic more than it had been used in the entire history of the republic. They broke the rule to fill the seats. The Republicans, in essence, attempted to steal his entire administration. The common thread in all of these cases is the Republican determination to have their way at all costs. It will be remembered.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a white man, fuck you. I didn't wrong anyone.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats should try to win elections instead of just bitching and complaining. You don't like to keep losing, change your attitude. There's a reason why you're losing and you can't keep blaming it on everyone else just because you don't like some of the voters or what you perceive they believe.

But thanks to the ham fisted former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the obstructionist Republicans, the precedent was set for rule changing in 2013. Sorry but that's how it works in politics. Just wait until the next seat is available. Liberals may be down to 3 seats by the time this is over. A solid conservative court majority for decades. Maybe instead of pissing all over people just to win elections with pathetic candidates like Hillary Clinton you should try to find out why the voters are so pissed at you.

Arrogance and self-righteousness don't win elections. You aren't always right.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the 2016 election was the American people deciding how they wanted the Supreme Court to look. The American People, by a large majority, decided that they did NOT want the Democrat Party to completely alter the political makeup of the court and VOTED for change. They CHOSE to keep the Court grounded in the Constitution.

Gorsuch's confirmation is a victory for the American voter and the American people. This is a good day.

Now Congress needs to get their act together and repeal Obamacare, something that should be trivial. At the very least, if it goes back to the Supreme Court, hopefully the Constitution and American People will win this time.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly, the GOP actually advised Team Democrat against such actions to get their way because that rule goes both ways depending on who has the votes at any given time.

Previous generations of Congress realized this and never implemented it.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Biden is a DINO so he represents Republicanism. You shouldn't quote him as to what is right since he too often sides with those damn Republicans.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, this shouldn't be on Slashdot. This place is becoming more like /r/politics than Tech News...

I agree. I go to Google News for politics, and Slashdot for technology news. I'm beginning to wonder if I might have to migrate to SoylentNews for technology news.

Re:God Dammit

[x0ra]

SJW believe that your mere existence is wrong'ing everyone else, no matter of what you actually did.

Re:God Dammit

[dbrueck]

I'm not a Republican, but the whole "stolen seat" thing is kind of overstating it because it implies that Garland would have become a justice for the SCOTUS, which is unlikely. It was stupid for the GOP to refuse a vote for Garland (stupid on multiple levels but even just strategically - they could have blocked Garland just via voting, there was no need to take it a step further and refuse a vote altogether and cause so much rancor), but regardless Garland was most likely not going to be on the SC, so the seat was not stolen. Legally it doesn't appear that they did anything technically wrong, but I think it's fair to say that having a vote would have been the right thing to do (notwithstanding some cases in the past where people such as Biden suggested a different course of action).

But let's be clear: both sides have, are, and continue to behave like children. Is what the GOP did stupid? You bet! Is the Dem handling of Gorsuch stupid? Most definitely. It's worth noting that the GOP senators in the past voted to seat justices that were quite liberal, but in the end relented because the candidate was qualified and there was not a good reason not to. With Gorsuch there's no real debate that he is very qualified, and yet few Dems voted for him - they voted against purely as retaliation.

And so the Dems did something stupid in retaliation for something stupid the Reps did. And the Reps did that stupid thing because of what Dems did to them before that. And the Dems did that thing because of what the Reps did even earlier. It's been going on for so long that we're at the point where neither side can claim any sort of moral high ground - it's pure, deep-rooted, partisan politics, and anyone who tries to argue that one of those two sides is better-behaving than the other is turning a blind eye to past events.

To everyone who is frustrated by this, you have to realize that Dem and Rep are two sides of the same coin. Both are almost comically hypocritical and neither consistently acts in the best interest of the USA. They have reached the point where so much of their identity is defined by not being the other side that I don't think there is any way for either party to fix themselves.

I watched a lot of the Gorsuch hearings and I came away with two main conclusions: (1) Gorsuch would make a great justice - I don't agree with him on various points, but he's sane and sincere and intelligent and it's not hard to imagine him being a fair judge. (2) The senators from both major parties are complete morons. So much pettiness and shallow posturing. So much snide smirking and pretentiousness. It was embarrassing for both parties.

It's time we moved the conversation away from "Reps are bad" vs "Dems are bad" because that will get us nowhere. Both are terrible and possibly beyond repair. But as long as we allow ourselves to believe that one side is acting in good faith while the other side is not, we will make zero progress. Both are incredibly corrupt. Both major parties have a list of "sins" so long that neither should be allowed in power.

Re:God Dammit

[Trailer Trash]

"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."

Yeah, yeah. What he *meant* was that if a Democrat was coming into office the next year, they should delay. If a Republican were coming in to office, they need to do it right away.

Same way Obama can bomb the shit out of the Middle East for years and it's no big deal. But Trump does the same thing and he's "starting another war in the Middle East!!!"

Re:God Dammit

[PopeRatzo]

They really didn't steal it. Would you have rather them just vote every person President Obama nominated down? Wasting their time and our money?

The legislators were going to be paid anyway, so why do you think it would have "wasted our money"? There salary is the same whether they vote or not.

Your party alienated most (in terms of land mass) of the nation around 2010

Does landmass get a vote now?

Re:God Dammit

[Trailer Trash]

So, Goofy Uncle Joe is fine with the Supreme Court being filled with left-wingers and moderates, but we have a problem if anybody right of Karl Marx is nominated? Got it.

Re:God Dammit

[PopeRatzo]

Part of the 2016 election was the American people deciding how they wanted the Supreme Court to look. The American People, by a large majority, decided that they did NOT want the Democrat Party to completely alter the political makeup of the court and VOTED for change. They CHOSE to keep the Court grounded in the Constitution.

You haven't looked at the vote totals, have you?

Re:God Dammit

[PopeRatzo]

Did it bother you when Obama's crew neutered the process for lower judicial appointments too?

Obama was elected by a majority of Americans. Twice.

Re:God Dammit

[CheapEngineer]

That's not helped by the Democrat's insistence to play by the rules and try to reach an agreement with the Republicans, and the Republicans insistence to pull the football away, set fire to the house and p*ss on the doorstep, cackling all they way, in the name of Party.

F*ck every goddamn one of them. Under no circumstances will I ever vote for a Republican ever again. Anyone with an (R) next to their name shares in the stink, and will be avoided. Since that's apparently the only way to get anything done these days...

Re:God Dammit

[BitterOak]

31% of Americans are white men. The rest are definitely affected by "social justice."

Actually, it is precisely those 31% that are MOST AFFECTED by "social justice". Just not in a positive way.

Re:God Dammit

[Altus]

Thats not what he said, what he said is that the people who don't share your demographics are getting fucked over... not that you are personally doing it, but if you ignore that others are getting fucked over you are complicit in that... even if republicans have trouble understanding what that word means.

Re:God Dammit

[CheapEngineer]

And did he keep the senate from even speaking to a nominee? Did he actually *do* anything besides talk? Because actually holding a seat for a year is what has happened here, and Joe Friggin Biden didn't do it.

Re:God Dammit

[Altus]

Of course trump is currently running his campaign for re-election so I guess we are in the throws of an election even now.

Re:God Dammit

[CheapEngineer]

"Don't forget, Joe Biden pulled the same thing during the Bush presidency. Sure, length of time was different."

Standing up in the Senate and telling people they should do something IS NOT THE SAME as actually keeping a seat open until after the election. The Republicans did the latter, and actually *did* it.

False f*cking Equivalency.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, this shouldn't be on Slashdot. This place is becoming more like /r/politics than Tech News...

It's the SJW's who try to inject politics into everything, and they're apparently succeeding (at least on Slashdot).

In the 1980's it was the conservatives who felt obligated to preach to the nerds for playing Dungeons & Dragons, and so on. Nowadays, it's the other side of the political spectrum who feel they're obligated to preach to us about their "gospel" of social justice.

When I complained in the 1980's, the conservatives would just stare at me blankly, and say things like: "How can you live without Jesus? Everything is about Jesus!" Nowadays, the SJW's just stare at me blankly. They can't fathom why I'm not interested in engaging with their incessant discussions about social justice.

Re:God Dammit

[sexconker]

So, Biden said he's support Bush if Bush did something he'd support, and that he'd support certain behavior if it weren't affecting him or his current situation.

What a class act!

Re:God Dammit

[Fwipp]

Moderates are to the left of Karl Marx? That's news.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does landmass get a vote now?"

At least 3 votes per cluster of land between the Leftist Coast and New York. Forget about them concrete jungle boy?

Re:God Dammit

[DaHat]

Lemme guess... history for you starts in... 2013? With the 'unprecedented' Republican obstruction against Obama's nominees... which forced the hand of Senator Reid to do the not yet triggered Nuclear Option... leaving out SCOTUS nominees because there was not a vacancy.

Some of us remember the Bush era where the nuclear option was first threatened for SCOTUS nominees due to actually unprecedented Democrat obstruction against many court nominees.

Then again, some of us also remember the attempted hi-tech-lynching of Thomas by Democrats under Reagan.

Don't like what happened yesterday? Fine, to quote Obama, "elections have consequences". It's such a shame that the Democrats created the precedent (and even moving of the Overton window) to make it more likely. One can only imagine how Trump will use "I have a pen and a phone"... and I didn't even vote for the guy.

Re:God Dammit

[bondsbw]

I'm with you completely. But don't let short term memory lull you into complacency with Democrats who have done this same kind of thing.

Screw both of them. Time for election reform.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, 306 is quite a bit greater than whatever number Hillary ended up with after electors refused to vote for her because she had stolen the Democrat primary and not even Democrat electors would vote for her.

You jelly? Because you sound jelly.

Re:God Dammit

[ooloorie]

it's a fact the Republicans just stole that seat. It really angers me to see them doing so much wrong and getting away with it again and again...

Thinking of supreme court justice appointments as property of the president is unacceptable. Congress is supposed to advise and consent, and the advised that the president should wait with the appointment until the next Congress and withheld their consent. That was a legitimate decision and it was a reasonable decision. I suspect that SCOTUS appointments is also what pushed Trump over the line in the election, because even people who hated his guts couldn't stand the idea that Hillary Clinton would appoint any more supreme court justices, in particular given the views she had articulated on the Constitution during the campaign.

Obama has done such a piss poor job with the two appointments that he did get that the public approval of SCOTUS has dropped by nearly 20 points, to a record low. If he had appointed another left wing activists like the two he did, Congress might have been forced to do something else, like increase the number of supreme court justices to 12, for example, and have Trump fill them with moderate conservatives. As it is, we are stuck with Sotomayor and Kagan, but the court may return to some semblance of balance and sanity with Gorsuch and (hopefully) a RBG replacement.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not what he said, what he said is that the people who don't share your demographics are getting fucked over... not that you are personally doing it, but if you ignore that others are getting fucked over you are complicit in that... even if republicans have trouble understanding what that word means.

But I will say it. Just look up "racial frame" to understand how past behavior has poisoned the present for people of all races. Nobody gets to say "I'm not a racist, so racism isn't my problem".

Re:God Dammit

[dgatwood]

They really didn't steal it. Would you have rather them just vote every person President Obama nominated down?

Yes. Because then they would have to justify that decision to their constituents. By refusing to schedule a vote, they were able to blame the people at the top and avoid taking any responsibility for their failure to do their constitutionally mandated duty. They chose the cowards' way out rather than face the voters. Make no mistake. Every single Republican in Congress who did not have the courage to demand a vote last year is a pathetic coward, and deserves no respect whatsoever.

Re:God Dammit

[WrongMonkey]

That's an easy thing to say if you're a straight, white male and don't have an personal stake is so-called "wedge issues".

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the total number of electoral college votes Trump got was higher.
Complaining about popular vote is like complaining about not winning at chess even though you have more pieces left.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? It’s been done before? When exactly?

And by the way, it is not at all settled law that Congress’ “advise and consent” means they don’t have to hold hearings for SCOTUS nominees. For every expert who believes that, I have read another who does not.

The simple fact is: Republicans can only win by cheating, by changing the rules. That’s the way it’s been since Reagan. Should we as a country allow the better cheaters to win?

And stop with the false equivalencies: Democrats are far different than Republicans. Democrats want peace, a clean environment, justice for everyone. Republicans want war, unending greed for themselves and their corporate masters, a dead planet with 99% serfs to wait on the vassals, and justice only for the wealthy.

To be clear: if you’re a Republican, you’re the enemy. Not just of America, but of the planet, and of the entire human race.

Re:God Dammit

[DaHat]

Time for election reform.

... in what form? How?

I for one am still rooting for/pushing for the repeal of the 17th Amendment via the Article V process.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

What the US calls "the left" is barely even left of Mussolini.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

An R or a D next to your name means nothing when the only difference between the two is specifically which corporation lobbying for the same particular deregulation bought you out.

I mostly agree. Though, keep in mind that there are some major differences in how the parties view rights of the individual (including voting rights, and interpretations of amendments intended to clarify rights given to large groups of people), as well as how they view where money should be spent, and also the ideology of individuals appointed to posts that do, for better or worse, greatly influence the lives of many Americans, some rich, some poor.

Oh wait, I don't actually agree with you at all. There are major differences between the parties, they just are differences that you don't care about, therefore you believe no one should care about them.

Re:God Dammit

[mrchaotica]

Part of the 2016 election was the American people deciding how they wanted the Supreme Court to look. The American People, by a large majority...

Everything about that is a lie. The majority of the "American People" picked nobody.The plurality of eligible voters picked nobody. The plurality of people who actually voted picked fucking Hillary Clinton.

The only "majority" Trump got was the goddamn electoral college. 73% of eligible voters, and 80% -- EIGHTY FUCKING PERCENT -- of the American People as a whole, did NOT vote for him!

Re:God Dammit

[phantomfive]

"All procedural arguments are hypocritical, including this one." Heard that one first about the rule changes made to help McGovern get the nomination, and the older I get, the more true it is.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points. I'd mod this mega-insightful.

Re:God Dammit

[bondsbw]

Perhaps it is you who needs to learn the meaning of the word:

complicit : helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way

I believe the word you are looking for is complacent: "marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies".

Re:God Dammit

[DaHat]

Standing up in the Senate and telling people they should do something IS NOT THE SAME as actually keeping a seat open until after the election. The Republicans did the latter, and actually *did* it.

Strange, your anger is that the Republicans did what the Democrats threatened to do for years but either never had a chance to act on (in case of Reid's use of the nuclear option), or never got fed up enough to do.

None of this was unprecedented though, just ask Ruben H. Walworth, John M. Read & Edward A. Bradford... just some of nominees to SCOTUS who never got a vote.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

and you're a moron. FOAD.

Hugs and kisses,

Juan Epstein

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all getting fucked over. And what is frequently blamed on racism is usually classism. And please don't act like people aren't openly hostile to white men. I constantly hear people blaming "rich white men" for everything. In movies, white men are constantly depicted as the milquetoast suburbanites who are bullied by their wives and are sexually unappealing. Wait, I know what I'll do, I'll check my privilege because my middle class self is swimming a Olympic sized pool of money along with my fellow white male conspirators...perhaps we can fellate each other later.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

He's ruled both for and against corporations. Seems like someone looking at the law rather than activism. Reading Warren's speech, I get the sense the only acceptable judge to the Progressives is one that always rules against corporations regardless of what the law says. That's not a judge, but an activist politician.

Re:God Dammit

[DaHat]

they were able to blame the people at the top and avoid taking any responsibility for their failure to do their constitutionally mandated duty.

Except they are not constitutionally required to hold a vote, or a hearing, or even a meeting with a nominee. Their 'consent' is required... and they simply withheld it.

Every single Republican in Congress who did not have the courage to demand a vote last year is a pathetic coward, and deserves no respect whatsoever.

Even those in the House of Representatives, which plays no part in the confirmation of a SCOTUS justice?

Interesting guilt by association you've got there... almost as bad as the "you didn't say _____, so you are bad!"

Re:God Dammit

[CaptainDork]

Speaking as a white man:

I have privilege, and if you don't, yell your fucking head off about SJW and I'm there for you.

My vote is in your favor.

My hand is out to you.

I am not afraid of any goddam thing because I have privilege and giving you privilege is not a threat to me.

What's a threat to me is those mother fucking goddam batshit crazy rabid right wing Christian Evangelical under-educated white trash who don't have the sense god gave a piss ant.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun control by democrat is only a perception. Neither republican, nor republican are doing anything for gun control. Show me one gun control law that you believe should be repealed?

Re:God Dammit

[aussie_a]

Democrats didn't insist on playing by the rules. They could have made this change and made executive nominees partisan. But they didn't have control of the house to allow them to nominate a judge even if they had changed the rules.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the Constitution give a time line by which a vote must occur?

Re:God Dammit

[macsimcon]

That is bullshit. Nearly 3 in 10 of all cloture motions filed in the history of the Senate were filed during McConnell’s tenure as Minority Leader. The filibuster existed before the Age of McConnell, but McConnell made them commonplace.

The two parties aren't the same: one wants authoritarian control by the 1% of the entire planet, and the other is the Democratic Party.

Re:God Dammit

[DaHat]

No, he was elected by a majority of voters who cast ballots.

I know... lets use Obama's logic from... 2014 was it?

He *only* won 69,498,516 votes... out of a population of of ~300,000,000... which isn't even 25%.

Not exactly a majority of Americans, am I right?

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

If Obama had been more a leader and worked on building relationships and consensus with enough Republicans, the obstructionism would have been far less. Instead he was a smug, bull headed partisan with no leadership skills. His contemptuous concept of "compromise" was the other side doing exactly what he wanted. Voters rebelled and elected Republicans to Congress to stand up to his policies. The majority in Congress was lost on Obama's watch because the people objected to his policies.

Re:God Dammit

[dgatwood]

Except they are not constitutionally required to hold a vote, or a hearing, or even a meeting with a nominee. Their 'consent' is required... and they simply withheld it.

They did not withhold consent. They withheld the opportunity to even talk about consent. That's critically different from a constitutional perspective.

As for whether they are constitutionally required or not, I would argue that their one job is to vote on issues, and that refusing to discharge their duties for an entire year—particularly in a way that breaks the ability of the highest court in our land to serve as a proper check and balance—constitutes a direct violation of their oath of office (Article VI, clause 3). So yes, they are constitutionally required to either provide or decline consent.

Even those in the House of Representatives, which plays no part in the confirmation of a SCOTUS justice?

Yes. Those who do not speak up when they see their immediate colleagues doing something heinous are just as guilty as those colleagues.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

But the GOP didn't wait to consider
Obama's nominee, they didn't consider him at all.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's supposed to be Epstein's Mom, you Insensitive Clod!

/yes I'm showing my age

Re:God Dammit

[Imrik]

If you have a personal stake in the wedge issue, you should be trying to fix the issue rather than voting for the parties that are perpetuating it.

Re:God Dammit

[DaHat]

They did not withhold consent.

They did in just the same way a disinterested person in a bar does when they ignore your advances.

They withheld the opportunity to even talk about consent.

Half true... they made rather clear, through their inaction that they did not consent to that nominee at the time... having previously advised the President not to nominate and waste anyone time.

Or, does someone have to give an affirmative "no, I do not want to have sex with you" for you to not receive consent? If so, that would seem to fly in the face of what we keep hearing from anti-rape folks.

That's critically different from a constitutional perspective.

Really? Then you can cite the specific part of the Constitution which lays out the lengthy process for confirming of a SCOTUS nominee? No? Maybe in the federalist papers? Or the Articles of Confederation? Maybe in the writings of a founder or framer?

No? It's as if... the Senate has rather wide latitude... almost as if it's written into the Constitution itself (see Article I, Section 5, Clause 2)!

As for whether they are constitutionally required or not, I would argue that their one job is to vote on issues,

Except the Constitution... and the Senate say otherwise. Again, see Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.

and that refusing to discharge their duties for an entire year

Except they didn't, just as not taking up a bill introduced by a member or acting on whatever particular issue you care about doesn't mean they are refusing their duty's.

particularly in a way that breaks the ability of the highest court in our land to serve as a proper check and balance

Except it didn't... we have existing mechanisms & traditions for handling ties... which not only can happen due to a lengthy vacancy, but something as simple as a recusal.

constitutes a direct violation of their oath of office (Article VI, clause 3). So yes, they are constitutionally required to either provide or decline consent.

Which would be true... if anything you said earlier had any basis in reality, the constitution or the rules of the Senate... all you've got is your ideological opinion which has been shown to be wrong. Not by me, but by the process we've seen over the last couple of years.

Re:God Dammit

[Imrik]

Keep telling the people in the middle that they don't matter and they'll keep voting against you.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

stole from whom? up or down vote, garland would have lost, i can almost guarantee it.

Garland would have almost certainly been confirmed in an actual vote. He was highly respected on both sides of the aisle, and it wouldn't have taken that many Republican defections to get him confirmed. As Orin Hatch (a Republican) said, he "I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them."

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, 306 is quite a bit greater than whatever number Hillary ended up with after electors refused to vote for her because she had stolen the Democrat primary and not even Democrat electors would vote for her.

You jelly? Because you sound jelly.

You and PopeRatzo seem to not understand the difference between the electoral college and the American People.

Re:God Dammit

[dgatwood]

Half true... they made rather clear, through their inaction that they did not consent to that nominee at the time... having previously advised the President not to nominate and waste anyone time.

Half true. Had it gone to a vote, the previous candidate would likely have gotten enough votes for confirmation, hence the reason the leadership was not about to let it go to a vote, nor even go up for debate. The Constitution says the consent of the Senate, not the consent of the Senate Majority Leader.

No? It's as if... the Senate has rather wide latitude... almost as if it's written into the Constitution itself (see Article I, Section 5, Clause 2)!

Within reason, certainly. Nothing in that clause permits the Senate to be derelict in its duty to uphold the Constitution, however. In fact, it says the exact opposite. But keep believing your partisan spin. If Democrats had pulled what the Republicans did, the Republicans would have come completely unhinged, and would have called for prosecution of the leadership.

Except it didn't... we have existing mechanisms & traditions for handling ties... which not only can happen due to a lengthy vacancy, but something as simple as a recusal.

Except it did. The Supreme Court of the U.S. dramatically reduced the number of cases it heard—from an average of about 75 cases in previous years (and 80 in 2015) to only 25 in 2016. If you're seriously arguing that a factor of three reduction in court throughput isn't a severe breakage, you're kidding yourself.

Re:God Dammit

[msauve]

That's not quite right. It's always been a simple majority for the Senate to confirm their consent for a court nominee. What changed is cloture - a purely procedural rule which previously required 60 votes in order to close debate and move on to the confirmation vote.

The abuse of rules is actually done by those who vote against cloture as a means of avoiding the actual vote. The only valid reason to vote against cloture is if there is still a bona fide need for additional debate. When those who wish to block a vote filibuster, filling the chamber with readings of Shakespeare, or phone books, or Dr. Suess, and then vote against cloture, it's a clear indication that bona fide debate was already complete and they're only abusing the rules.

Re:God Dammit

[Zxern]

Are you forgetting the fact that Garland was specifically named as a reasonable nominee by the republican party, long before Obama selected him? Only after he was picked did it become an issue.

Re:God Dammit

[rickb928]

What's left of The Gun Control Act of 1968. Replace it with law that expands sport use to include recreational shooting, 'plinking', for instance.

And repeal of several Executive Orders, #13637 for instance the order banning re-importation of long rifles, and then repeal the Mutual Security Act.

Re:God Dammit

[Cmdln Daco]

The concept of 'races' fucks us all over.

Two hundred years from now, people will look back and say 'what was all the bullshit about?' We can hope, anyhow. But there will always be legacy grievance seekers. Always.

Re:God Dammit

[FunkSoulBrother]

They are entitled to vote against me, so be it. But they shouldn't get a vote weighted 3x more than mine.

Re:God Dammit

[FunkSoulBrother]

They really didn't steal it. Would you have rather them just vote every person President Obama nominated down? Wasting their time and our money? Because Democrats didn't have the votes to stop that, and that's what would have happened. (Alternatively, keeping him in limbo was a way to get someone semi-moderate in case of a Clinton *shudder* win.)

Yes, yes, I would have preferred that. At least we'd have the ugly truth on video, voting down nominee after nominee.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for the unprecedented cloture votes is because Reid "filled the tree." Reid closed amendments from the floor before releasing bills for votes. This was a significant change to the way the Senate conducted business and prevented any Republicans from offering amendments to bills for consideration and, thus, the reason for Republican filibusters on the business of the Senate.

Re:God Dammit

[Cmdln Daco]

Karl Mark was an intellectual who spent a good part of his life writing in the British Library in London. He was also an armchair radical, but mostly he was a dull stuffy political economist.

Also much of what he wrote is very very obsolete now in the 21st century. Tons of his theories have been given one hell of a chance and failed in execution.

Re:God Dammit

[Cmdln Daco]

Near as I can tell, the only people running an election campaign regarding Trump are the Democrats. They still haven't figured it out.

"Elections have consequences." to quote a political hack from the recent past.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that's a great way to try to zero-sum the game .. lie when it's convenient.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

As a liberal, and a democrat, you kind of sound like a batshit crazy rabid left winger normally educated by under-thinking self loathing white guy. Give it a rest. You don't have to hand over the middle-class's 401ks for reparations to believe and fight for racial equality and harmony. You're a fucking psycho.

Re:God Dammit

[DaHat]

Half true.

You mean you are bringing facts?

Had it gone to a vote, the previous candidate would likely have gotten enough votes for confirmation,

Pure speculation.

hence the reason the leadership was not about to let it go to a vote, nor even go up for debate.

Except for the fact that the leadership serves at the pleasure of the body.

The Constitution says the consent of the Senate, not the consent of the Senate Majority Leader.

Except for the fact that the leadership serves at the pleasure of the body... which are duly elected and able to again, make their own rules under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2... which included the power to do this.

Within reason, certainly.

Which is exactly where they acted.

Nothing in that clause permits the Senate to be derelict in its duty to uphold the Constitution,

Yet you have still failed to cite a demonstrable violation of the constitution during the process... not one. Many attempts were made by smarter legal minds than you... and they also all failed. Even 'constitutional professor' President Obama, who saw the recess appointment vastly curtailed due to his abuse of it (thanks Noel Canning) couldn't do so.

however. In fact, it says the exact opposite.

Which again, you cannot specifically cite. Again, if it is so clear, you'd think you could cite it as I have.

But keep believing your partisan spin.

I'm sorry that you believe that facts are a partisan thing. Your ideology (note the difference) does have a problem with such things.

If Democrats had pulled what the Republicans did, the Republicans would have come completely unhinged,

Possibly, but then that is part of politics.

and would have called for prosecution of the leadership.

Again, pure speculation, as again, neither you nor any advocate of #DoYourJob could cite a specific constitutional or legal requirement for them to do anything with any nomination.

Except it did.

Will you be providing specific evidence of that this time?

The Supreme Court of the U.S. dramatically reduced the number of cases it heard—from an average of about 75 cases in previous years (and 80 in 2015) to only 25 in 2016.

No, no you didn't.

You failed to:

A) Cite WHY they did so, and
B) Cite HOW this prevented them from acting as an 'proper check and balance'... which again ignores all of the inferior courts, and

Remember: Like the House & Senate, the Court gets to pick and choose what it works on.

If you're seriously arguing that a factor of three reduction in court throughput isn't a severe breakage, you're kidding yourself.

If we accept what you say is true, which I do not, odd how a 11.1% reduction in justices automatically results in a reduction by a factor of three in case load... if anything, it sounds like you are arguing for Trump & the Republicans to expand the court, bigly so they can handle all of the thousands of appeals it receives every year which go without a high court ruling.

The simple fact is (and will continue to be) that the Senate acted fully within their authority, like it or not.

QED.

Re:God Dammit

[Cyberax]

So Democrats under Bush stonewalled ALL his nominees, right? Or torpedoed ALL his legislation, even when they were actually the ones who introduced it in the first place?

Re:God Dammit

[imgod2u]

Is that the same as if Obama intervenes in Syria, it's a giant waste of military power and "losing to Putin" but if Trump bombs Syria to ill effect, it's a "show of strength"?

To be clear, I agree with the recent missile strike against the airbase in Syria. I just find it amusing how hypocrisy works.

Re:God Dammit

[kenai_alpenglow]

Definition of "moderate" is relative to your own political conviction. I would guess that Marx would consider himself a "moderate"--everyone else is a raging right winger...

Re:God Dammit

[imgod2u]

If his/her particular wedge issue is climate change, progressive taxation or women's health, it would seem one party "perpetuates" that more than the other.

Re:God Dammit

[Cyberax]

If you believe any of your words then you're an idiot. Nobody appointed by Trump is going to abide by regular rules, and Gorsuch's ideas are to the right of Scalia. If any of the Supreme Court positions become vacant, you can count on the US to slide back into the last century.

Re:God Dammit

[imgod2u]

Republicans just stole that seat.

No they didn't. The voters gave it to them.

No they didn't, the States gave it to them.

Re: God Dammit

[PoopJuggler]

Or you just perceive SJWs that way.

Re: God Dammit

[PoopJuggler]

No, everything Trump says and does is still just self-fellating rhetoric. He has no idea what he's doing, no experience to bring to the table, so he just keeps campaigning because that's the only thing he can do.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't looked at the vote totals, have you?

Presidential popular vote totals are meaningless when it comes to confirming a supreme court justice. The correct vote totals are state senator and representative votes which the Republicans your stupid liberal faggot.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

No they didn't, the voters gave it to them.

Fixed that for you.

Re:God Dammit

[Raenex]

That's an easy thing to say if you're a straight, white male

Maybe you should fuck off with your identity politics, then, and take some personal responsibility for your life instead of playing the Oppression Olympics.

Re:God Dammit

[dywolf]

looking the other way = complicit

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time we moved the conversation away from "Reps are bad" vs "Dems are bad" because that will get us nowhere. Both are terrible and possibly beyond repair. But as long as we allow ourselves to believe that one side is acting in good faith while the other side is not, we will make zero progress. Both are incredibly corrupt. Both major parties have a list of "sins" so long that neither should be allowed in power.

Remember that they're just supposed to be representing a group of your countrymen who have different opinions. I don't hate Republicans/Democrats, I hate what Politicians have done in their name.

Not voting him in would've just been politics as usual, but flat out refusing to even go through the motions while telling the country to our collective face that you will not fill that seat for an ENTIRE YEAR, a quarter of the sitting President's term, just because you don't like him? And then to turn around and invalidate the votes of the opposing party (who, for effect, were actually following the standard process of hearings) on filling the exact same seat? And publicly shaming them for not voting him in? That should make you angry no matter what label you use for yourself, or which side does it.

Politics is politics, but this is not politics, it's... I don't know, I'm hesitant to say treason, but in my eyes this is worse than anything Snowden has ever done. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican; as an American I'm embarrassed that not only did the whole lot of them face no repercussions for it, but they were re-elected almost unopposed to a man. I don't even have that many reservations about Gorsuch or high hopes for Garland, I just can't believe that they could basically cripple the Supreme Court and see nothing but personal success for it.

Re:God Dammit

[WrongMonkey]

You sure you want to go down that road? Because every nut job who has blown up an abortion clinic is someone who tried to fix the issue rather than voting for the parties perpetuating it.

Re:God Dammit

[Le Marteau]

Well, you're never going to get them unless you log on.

Re:God Dammit

[dywolf]

-the democratic opposition, such as it was, under bush was neither unprecedented, nor much in the way of oppoisition. clinton faced far worse, for far longer, same as obama.

-thomas? under reagan? you must mean the sexual harasser who was nominated under bush the first.

-if elections had consequences, Hillary would be president.

-the overton window has been moved, exclusively, by conservatives for the past 40 years.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

... in what form?

I would suggest dealing with WTA, FPTP, and adding PPR to ensure minority representation. Adding in CV and NOTA would be good ideas as well.

You can suggest other ideas, and malapportionment and gerrymandering are also issues to handle.

How?

Either peacefully or not. There is precedent for both. By the same people, as a matter of fact. Remember your history lessons?

I for one am still rooting for/pushing for the repeal of the 17th Amendment via the Article V process.

Better yet, eliminate states as they are perceived, and recognize the fallacy of suborning ourselves to flawed constructs. See the 38-state plan. Or others.

I know, I know, you're probably thinking that states must be preserved, but that is a naive concept.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a flaming asshole.

Re:God Dammit

[PopeRatzo]

Presidential popular vote totals are meaningless when it comes to confirming a supreme court justice.

Follow the argument. The original poster was saying that the "American People" spoke and demanded Trump be able to appoint whomever he wants. That's not quite true now, is it?

Re:God Dammit

[dywolf]

and it was rejected and not followed through on, and biden himself changed his mind soon after.
so who gives a flying fuck?

Re:God Dammit

[dywolf]

says a man with no concept of history or what marx actually wrote.

Re:God Dammit

[PopeRatzo]

No, he was elected by a majority of voters who cast ballots.

No, he was elected by the Electoral College, which is not the same thing as the "American People". Trump got 44% of the votes from voters who cast ballots. This is not a majority, unless you want to redefine the word.

Re:God Dammit

[WrongMonkey]

Maybe you should quit denigrating any issue that doesn't apply directly to you as being a "wedge issue" or "identity politics". Straight, white males (myself included) are no longer the center of the political universe and we're going to have to get used to the idea that the issues that drive politics might not revolve around us.

Re: God Dammit

[bondsbw]

"Looking the other way" implies knowledge of wrongdoing; ignorance does not have that implication. That distinction is precisely the subject at hand.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Republicans abused the Amendment process.

Democracy does not work..

Re:God Dammit

[dywolf]

the only people more ignorant than conservatives are these fools who keep saying "they're both the same"

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he was elected by a majority of voters who cast ballots.

I know... lets use Obama's logic from... 2014 was it?

He *only* won 69,498,516 votes... out of a population of of ~300,000,000... which isn't even 25%.

Not exactly a majority of Americans, am I right?

Don't bother using logic with the left. They lack the intelligence to understand advanced concepts like math.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all getting fucked over. And what is frequently blamed on racism is usually classism. And please don't act like people aren't openly hostile to white men. I constantly hear people blaming "rich white men" for everything. In movies, white men are constantly depicted as the milquetoast suburbanites who are bullied by their wives and are sexually unappealing. Wait, I know what I'll do, I'll check my privilege because my middle class self is swimming a Olympic sized pool of money along with my fellow white male conspirators...perhaps we can fellate each other later.

Racism is never classism. Plenty of white people have it hard. But the fact is that if they were black, they would have it even harder. Imagine that you are having the worst day of the worst week of your life. Now imagine that on top of all the other BS you have to deal with, random people treat you like a thug or a criminal as soon as they see you. Or just based on your name before they see you at all. Black people have all the problems of poor whites, and all the problems of all blacks.

Poor whites struggle against classism and that is BS which should be shut down. Poor blacks struggle against classism and rasicm and that is double BS that should be shut down. But even if black people make it rich (or are born rich), they will still have to deal with the racism BS, like being harassed by every cop who thinks black people only drive nice cars if they have stolen them.

Think it is hard being depicted as a "milquetoast suburbanites who are bullied by their wives and are sexually unappealing"? First world problems. Try getting through your day with random people reacting to you like you were a dangerous animal.

Privilege is a relative thing.

Re:God Dammit

[Rei_is_a_dumbass]

Follow the argument. The original poster was saying that the "American People" spoke and demanded Majority of congress be able to approve or disapprove whomever the president wants.

Fixed that for you dumbass.

Re:God Dammit

[dywolf]

oh shut the fuck up you ignorant moron.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

He seems apolitical. Judges determine if something complies with the Constitution and should not have anything to do with politics. Obamas judges are al political hacks.

Re: God Dammit

[penandpaper]

Or you have real world examples like the head of the Idaho Democratic party that stated un-ironically: "shut other white people down".

Perhaps you should step outside of your echo chamber.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong again, monkey.

Re:God Dammit

[DaHat]

-the democratic opposition, such as it was, under bush was neither unprecedented, nor much in the way of oppoisition. clinton faced far worse, for far longer, same as obama.

Nice bit of revisionist history you've got there, lacking any semblance of escalation or root causes.

-thomas? under reagan?

I'm sorry, you are right, it's sometimes hard to keep up with the brilliant minds which the Democrats have kept off the courts. Thomas was under Bush-41... Bork was under Reagan. Don't get me started on Estrada under 43.

-you must mean the sexual harasser who was nominated under bush the first.

We tend to use the term 'alleged' in such cases, baring a conviction. None the less, should he have run for President then? Seems to have worked out for Bill Clinton.

"-if elections had consequences, Hillary would be president."

They do, with certain rules. Odd how those decrying November don't demand Chicago share the world series title with the Indians... after all, the both scored the same number of runs IIRC. Right... rules.

"-the overton window has been moved, exclusively, by conservatives for the past 40 years."

Interesting glasses you've got on. Even hard core lefties I know will admit that the election of Obama with his rather thin resume played a major part in the idea of someone with an even thinner related political resume getting elected. While many were uncomfortable with the sense of dynasty of 2x (possibly 3) Bushes being President, they at least accomplished things on their own... the most you can say for Hillary is that she married well.

I didn't vote for Trump, nor did I support him, but do take a certain joy in the tears and anguish of people like you... to which I say: Enjoy the next 8 years.

Re:God Dammit

[epyT-R]

Fuck off, racist. Take your neo-marxist divisiveness tactics with you.

Re:God Dammit

[epyT-R]

Quit guilt tripping people with bullshit statistics and pretending the last 70 years didn't happen.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they do get to, esp if they aren't guilty of it. It's only cultural marxists who think they have the right to impose/dispose these little false dilemmas on groups as they see fit. Take your cold war era propanganda to North Korea.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Winning is what he is doing. and he is doing everything he said on his campaign trail. he has my approval and my vote.

Re:God Dammit

[fustakrakich]

No, you can't win without votes. That comes from the voters, or do you suspect fraud?

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, looks like he hit a nerve and you've got nothing but insults. Truth hurts, don't it?

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

The mods are on crack today.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of privilege is also a pile of marxist propaganda that has no place in modern politics. According to them, racism is indeed a form of classism, as is sex and various other cross sections they've agitated over the last 40 years. The point is to divide people by these attributes and get them squabbling with each other instead of resisting abuse from the top.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

we live in the united states not in the united federal republic. your vote counted just as much as someone in Iowa so stop complaining.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

truth hurts the rest of the country rejected Obama's policies. he will leave no legacy.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

and that's bad why? integrity, morals, good upbringing some who is not afraid of saying prayers at meals, holding a door for a lady etc.. I'll take that any day over what this country is turning into with all the sadistic and sick things I see (homos, perverts, abortions, transexuals) you name it. we're going down the toilet fast.

Re:God Dammit

[penandpaper]

wait. how would hillary be president if elections have consequences and Trump won fair and square?

Re:God Dammit

[CaptainDork]

So you have a way of determining that I'm:

1.) A liberal
2.) A Democrat
3.) in need of rest
4.) Keeper of the middle class' 401(k)
5.) A psycho
6.) Having sex

You're a psychic.

But you knew that.

Re:God Dammit

[dgatwood]

Which again, you cannot specifically cite. Again, if it is so clear, you'd think you could cite it as I have.

Actually, I did, several posts back. You just ignored the citation because it doesn't match with your political view. Article VI, clause 3 says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution".

Again, pure speculation, as again, neither you nor any advocate of #DoYourJob could cite a specific constitutional or legal requirement for them to do anything with any nomination.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it define what "support this Constitution" means. One could argue, then, that it is sufficient to physically place a physical piece of paper on top of the head of every Congressperson, thus ensuring that they literally support it (hold it up). One could further argue that it is perfectly acceptable for Congress to deliberately pass laws that violate both the letter and the spirit of that document so long as their Constitutional hats remain firmly on their heads while they do so. No sane person would argue that such an interpretation is plausible, of course, but there's nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution that says that it would be a violation of one's oath to interpret it that way. Yet most people would agree that it would be. The question becomes one of determining where you draw the line of reasonableness, and apparently you draw the line a long way from where I do.

What concerns me more, though, is that you're asking for concreteness in constitutional law where none exists, deliberately, so that the courts have leeway in determining what is and is not acceptable behavior by the government. For example, nowhere in the Constitution was it written that blacks have the right to attend the same schools as whites, yet the courts upheld that non-enumerated right. One could also rationally argue that the people have a right to a properly functioning Supreme Court with nine members or argue that the President has a right to a response, rather than a lack of response, when submitting a nominee for consideration. This is not at all a stretch. In fact, the need for the courts to be able to recognize non-enumerated rights is precisely why we have the entire ninth amendment.

A) Cite WHY they did so, and

Okay, here's your citation. Historically, every time that the court has lacked a clear majority in one direction or the other, and particularly when there have been eight members, the courts have taken fewer cases.

B) Cite HOW this prevented them from acting as an 'proper check and balance'... which again ignores all of the inferior courts, and

The inferior courts are often called that for a reason. When circuit courts come up with wildly different opinions, there must be a single arbiter. For every case not granted certiorari that would have been granted certiorari under a full bench, the court's voice is muffled. A weakened SCOTUS doesn't completely prevent the courts from acting as a proper check and balance, but it does significantly diminish their ability to do so.

The simple fact is (and will continue to be) that the Senate acted fully within their authority, like it or not.

Ending your post with Q.E.D. doesn't make it so. The thing about constitutional law is that issues are seldom (if ever) clear-cut. There is absolutely no Q.E.D. in matters of constitutional law until settled by the Supreme Court, and arguably even then (see also Brown vs. the Board of Education of Top

Re:God Dammit

[Chris Mattern]

I guess we are in the throws of an election even now.

"Throes". Unless people are now electioneering by hurling things, which certainly does seem possible these days...

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always move.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice bit of revisionist history you've got there, lacking any semblance of escalation or root causes.

The root cause is that the GOP has been getting more and more extreme since the nomination of Barry Goldwater and the adoption of the Southern Strategy, which happened because the Democrats finally got the balls to repudiate their regressive faction, and the GOP sensing advantage decided to claim it. Atwater admitted to it, and the nature of elections reflects it. (The Johnson quote, BTW, is spurious.).

It may end up being a losing game though, look what it got them. They'd rather have back Grant. At least he was only an incompetent drunk.

I'm sorry, you are right, it's sometimes hard to keep up with the brilliant minds which the Democrats have kept off the courts. Thomas was under Bush-41... Bork was under Reagan. Don't get me started on Estrada under 43.

Well, at least you didn't name Harriet Miers. Sad that you forgot about Douglas H. Ginsburg. Oh wait, that was because his nomination was pulled because Reagan couldn't have a marijuana smoker around.

We tend to use the term 'alleged' in such cases, baring a conviction. None the less, should he have run for President then? Seems to have worked out for Bill Clinton.

Or Speaker of the House (convicted of hiding money to conceal a sex abuse). Or Senator from South Carolina(fathered a child...on a maid). Or Governor of Alabama (facing impeachment as we speak!).

Odd how those decrying November don't demand Chicago share the world series title with the Indians... after all, the both scored the same number of runs IIRC. Right... rules.

Best of 7? I'd take that. It's reasonable. Let's conduct elections like that.

If the World Series was conducted under a special series of arcane rules completely repudiating any common practice of baseball, there would be protests of imposing such an artificial mechanism into what should be a normal enough contest, by distorting the value of many votes, effectively eliminating others, and allowing the team that did worse by what is the conventional means of winning a game, to take the trophy, you can be sure there would be protests.

In fact, if you look at the College Football system, they REALLY irked people a lot until they got into some kind of playoff system, and even then, folks don't like it.

Like it or not, protests against the Electoral College have existed for decades, arguably almostsince the foundation of the country, even before the concept of universal suffrage. Take good ole Andrew Jackson for example. But there was a surprising conflict in the 1800 election people don't know about. Not to mention a certain election in 1860. You might remember that. It lead to a Civil War.

Interesting glasses you've got on. Even hard core lefties I know will admit that the election of Obama with his rather thin resume played a major part in the idea of someone with an even thinner related political resume getting elected.

Not at all. The history of that can be shown as recently as H. Ross Perot, who did much the same thing Trump did, except less crazy. Perot didn't even join the Republican Party. I don't know what lefties you know, but they surely must not be very old.

While many were uncomfortable with the sense of dynasty of 2x (possibly 3) Bushes being President, they at least accomplished things on their own... the most you can say for Hillary is that she married well.

If you know nothing about her, sure, you can say that. But she actually practiced law, worked hard for many causes, and continued that as First Lady, to the point that the Old Guard resented her for not being a traditional social graces, but more of an Eleanor Roosevelt.

But at least you're not claiming not to see her after 9/11.

I didn't vote for Trump, nor did I suppo

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Because the whole body of knowledge called Political Economy ceased to advance after Marx. He figured it all out and Lenin, Trotsky, Enver Hoxha, Mao Zedong, etc. carried the banner ever forward in applying it. Your local Marxist study group is on the cusp of knowledge regarding political economy because you work so hard at it. We just need to put you in charge of everything. Right?

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans just stole that seat.

No they didn't. The voters gave it to them.

No they didn't, the States gave it to them.

No they didn't, the voters in the States gave it to them.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet he is POTUS. Books will be written about his life. His impact on the Country and World will be widespread.

All your autofellatio will accomplish is a few moments of self-pleasure.

It quite literally SUCKS to be you.

Re:God Dammit

[penandpaper]

Why do you dislike the senate? The same reasons for the Senate in the Congress is the same reason for the Electoral College in the Executive.

Re:God Dammit

[amightywind]

White is right!

Re: God Dammit

[Uberbah]

Right. Because the whole body of knowledge called Political Economy ceased to advance after Marx.

Right. In the same way that Isaac Newton was a dullard because our knowledge of physics has advanced in the centuries since he helped develop calculus, Mr. Unique Snowflake.

Re:God Dammit

[Uberbah]

"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden

Keep fucking that chicken. Pretending the opinion of one senator (who boasted about writing the Patriot Act) means Jack or shit has been a popular talking point in the right wing nutosphere for the last few weeks. It's like you've been taking lessons from your fellow right winger, Hillary Clinton, and her paid CTR trolls on how to disseminate bullshit.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

That seat, and all seats on SCOTUS belong to the people of America, not to a political party, POTUS or the Senate.

Re:God Dammit

[bondsbw]

Article V is important, though its main limitation is that we have so many states that it makes it hard to get traction on any Article V amendment. (When one does, Congress steps in to pass a similar bill in order to prevent Article V from actually being invoked, which would embolden future attempts.)

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck anyone who reads that fascist cult propaganda mouthpiece.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Biden does not speak for everyone, or even a majority of citizens, on this point, I believe.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

You can thank the howling incompetence of the Democratic party,

The party sheep and SJWs may feel otherwise, but the results speak for themselves. 75% of the nation's governors are Republican, and I believe a slightly higher majority of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans. How can Democrats not realize that the PotUS election system uses an electoral college, and as long as states can gerrymander for their party's politicians, the Republicans will have an advantage in electing presidents for the next 10-20 years?

You can thank Tim Kaine and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who are only symptoms of a Clinton elites groupthink) for 2016, and what do the Party's leaders do? They select another machine insider, Perez. "Oh, but he's not white, so that will make all the difference".

Watch the Democrats in 2020. They'll do the same BS about putting the majority of their money into media bombing the "urban" centers centers of a state, because "that's where the people are", not realize that it won't make a difference because of the gerrymandered districts, and behold, another improbably Democrat election failure against the Orange Cheeto, because somehow they can't pull off a win in MI, WI, PA, or FL. "But they hold all the Hispanics, and getting an overwhelming majority of that 15% of the population will sweep us into the White House" and local (urban) races". Stupid is as stupid does.

And mind you, I hate Democrats almost as much as I hate Republicans. But its obvious which team has the Bill Bellichek level leadership. (You non-sports following Democrats probably don't even remember Martha Coakley.)

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarah?

Re:God Dammit

[Straif]

It seems activist judges, of which there are far too many, don't understand the difference between what is legal and what is right. They want to legislate from the bench and are far too often permitted to do so.

Take the latest ruling about civil rights legislation covering sexual orientation. Nothing in the law actually covers orientation and in fact only list a few categories out of infinite possible classifications that are considered protected. The judges believed it was unfair that a lesbian was possibly being prevented from being employed because of her orientation so they simply added it to the list of protected classes.

Now you can believe that the employers actions were unfair, as most people probably would, but according to the law they were not illegal until a panel of judges suddenly made them so. The proper course of action for a judge would have been to rule in favor of the employer (because that's what the law demands) while stating in their opinions why they believe the law should be changed. The appropriate legislative body could have taken it under advisement and taken whatever course of action they saw fit. It is not the job of the judge to overrule or rewrite the law unless they can actually point to a constitutional basis for their decision.

Re:God Dammit

[Orgasmatron]

Also, the part of FOPA that prevents new numbers from being added to the registry of class 3 weapons needs to go. Pre-'86 lightning links sell for thousands of dollars today and they are literally two pieces of metal that you could make with pliers and a dremel in 5 minutes.

I could also make a good argument for nuking parts of the 30s era law.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

So, because Reid and you think that Republicans abused the amendment process then amendments shouldn't be allowed?

The link you provide on "abusing" the amendment process said the abuse was that Reid didn't want his fellow Democrats to have baggage when up for reelection. Let's not force politicians to actually take a stand that voters will judge when casting their votes.

Re:God Dammit

[Orgasmatron]

Left and Right do not mean the same thing in America as they do in Europe. In fact, they often mean nearly the opposite. The right in Europe tends to be pro-class and pro-hierarchy, while the right in America is pro-individual.

Re: God Dammit

[bondsbw]

States don't represent the distinctions in culture that they once did. Most people don't know why North and South Carolina are two states, and those who do likely don't share the same concerns as our ancestors. Frankly, the boundaries between all states suffer this problem to a major degree and could use a rethink.

I'm not sure if I care about the number of states, because I'd like to see some major changes in the federal legislative branch:

Regions I'd like to create a few federal regions which represent cultural areas of the US. Most federal laws (except things like declarations of war) would start in the regions, and laws could be distinguished to target urban vs. rural areas. These regions and urban/rural subdivisions would become the "laboratories of democracy" that states have failed to be. Regions may adopt and tweak laws from each other, and any law adopted by two or more regions could be eligible for nationwide consideration (by full vote).

House of Representatives Districts would be larger, bounded by region lines instead of state lines, and each region would have multiple winners. For example, each district could have 2 winners or each could have 3, so that 51-49 ties don't leave half the population without representation.

Senate Each state would be reduced to one senator, appointed as a representative of the state government. Additionally, each region would hold a popular vote to elect one senator from the urban population and one senator from the rural population. Finally, each Senate committee would have two members, chair and co-chair, voted in by national popular vote (the remaining members would serve on these committees as they do today).

All laws would require 60% vote to pass, either regionally or in nationwide votes. Regional laws would be voted by members from the region (in the senate, regional votes would include senators from the states in the region). Senate committees have the power to bring to the floor laws which are proposed to all regions, and the committees would attempt to reconcile the differences between similar regional bills and existing regional laws.

Re: God Dammit

[Orgasmatron]

Some times, the only thing you can do is thank them for their tireless campaigning towards Trump's re-election. They hate to admit it, but deep down inside they know that they are doubling down on the exact same shit they did last time.

Re: God Dammit

[bondsbw]

each region would have multiple winners

should be: each district would have multiple winners

Re: God Dammit

[bondsbw]

Also, I'd like to see representatives and senators spend as much time in their home area as possible. They could even vote remotely in front of a camera. Let them walk outside and face the people they represent.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't specify the date when a president is to leave office; therefore Obama could have remained president as long as he stayed on the property. That's the rule.

Re: God Dammit

[Jesus H Rolle]

Complaining about popular vote is like complaining about not winning at chess even though you have more pieces left.

We've murdered millions, tortured innocents, trained terrorists, organized rape squads, etc., all in the name of checkers, yet we continue to play chess domestically.

Re: God Dammit

[Jesus H Rolle]

It's the Fourteenth Amendment, silly. It reads "The ____________________________ (fill in the blank)."

Re:God Dammit

[Raenex]

Straight, white males (myself included)

Then maybe you should stop letting people walk all over you while playing the Oppression Olympics. You're not helping anybody. Here, enjoy some Thomas Sowell.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what genius? You can pick anecdotes about assholes out of any group. Do you know why stories like that spread? To provide you with ammunition rationalizing your negative judgement of people who are literally interested in justice. Because justice is bad for some.

Re:God Dammit

[phantomfive]

That is bullshit. Nearly 3 in 10 of all cloture motions filed in the history of the Senate were filed during McConnell’s tenure as Minority Leader.

I'm really having trouble understanding your point here.......is there some kind of correlation between cloture motions and Hitler? How do you jump from 'filed a lot of cloture motions' to 'wants authoritarian control by 1% of the entire planet' Seem like your missing a few screws in your logic steps, there.

Re:God Dammit

[Maxo-Texas]

Yea it's said. A lot of young women are going to die due to preclampsia and similar problems (as they already have in other countries).

And we won't be able to fix this for at least 20 years.

For god's sake- get out and VOTE in 2020.

The pro-corporate stuff is going to be positively totalitarian.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

So the majority of voters in enough states gave it to them.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say the only idiot here is you. You took the part you disagreed with and are using that to say the rest of what they wrote was wrong. Are you disagreeing that congress is acting like children?

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what cock sauce? The the rational voices should be louder and not give any support to the assholes who give them a bad name! These people may not hit the news, but they could easily hit online communities and make their rational voices heard. Odd how they don't seem to gain any traction isn't it? You know why, dick juice? It's because they get shut down real quick. Told they aren't a part of this group if they don't agree with them. Identity politics is played hard.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Marx's ideas killed like two hundred million people. Positions in someone's head may be relative, but real world consequences are not. Communism is a deadly idea, and in fifty years it basically tied religion across all of human history for death toll.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the Democrats not understand how the president is elected? Did they ALL skip civics class in 8th grade? So sick of this nonargument.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

> women's health

If this is code for "abortion rights", then (1) I agree with you and (2) man up and say it. If it literally means that women's health should be treated differently than the health of the minority sex (men), then fuck you.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a white man, fuck you. I didn't wrong anyone.

Unfortunately, you're not really in a position to make a quality judgement on that matter. Everyone can see where things are unfair if the unfairness is directed against them but if the unfairness results in an advantage to them, well, that's a much more difficult thing.

For example, election laws passed in North Carolina which were found to be aimed at the black population. What percentage of white male North Carolinians spoke out against that 'wrong'?

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Identity politics and racism won't save you buddy. I hope the next generation of liberal believes in equality, because you sure fucking don't.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the states each individually agree to that? The federal government could do no such thing. If we are gonna have a constitutional convention, we have better things to fix than boundaries.

Re:God Dammit

[krlynch]

Except it did. The Supreme Court of the U.S. dramatically reduced the number of cases it heard—from an average of about 75 cases in previous years (and 80 in 2015) to only 25 in 2016.

That case count is incorrect. The Court's annual term starts in October. I see 67 arguments on their docket for the OT2016 term, of which 25 have already resulted in opinions. Since there are also consolidated arguments and per curiam opinions, they have accepted more than 67 cases already. And they may still add cases to the term (although that is unlikely at this point). In OT2015, they decided 82 cases, not all of which had oral arguments. They are behind their previous pace, but not by a factor of 3 ... more likely by about 10%. https://ballotpedia.org/Suprem...

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

1, 4, and 5 are pretty apparent. The others we can judge as we go.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid comment award goes to Imrik

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

We didn't get our Obama Half dollar, there's almost no chance of a Hillary Half dollar now, and hopefully there won't soon be a Trump half dollar. (Homework assignment: research why there was a Kennedy half dollar starting in 1964)

I really wanted a new half dollar design a few years ago.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

random people treat you like a thug or a criminal as soon as they see you

Then maybe pull your pants up, lose the thug outfit and start speaking proper English with respect to other people. If you act all gangsta all day, don't complain if people treat you that way.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

The two parties aren't the same: one wants authoritarian control by the 1% of the entire planet, and the other is the Democratic Party

...which thinks that 1% is way too many

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they have it and you'll need their cooperation to change things to how you want them to be. So go ahead and keep telling them that they don't matter and see how well that secures their support for you.

You are definitely a competent strategic thinker.

Re:God Dammit

[belthize]

Garland would have been confirmed easily. That's exactly why McConnell didn't allow a vote. If he was so sure Garland would be shot down he would have happily allowed a vote.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea is the Utopia of Karl Marx? Talk about deforming an ideology to score political points...

Re:God Dammit

[belthize]

I agree with the broader sense of your post but disagree with the initial premise. Garland would have been confirmed easily. That's exactly why they didn't allow a vote. It's why any number of pieces of legislation never see the light of day, anything that could possibly result in all democrats and some republicans voting yes is toast (same is true when Dems are in power just reverse the parties).

It's the fundamental difference between Congress today and say 20, 30 or more years ago. Part of the blame lies in exposure. When the populous wasn't really paying attention Congress was more free (note that's a relative not absolute term) to vote their conscience. People like to think that more exposure leads to better legislation but that's only true if you assume that the congressman are there to serve country. Since their primary role is to get re-elected it's critical that any exposure be popular with their constituency.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Karma police.

Re:God Dammit

[dbrueck]

I agree with the broader sense of your post but disagree with the initial premise. Garland would have been confirmed easily.

Maybe so, I dunno - I think Democrats had 44 seats in the Senate (+2 independents) at the time. They would have needed 14-15 Republicans to vote for Garland. IIRC only 9 Reps voted in favor of Sotomayor in 2009 and only 5 voted in favor of Kagan in 2010, and in each vote there was also a Dem who either voted no or who abstained (meaning Dems would have needed to come up with one additional Rep 'yea' vote). Would nearly *one third* of Reps broken rank in 2016? Seems iffy.

You could argue that Garland was perceived as moderate enough that he would have gotten significantly more Rep votes than other recent nominees had, but you could also argue that by 2016 (when Garland was nominated) the Reps were already so fully entrenched in "no" mode that even less of them would have voted in favor of a Dem-nominated candidate, no matter how moderate or qualified. Garland getting enough Rep votes was possible, but by that time him getting zero (or very few) Rep votes was also pretty plausible because by that point in time the vote wouldn't really have been about the nominee - just like how the Gorsuch vote arguably wasn't really about him.

I can see how it could have gone either way, although I still lean towards believing Garland would not have been confirmed. If he had been confirmed, I bet it would have been reallllly close.

Re:God Dammit

[dbrueck]

Sorry, I forgot a part of my reply: I think you hit the nail on the head with the voting of their conscience thing. Related to that is the problem that somehow we've reached the point where 'compromise' is a dirty word, and yet compromise and cooperation are the only ways to get things done when there are diverse interests, but candidates often get shamed if they are on record as having worked with "the other side", like that's somehow bad.

Voters and candidates both share some of the blame because it seems common for in primaries/elections the candidates to try to out do each other in their extremity. To me the classic example of this is the "pledge" that some candidates sign and then bully other candidates to sign, e.g. a pledge to never raise taxes. Candidates take all sorts of extreme positions to ensure they get elected, and then they show up at Congress with their hands tied by dumb, extreme promises they made to get elected.

If I can generalize, it seems like the voters in the country have adopted a "winner takes all" mentality, and so they demand candidates that promise not to yield an inch, and are furious with any elected representative who "caves" on anything the voter deems important. This mentality is fatally flawed and we have to get back to the idea that negotiation, give-and-take, and even compromise are the norm, are good, and are productive.

Re: God Dammit

[Bartles]

It really started with Robert Bork in 1987.

Re: God Dammit

[Bartles]

What? Are you taking something for that?

Re:God Dammit

[macsimcon]

Don't be a brick. You ought to know that McConnell said at the outset that his most important goal wasn't making the lives of Americans better, it was to ensure that President Obama would be a one-term president. Hence, the obstruction. Hence, not giving President Obama the stimulus he needed to get the U.S. back on its feet economically, resulting in a sluggish crawl of a recovery that we are still living in. Do you think McConnell did that for the people? No, he did it so the people could be preyed upon by the 1%, so their homes could be foreclosed upon, so their student loans couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy, so they couldn't recover and would be so worried about survival that McConnell and his kleptocrats could hijack the government for the benefit of their donors, not the people.

The Republican morons are the ones who deny climate change. The idiotic red states cling to their bigotry and fictional religion so they are easily manipulated single-issue voters. The Democrats would like to keep this planet inhabitable, they want all Americans to have healthcare provided by the government and funded through taxes, and they want good education for everyone.

Frankly, it's uninformed people like you who have made this takeover by Republican thugs possible. You really ought to do something about your ignorance.

Re:God Dammit

[rey2]

Stole a seat? I don't think so. Ex-president Obama nominated Garland on March 16th in the middle of a presidential election; some 40 primaries had already been held by the time the nomination was made. In 2007 Shumer himself argued that should Bush have a chance to nominate a supreme justice the Senate should take no action because it would imbalance the court. Well sir that's probably exactly how the Republican's felt when the "most constitutional judge" on the court died and needed to be replaced. Regardless the Senate was Republican controlled and Garland would have been voted down. Furthermore the Democrats already demonstrated a willingness "to go nuclear" when they eliminated the 60 vote rule for all other federal nominees; a decision liberal commentators like Maddow, Sharpton, etc praised. Surely the Republicans could not allow the Democrat party a say in the seating of this supreme court justice since any attempts by a theoretical Republican minority of the future would be met by the very same rule change.

Re:God Dammit

[phantomfive]

You win the partisan blindness award of the day, good job.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a radical difference between refusing to confirm and refusing to even have the hearing. The latter screams bad faith.

Re:God Dammit

[quantaman]

Lemme guess... history for you starts in... 2013? With the 'unprecedented' Republican obstruction against Obama's nominees... which forced the hand of Senator Reid to do the not yet triggered Nuclear Option... leaving out SCOTUS nominees because there was not a vacancy.

The Republican obstructionism was unprecedented, it's always been there, but the GOP has gone completely off the rails during the past 8 years. Remember the government shutdown? Exactly WTF did they think was going to happen other than throw the country into disarray?

Some of us remember the Bush era where the nuclear option was first threatened for SCOTUS nominees due to actually unprecedented Democrat obstruction against many court nominees.

Then again, some of us also remember the attempted hi-tech-lynching of Thomas by Democrats under Reagan.

Thomas shouldn't have been confirmed, not only is he an ideological extremist but he's a serial sexual harasser.

Don't like what happened yesterday? Fine, to quote Obama, "elections have consequences".

A minority of the country voted for Trump, and several of those GOP senators only won their seats on the theory that they would put a check on President Hillary Clinton.

The GOP should recognize that they don't have a valid mandate and act with some moderation.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a white man, fuck you. I didn't wrong anyone.

Unfortunately, you're not really in a position to make a quality judgement on that matter. Everyone can see where things are unfair if the unfairness is directed against them but if the unfairness results in an advantage to them, well, that's a much more difficult thing.

For example, election laws passed in North Carolina which were found to be aimed at the black population. What percentage of white male North Carolinians spoke out against that 'wrong'?

You ask "What percentage of white male North Carolinians spoke out against that 'wrong'". I would say that those who voted for Roy Cooper as NC governor were speaking out against those shenanigans. Cooper won, BTW.
You probably don't understand what I just said, and why voting against the jerks who passed those laws is "speaking out", but that's how it works for grownups in our society.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Republicans admitted they had a problem.

But actually, yes, I reject pointless grandstanding for votes in the Halls of Congress, they should not be abusing their position to do that. Though speaking for myself, I found the claims of such to be nauseating, for example all the wasteful Obamacare repeal votes were disgusting to me.

They did nothing except waste money. Why would I want more foolishness?

Besides, as Mitch McConnell proved, he'll behave the same or worse without the slightest qualm. Even while complaining about it. Hypocrisy is his middle name.

Re:God Dammit

[FlyHelicopters]

Don't like the rules change them for the next game but you can't change them after the fact

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Can so. The US Constitution was adopted in just that fashion.

What, you think a successful seizure of power is unprecedented?

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

A dose of cold hard truth, with a slice of reality.

It goes down smooth.

Re:God Dammit

[Gussington]

But Trump does the same thing and he's "starting another war in the Middle East!!!"

Trump campaigned on not getting involved, then he got involved. What Obama eats for breakfast matters not.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

They only need 4 or 5 not 14 or 15. Confirmation is by simple majority. 9 voted for Sotamayor, I can easily believe 4 or 5 would have voted for Garland.

The fillibuster blocking the nomination requires 60. It was actually a good design when a filibuster meant something. If one side really strongly objected then it would take the majority party and some fraction of the minority to say "That's nice, but we're preceding" and then it was just a simple majority. Unfortunately the Senate Leadership began using the fillibuster to simply block any and all legislation and had the party whipped up to back it.

It's the fundamental problem with party identity driving, when it was merely a way to bin left vs right of center it worked, but now that it's my team vs your team type approach it's fairly borked.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a study done where they made up fake resumes with the same qualifications.

The difference between the resumes was they changed the name to a more ethnic sounding name.

They found the response rate for the ethnic sounding name to be much lower.

How do you stop being a thug when they discriminate without even seeing you?

Re:God Dammit

[Trailer Trash]

Is that the same as if Obama intervenes in Syria, it's a giant waste of military power and "losing to Putin" but if Trump bombs Syria to ill effect, it's a "show of strength"?

To be clear, I agree with the recent missile strike against the airbase in Syria. I just find it amusing how hypocrisy works.

Yeah, it's the left's turn, now. To be fair, Obama doesn't seem to have gotten much for the sheer amount of bombs he authorized.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with the "stole the seat" concept. This is based upon the idea that Supreme Court justices are "owned" (or at least their nominations are owned) by one party or the other. This is just wrong, and it's entitlement-based thinking.

The reason I opposed Gorsuch is that his nomination is a reward for bad behavior by Republicans, prior to the election. And this is more than the ordinary sort of wrong, it's super-wrong. If we reward wrong behavior, we'll get more wrong behavior. Therefore my opposition has nothing to do with Gorsuch. His qualifications are irrelevant, TBH. His record, the way he answered questions at the nomination hearings, all irrelevant IMO.

We need to punish wrong behavior and reward good behavior. This will go a long way to bringing the political process back into some reasonable state, by bringing back accountability. Without it the system spirals out of control. As we can see.

Re: God Dammit

[tbannist]

Or you have real world examples like the head of the Idaho Democratic party that stated un-ironically: "shut other white people down".

Of course, the rest of that quote is (paraphrased for clarity) is "when they are interrupting non-whites talking about how racism affects them" and "when they are denying that white people have advantages that non-whites don't have". But I bet you didn't understand that and probably don't care to understand what she was talking about because then you might actually have to consider that your enemies might also be people.

Re:God Dammit

[KozmoStevnNaut]

No, the right in America is mostly pro-"whoever pays me the most".

Re:God Dammit

[Triklyn]

he could have been confirmed easily, for a "liberal seat". they would have rejected him in a straight up and down... because the optic would have been bad, of them rejecting a qualified judge... but it would have been worse, putting a moderate in scalia's seat.

so mcconnell said, 'we're not playing your fucking game, we're not even going to consider it. come again after you win the election.'

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Get bent faggot.

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the meantime while you're living in fantasy denial land, Trump has appointed a young conservative supreme court justice who will shape the court for decades, and he's deporting illegal mexican rapists by the truckload. Keep crying faggot.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept of 'races' fucks us all over.

But biology is a real thing. Different groups of people have different sets of genes, that result in real differences in average intelligence and temperament. Where we're getting into trouble is by pretending that it's "moral" to ignore these real biological differences instead of confronting them and dealing with reality.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

The census counts illegal aliens for the purpose of apportioning Representatives and electoral college votes. You get more power because of your slaves. Well, you did, anyway. Looking forward to that 2020 census after Trump deports all your slaves and California loses 5 seats.

Re: God Dammit

[penandpaper]

Enemies? That is quite strong. I think you use that word as it is commonly used by progressives and SJW types which is sad because that is how you get to violence. I don't have enemies and I don't hate people I disagree with. I understand they are people albeit retarded and dangerous. How easy is it to justify violence to a group you harbor resentment? Not much. No thank you. I do not flirt with that totalitarian bullshit.

Also, white privileged is bullshit. I understand exactly what it is and it is retarded.

Re:God Dammit

[Altus]

All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Re: God Dammit

[Altus]

If you are ignorant in this day and age, your ignorance is willful

Re: God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

I replied to a post that read "as soon as they see you". No idea what your situation has to do with it.

Re:God Dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

Try getting through your day with random people reacting to you like you were a dangerous animal.

White guy here who has experienced that on multiple occasions. Why? Because I'm not racist and don't mind checking out a restaurant in "the black part of town". There's a great burger joint I've had to stop going to after getting threatened for having the wrong skin color.

So basically I guess I'm saying "fuck you" for thinking someone has never experienced racism just because they're white. Racism is bad, but it has to stop everywhere if it's going to stop.

Re:God Dammit

[micahraleigh]

What???

When Obama nominated him the Republicans had Senate majority. If the Democrats had a senate majority and he didn't get confirmed, I would call that a steal. No WAY is that a steal.

Why is it the Republicans have to let it come up for a vote? Democrats don't let things come up for a vote when they're in the majority and they think it might make them look bad. Why are Republicans any different?

The primaries had already started and the last time around the Democrats said it was too close in the election cycle even though it later.

Also the Republicans took a HUGE risk with Trump predicted to be 100% likely to lose.

In what sense did the republicans steal this seat? Are you just messing with us or what?

Re:God Dammit

[strikethree]

I would rather be a black person in America than an Indian or Filipino in Kuwait.

Do think it is bad here in America? Watch this:
http://news.kuwaittimes.net/we...

I know you will not speak any of their languages, but the maid is asking to be pulled back in and the Kuwaiti Citizen is telling the maid that she is crazy.

Re: God Dammit

[tbannist]

I understand they are people albeit retarded and dangerous.

See, right there. You don't consider people who disagree with you to be equals who are capable of rational thought, clearly they must be defective because they don't agree with your all-knowing self, right?

Re: God Dammit

[penandpaper]

Hey, don't shame retards you ablelist scum! Retards are capable of rational (albeit limited) thought just like everyone else.

I see you like to move goal posts. My guess is you like to feel morally superior in these kind of conversations. Which is why you would use such strong language like "enemies". First, it was they weren't people because enemies. Now it's they are people just not equal because of disagreement and I am all knowing? Just remember I pointed out an example where someone was being a racist in the democratic party and trying to expand social justice political power and ideology which is a dangerous ideology. I am literally making the argument that you should not judge people by their skin color and that justice should be blind.

Here, let me share with you a few lessons from history. It is a bad idea to judge people by their skin color and restrict access to various institutions and political organizations purely on arbitrary characteristics such as race. Another one; segregation does not work and does not promote equal opportunity. If you want an even older lesson, the sins of the father are not the sins of the son; the son of a thief is not a thief until proven.

Equal outcome is a bad thing. Judging people on race is a bad thing. Shutting down white people because "white privilege" is a bad thing. People forgetting those lessons and the lessons that made western culture a good thing are stupid because they don't know history and they ignore reality.

I don't know everything but I know dangerous rhetoric when I hear it. Shaming white people for being white is dangerous even if it is the fad from media and social justice cliques. Shutting down political disagreement with claims of *isms and *ists is a bad thing. Redefining justice to not be blind is dangerous. Blaming the past on people that did nothing wrong is dangerous.

How far do I have to go to explain to you why people like Sally Brown are stupid and dangerous?

Re: God Dammit

[tbannist]

I see you like to move goal posts.

Are you sure that I moved the goal posts? Because you're defending this statement: "SJW believe that your mere existence is wrong'ing everyone else, no matter of what you actually did." When I pointed out that the quotes were out of context and it was specifically related to what people actually did, you chose to claim that people who disagreed with you were "retarded", "totalitarian" "bullshit".

How far do I have to go to explain to you why people like Sally Brown are stupid and dangerous?

You could try giving one good reason. All I see is a meaningless tirade based on what you imagine was said and judging from your behaviour, it seems like you are easily manipulated by sound bites. Which makes you look "stupid and dangerous".

As I understand it, she said it was her job to "shut down" people who deny that racism and white privilege exist. I didn't see any mention of shaming white people for being white, or redefining justice, or any of the bogeymen that you seem to have conjured out of your race-obsessive imagination.

Re: God Dammit

[penandpaper]

I pointed out that the quotes were out of context and it was specifically related to what people actually did,

Really? Because I don't hear any specific thing any white person did that results in them harming some minority that is summed up in social justice and white privileged. All I hear is collective guilt by association.

What specifically did any white person alive today do to deserve the contempt from Sally Brown? If she wasn't a racist why would she specify race?
How the hell does a white person not understand poverty according to Bernie Sanders?

What specific things are being done by a specific white person alive today that should result in this collective guilt?
Why are you and Brown and Sanders judging individuals by the actions of some other individuals who share an arbitrary trait?

How is denying the right of voting based on race going to solve anything?

shut down" people who deny that racism and white privilege exist

Yes, that means her job is to shut me or someone like me down in the political process of the democratic party because I deny white privilege. I would also disagree on their notions of racism because it has been thrown around so much the meaning has been watered down to mean 'disagreement'. She is shutting down people based on skin color and wrong think. She is specifying race. She is the one being racist. She only accepts her version of racism. Her race ruler of acceptable skin tone just has the darker shades as "the good shades".

All I see is a meaningless tirade based on what you imagine was said and judging from your behaviour, it seems like you are easily manipulated by sound bites.

Or I keep seeing the same type of behavior from all corners of the progressive/social justice camp across various academic, media, and government institutions and inform my opinion (rightly or wrongly) based on that. I am only human after all and if I keep getting exposed (whether intentionally or not) to the same type of crap from social justice it tends to change my perspective on social justice. Go figure, I am human.

I didn't see any mention of shaming white people for being white, or redefining justice, or any of the bogeymen that you seem to have conjured out of your race-obsessive imagination.

Social justice is a redefinition of justice. Justice is blind. Social justice is not. There are plenty of examples of SJW shaming people for being white or male or both.

Race obsessive imagination? I am not the one saying that race should be used in deciding justice. I am not the one saying that race should be used in shutting down access to a political institution. How am I obsessed with race if I am not the one always bringing it up?

You could try giving one good reason.

How many examples in history do you need where one group of people use another as a scapegoat to justify violence and tyranny? How is that different now with white people being used as the scapegoat to justify tyranny via Social Justice and violence via "punch a nazi"?? After all, only nazi's are against social justice... -.-

Re: God Dammit

[tbannist]

Really? Because I don't hear any specific thing any white person did that results in them harming some minority that is summed up in social justice and white privileged. All I hear is collective guilt by association.

Ironically, you are exactly what you claim to hate.

Re: God Dammit

[penandpaper]

lol, you have very bad reading comprehension. Where have I said I hate anyone? In fact, I did say: "I don't hate people I disagree with.".

Are you going to name any specifics or are you continue to justify lambasting an entire race behind a vernacular of moral superiority? I think you should look in the mirror bud if you are willing to collectively shame a group based on race.

Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[sanosuke001]

How is this sort of rule change when it's in his best interest (and basically gives his side a 9 vote handicap) something he should be allowed to do? When something comes around that he doesn't like can he just arbitrarily increase it back to 60? Seems kinda like bullshit to me...

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rule making this possible was introduced by the Democratic Party in 2013, also used first by them. Blaming the GOP for now taking advantage of this is kind of hypocritical.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[OverlordQ]

Because the Republicans were keeping a nominee from being confirmed just like how they stole the seat from Garland.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[halfEvilTech]

The GOP cited that in their rule change for Supreme Court justices. Before it was limited only to lower courts.

The rule was in place after the GOP refused to hear any Obama nominees. It was warned back then that it will come back to bite them in the ass and sure enough it did.

The one thing not coded in the constitution though is how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. That is actually in the Judicial Act of 1869 which set the number of justices to 9. It had been as high as 10 previously. But there is nothing stopping them if they have the votes to create a bill allowing more justices to be on the court and start flooding the court with them.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not hypocritical if you'd also be against its use by the democrats.
Just because you criticise one party doesn't mean you can't also be critical of the other.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you tip the scales to your favor in a two party system you will inevitably have to live with the other party using it against you. It sucks alright but you can't really complain if they do it too.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Triklyn]

the only thing enforcing the fillibuster was tradition. which both parties supported. then the democrats killed it in 2013.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assertion is objectively false. The rule change in 2013 was a direct result to GOP intransigence and obstructionism. They refused to confirm any Obama nominees purely out of party loyalty; their objections had literally nothing to do with qualifications. It was pure party-line bullshit. Then there's the fact that there was a nominee for SCOTUS staring LAST March which Republicans refused to even having hearings on.

So you can drop the "both sides are equally bad" fallacy.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[s.petry]

Because the Republicans were keeping a nominee from being confirmed just like how they stole the seat from Garland.

Circuit Court Judges. Yet the Republicans passed the majority of nominees without any problem. You should at least consider the possibility that the few (it was more than one) being held up were of particular concern. Instead of changing nominees, as Schumer demanded the Republicans do, they changed the rules and packed courts with additional judges. (The DC Circuit gained 3 more judges)

The Democrats are the last people allowed to bitch about it when they introduced bypassing cloture when it suited their needs. Reap what you sew sound familiar? If it suits their interests they can introduce a rule change to require cloture on both all Judges again. I certainly hope that the Senate moves back in that direction, but have no hopes that the Democrats want such a thing.

Schumer also forgot about demanding President Bush not dare introduce a Supreme Court nominee in his last 18 months in office. Then got upset after President Obama did exactly that and could not get a hearing on his candidate. You know what they say, "Karma is a b**ch!".

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[spire3661]

O look, a completely binary, un-nuanced view of the situation. IF the Dems do something wrong, and then the Repubs also do it, its not hypocritical to call one or both out on it. You might not have the right perspective to see both sides, you might have had bad information passed along to you, etc etc. Saying its all ok because they are both turds helps no one.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Dorianny]

the only thing enforcing the fillibuster was tradition. which both parties supported. then the democrats killed it in 2013.

Before than the filibuster was used sparingly to block only the most extremes of appointments, The Republicans turned it into a WMD and blocked appointments en masse so they could use the confirmations as barganing chips to get concessions.

The Obama noamnie, Garland was a centrist the GOP should have been more than happy to accept rather then roll the dice on the Presidental election (especially once Trump became the nomanniee and most professional pollers called the election lost) but in todays political reality where people scream treason even for as little as their representatives talking to the "enemy" accross the aisle, there is little room for compromise.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Republicans were keeping a nominee from being confirmed just like how they stole the seat from Garland.

In November 2013, when Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments over a Republican objections, it basically set the stage for today. The Democrats (esp Harry Reid and Jeff Merkley) basically wanted the Republicans to use the nuclear option in order to even the score, so they wouldn't be blamed as the only ones that used this parliamentary backdoor.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

That’s quite a revision of history you have there. The Democrats removed the filibuster for judicial nominees because the Republicans were blocking hundreds of President Obama’s appointments.

Since 1979, Republicans have obstructed nearly 50% more often than Democrats: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/11/21/chart-a-recent-history-of-senate-cloture-votes-taken-to-end-filibusters/

Again, the two parties are not the same: one fights for right, and one fights for evil.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

keep drinking the kool-aide my low information, puppet.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what conservatives actually believe.

When you open your mouth and people look at you like you're retarded there is a reason.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[DaHat]

I'm sorry that your understanding of history only starts in 2013.

You really should look up the way the Democrats threatened it repeatedly back during the Bush-43 era... but then that would ruin your narrative.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps those numbers have more to do with the types of judges nominated than the actual parties doing the blocking. Democrats tend to want to pack courts with activists while Republicans trend more towards actual judges. There's much more reason to object to ideological activists being appointed to life time positions on courts than to object to those that actually try to follow the law and not their feelings when ruling.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the Republicans share orders of magnitude more blame for this than the Democrats. Sure, the Democrats eliminated the filibuster for non-supreme court nominations, but only after an unprecedented period of abuse by the Republicans threatened the functioning of the judiciary. And the blockade of Garland, again by the Republicans, was especially egregious given 1) how respected he was, as a judicial centrist, on both sides of the aisle, and 2) how the senate is required by the Constitution to act on the President's nominee. The Republican Senate was derelict in their duty, and did so solely for partisan advantage. We now see that the actions of the Republican's has forever damaged what was left of the Supreme Court and Senate's legitimacy.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[dpilot]

That's a matter of perception. "activists" vs "actual". Others may see the issue exactly the opposite way as you. Both side can shout "You're WRONG!" at each other until they're blue in the faces.

Really, at the end of the day, Global Warming will be a litmus test on this. If the Republicans are right on this issue, things will continue similarly to the way they've been, with minor variations. If the Democrats are right, we're in a heap of trouble unless we take corrective action. But on this matter, Nature will be the judge, and all the shouting and blue faces won't make a speck of difference.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your source is both biased and cherry-picked beginning and end dates. Even if the source could be called unbiased, it does not support your claim.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it "for right" or "for evil" when the Democrats attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[hondo77]

Schumer also forgot about demanding President Bush not dare introduce a Supreme Court nominee in his last 18 months in office.

Liar.

And before you trot out Schumer's speech, please keep in mind that voting "No" on a nominee is not the same as blocking a nominee from getting a hearing and a vote.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actual Judges" Are you for real. Judges playing partisan politics are always "Activist Judges"

When someone becomes a Judge, they should leave their religion, political values and personal interests aside and just judge cases based on the law as it is written. Since Supreme Court's generally deal with constitutional issues such as free speech and human rights, the last thing you want is a judge who is willing to sell the American people to the highest bidder. That is what happens if you don't leave these things at the door. There is no such thing as a judge that is beyond reproach, but if you put someone who has specific interests as a judge, guess what, you're going to reap what you sew.

In this case, Trump may get what he wants and Gorsuch will tilt things in a way to allow Congressional term limits. You know, the very assholes who voted for him.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[FunkSoulBrother]

Lol, no, the oceans could literally be stating to boil off and you'd probably have at least half of the Trump base blaming it on Democrats. They'll kill us all and they'll never face consequence for it.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Democrats are right, we're in a heap of trouble unless we take corrective action. But on this matter, Nature will be the judge, and all the shouting and blue faces won't make a speck of difference.

It's actually about whether the scientists are right. The democrats are just listening to the scientists, instead of pulling alternative facts out of their you-know-whats like the republicans are.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[clonehappy]

Again, the two parties are not the same: one fights for right, and one fights for evil.

My fuck do I wish I had such a simplistic world view as you. Nothing is black and white, you'll learn that when you become an adult.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

A special election was scheduled for January 19, 2010, for the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts left vacant by Kennedy's death.[298] Shortly before his death, Kennedy had written to Democratic Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts legislature to change state law to allow an appointee to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy, for a term expiring upon the special election.[299][300][301] (Kennedy had been instrumental in the prior 2004 alteration of this law to prevent Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican senator should John Kerry's presidential campaign succeed.[302]) The law was amended, and on September 24, 2009, Paul G. Kirk, former Democratic National Committee chairman and former aide to Kennedy, was appointed to occupy the Senate seat until the completion of the special election.[303]

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how it's fair to zero-sum game the issues when it's your side on the loosing end.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, just wow. Not even a moron-in-a-hurry would believe Garland was a centrist ...

Pelosi couldn't even keep a straight face when she first uttered that stupidity for the fan boys to repeat.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Dorianny]

Since I'm a little slow, do you mind explaining to me exactly how that contradicts my statement that "the filibuster was used sparingly?" Perhaps I'm just not very good with the distinction between threats and action

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yet the Republicans passed the majority of nominees without any problem. You should at least consider the possibility that the few (it was more than one) being held up were of particular concern. Instead of changing nominees, as Schumer demanded the Republicans do, they changed the rules and packed courts with additional judges.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there were 68 presidential nominees for various positions filibustered between 1949 (basically when the Senate began allowing filibusters on nominations) and 2008. The Republicans had filibustered 79 of President Obama's nominees between 2008 and 2013 when Reid used the nuclear option.

In other words, in a little over 4 years, the Republicans filibustered more presidential nominees than had been filibustered in the preceding 60 years. That doesn't sound like selecting just a few people "of particular concern" to me.

By the way, I strongly disapproved of the nuclear option back then, as I still do now. There are Rules of the Senate, and this is using a ridiculous parliamentary loophole with no Constitutional foundation to override previous Rules of the Senate (which normally require a 2/3 majority to amend).

Frankly, I'd first prefer to see the federal judiciary self-destruct to the point that it actively went to war against Congress itself because of staffing issues... as with the Civil Rights Act (which eventually passed after 60+ days of filibustering) eventually someone will give. Eventually there would be some compromise. No longer. Now it's party line forevermore. Just wait -- in a few decades that Senate will be voting to take away Constitutional rights by party vote.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Raenex]

Again, the two parties are not the same: one fights for right, and one fights for evil.

Communists were fighting for the "right" for the people against the "evil" capitalists, and ended up causing more death, destruction, and misery than any other ideology in the 20th century.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 1979, Republicans have obstructed nearly 50% more often than Democrats

Good that's what the people that voted republican elected them to do. The real question you should as is why are the Dems so incompetent?

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually about whether the scientists are right. The democrats are just listening to the scientists only when the science goes with their agenda.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Le Marteau]

The GOP didn't "roll the dice". They knew what was going to happen because Trump has a time machine

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Judge I agree with = "actual judge". Judge I disagree with = "activist judge". Could you be any more blind to your own biases?

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Le Marteau]

Compared to Patton Oswalt^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^... I mean Elena Kagan and the 'wise latina', Garland was practically a right winger.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[dywolf]

every democrat judge currently on the court has been a moderate with broad bipartisan support.
every republican judge currently on teh court other than Kennedy has been a conservative ideologue with little bipartisan support.
care to try again?

Re: Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Misery? Except for Capitalism, responsible for leaded Gasoline, wars in Africa, Europe, Asia, South America and the Caribbean, tobacco deaths, alcohol deaths, Acid rain, the Spanish flu, mad cow disease, and AIDS. Oh, and the deforestation of much of the Amazon. Plus Thalidomide babies. And puppy mills. Deaths after the crash of 1929, and the false foreclosures of the 2000s. And how many deaths did Enron's power manipulations cause? More misery, death, and destruction under it's banner than anything else?

Oh, the wonders of Capitalism. Look around, just because it marched under a banner of prosperity and freedom, doesn't mean it isn't a pack of lies. There's people being abused right now, at sexshops across the world, because it makes money. Profit, the golden rule of Capitalism.

There's a reason they won't cure "nerve attenuation syndrome" you know.

Re: Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

always about the children

Re: Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone becomes a Judge, they should leave their religion, political values and personal interests aside and just judge cases based on the law as it is written.

A man who abandons moral interests to follow the law solely as written is not worthy of being a judge. They will sell out your interests as quickly as they shed their lives.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

They threatened it. The GOP promised to use this very nuclear option.

Eventually they came to an agreement that amounted to basically agreeing not to use it, and to leave it in place.

But even then, the Democrats weren't threatening to filibuster any and every justice, just ones they deemed too far right. And now, you may think that a President should get his judges of choice, so long as there's a senate majority to go along with it, but you're missing the precedent here, which is that no opposition party will ever allow a president of the other party to appoint a justice, ever again. It's not just the "we won't confirm Garland", it's the "and we won't confirm any of Clinton's picks if she gets elected either" statements. That is the reality we have now - any sense of needing to forge consensus of some kind is gone. I just hope the Republicans like it when the shoe winds up on the other foot someday.

Re: Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Mr. AC, as you stand before the Court today, it is clear in your case the law as written does not support a conviction. But morally, I find a perosn who has stated what you have stated as reprehensible and not worthy of integration into society. Given that I believe it is more important to follow my moral belies than the law as written, I sentence you to death. Case closed.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to understand the politics of human interaction very well.

And I'll bet you don't really believe the existence of the good/evil divide anyway, since I would wager you're an atheist or agnostic. If there is no god, then good/evil are human constructs.

Bottom line: quit turning politics into your religion.

Re: Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. AC, as you stand before the Court today, it is clear in your case the law as written does not support a conviction. But morally, I find a perosn who has stated what you have stated as reprehensible and not worthy of integration into society. Given that I believe it is more important to follow my moral belies than the law as written, I sentence you to death. Case closed.

And? What about a judge declaiming from the bench: "Mr. LynnwoodRooster, as the Law requires your execution for your actions, and as the Law cannot be questioned, you have no appeal, no plea for mercy, and no hope of commutation, therefore, we must immediately because you dared to tear a tag from a mattress. Off with your head!"

That story has been told. For example, the vague and non-specific claims, any personwith integrity will reject the action on that alone. Pretensions as to the law, and its giving sanction to one's abominable acts, that is a common story.

Those who adhere to that madness, well, they will simple proceed with such executions, because such a person does not question the law.

Oh, did you think I'd not spot the hollowness of your rhetoric? Oh sorry, but my experience shows the opposite. A person who cannot shed their own moral responsibility is far more accountable than one who can cloak themselves within whatever they can pretend the law allows, deriving succor for the abominable lie that the law excuses them from the obligation of choice.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for pointing out the truth - and with a supportive link, too! As Bill Maher has pointed out, there are similarities between the 2 parties but there is no moral equivalence and let's not pretend there is. McConnell's treatment of the Garland nomination was based on his *presumption* of the treatment that a GOP president's SCOTUS nominee would receive when made at the same point in an administration. At least that's the (likely bogus) tit-for-tat rationale he offered.

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

one fights for right, and one fights for evil.

...and which party is which depends on the party affiliation of person you ask.

And since that is definitely the case, don't you think it might be a little more complex than good vs evil?

Re:Rule Change when it's in his best interest?

[strikethree]

Again, the two parties are not the same: one fights for right, and one fights for evil.

*BLINK* *BLINK*
...

*golf clap* Well done sir. Well done indeed. lol

Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

The racist warmongering Republicans now have control over all three branches of government. Trump didn't win the popular vote and was narrowly elected. The Republicans have narrow margins in the House and Senate but removed an important check on their power in the Senate by invoking the nuclear option. And now they control the Supreme Court by the narrowest of margins. We've given nearly absolute control of the government to these racist warmongers even though they at best have a tiny majority of the public support.

Re: Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully they launch missiles at n1ggers next

Re: Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, they should nuke Mecca first. Take out their magic god-stone and the jihadis will have nothing left to fight for.

Re:Just what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the prejudiced opinion calling all Republicans racists. Since you seem so enlightened, I'd think you would also understand that the popular vote means nothing in Presidential elections. And even understand that given the rules of the election, you cannot say with any certainty what the popular tally would have been had that been the rules. Both the campaigns would have had different focuses and people in various states that lean heavily in one direction or the other may have voted differently.

Merrick Who?

[American AC in Paris]

Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of a rule change in the Senate.

Nah, Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of Mitch McConnell refusing to do his Constitutional duty last year.

Re:Merrick Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you keep throwing the Constitution in people's faces? It's just a god damned piece of paper!

And since you like wine and cheese more than burgers and shakes: Liberté, égalité, fraternité (sauf si vous êtes musulman).

Rules, laws, principles, morals, ethics; there are all for losers.

Re:Merrick Who?

[chispito]

Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of a rule change in the Senate.

Nah, Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of Mitch McConnell refusing to do his Constitutional duty last year.

As annoying as it as it is, the Advice and Consent Clause is a limit on the President, not a mandate on the Senate to take action:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Re:Merrick Who?

[Triklyn]

you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.

https://aclj.org/supreme-court...

i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion

http://www.economist.com/blogs...

i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws. vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.

i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers. i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that... not a single person, and not 9 unelected life-time appointments. the men and women who have to go back to THE PEOPLE every two years and make the case that they're not fucking up, and sometimes those fuckers in the senate.

Re:Merrick Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, excuse me? This piece of paper which defined a republic experiment unlike any that has existed before it?

Re:Merrick Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.

https://aclj.org/supreme-court... [aclj.org]

i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion

http://www.economist.com/blogs... [economist.com]

I'd think you'd worry a bit more about Congressional malfeasance.

Of course, the fact is, all that President Obama had to do was this:

"he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,"

No effort by Congress to consider his nominee? Ok, he could force the Senate to meet. Bring a list of names. Eventually they'd do their job. And it'd be ENTIRELY Constitutional.

i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws.

If you read the Constitution, the President has obligations with regards to the laws:

Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If a law were passed that violated the aforementioned, the President would have the OBLIGATION to ignore and deny them.

vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.

Obama, as even DONALD TRUMP admitted, deported 2.5 million people. What exactly did Obama do wrong? You can't even say it isn't constitutional for the President to grant such reprieves.

i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers.

You won't get that with Gorsuch. He'll just claim that to justify his abuses. Just like a certain Chief Justice Taney.

There is nothing more dangerous than a man who can't stand on his principals, but will gladly wrap himself in the cloak of others to defend his iniquities.

i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that...

Which is why you're wrong. See Kentucky:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

Pennsylvania:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienabl

Re:Merrick Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

> not a mandate on the Senate to take action ... and Consent of the Senate

yeah, it is.

Re:Merrick Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

*scoff* Speaking from the UK, if you think the Democrats in the US have pulled to the left, you're smoking something really strong. It's not that the Dens have moved left AT ALL - Obama is a solid centre (if not right-leaning) conservative, and HC isn't that far left of him, even if the Democrats would like to pull her that way - (Bernie is to her left, but not as extreme as you'd think).

The problem is that the Republican's have pulled so far off the right, jumping in bed with the white supremacists, that the centre now looks like its the extreme left - what you see is nothing more than an illusion, which is why the Republican's are winning. If you WANT a fascist state, then you're going the right way about it - and right-wing Supreme Court judges will speed that up, not get in its way. If you think that's a great idea, then that's up to you - but don't mistake it for centrism or left-leaning, let alone communism, even if the two kinda wrap around at the extremes. (Government=industry=government)

Re:Merrick Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're nitpicking the difference between a rule and a norm. Consider a country club where the established practice is that you don't pass other players on the golf course without asking permission first, but nothing in the club rules specifies that. Or, perhaps it specifies you have to ask, but not that the other players must say yes. I can choose to violate those then, freely, with no recourse for you other than calling me an asshole maybe, because it's not literally spelled out word for word in the actual rules.

Put in geekier terms, it's like a rules lawyer in a gaming group. Yes, he's technically correct on the rule, but he's still a complete asshole that no one likes that's trying to break the game in his favor, by bending and twisting things to his advantage.

What should have happened, in this case, was that politicians should have been punished for these sorts of asshat shenanigans by getting voted out of office. Unfortunately, we keep rewarding them by voting them back in, and their behavior won't change until some of them start losing elections because of it.

Re:Merrick Who?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Senate is to provide any advice and consent they deem for Presidential appointments. Refusing to provide consent is completely legal and ethical. Or do you also condemn Schumer et al. for running the filibuster against Gorsuch?

Re:Merrick Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Senate is to provide any advice and consent they deem for Presidential appointments. Refusing to provide consent is completely legal and ethical. Or do you also condemn Schumer et al. for running the filibuster against Gorsuch?

Nope, they voted, and that makes all the difference.

I'd have respected the GOP if they'd done it through the process of the Senate enough to call a vote. They did not.

Re:Merrick Who?

[LynnwoodRooster]

From your own link: "The move came shortly after most Democrats filibustered the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court." So do you condemn Schumer et al. for filibustering Gorsuch?

Re:Merrick Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you not comprehend what I said?

Schumer voted. It's a recorded vote. In the Senate record.

McConnell did not call a vote on Garland. Thus no respect for him, as he refused to vote. On the Record.

Re:Merrick Who?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, I understood what you said. There was a vote AFTER the Republicans ended the filibuster. The ONLY reason Schumer voted is his filibuster was ended. That's it. If the GOP didn't end the filibuster, Schumer would have never voted. So you are completely cool with filibustering USSC judges, right?

SNAFU

[fustakrakich]

Trump's the man! Day by day he wipes out the resistance.

Re:SNAFU

[avandesande]

Like a giant orange sun melting snowflakes from coast to coast!

It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

on McConnell's part, regardless of how you feel about the outcome. Passing a left-leaning centrist with polling showing a Democrat in the White House and the Senate a toss-up, and the chance of a far more partisan left-leaning judge. I guess stopping everything that black guy tried to do was the primary objective.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

OR... he just realized the DNC would do it right away when they needed to so he would take advantage of it first.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[phantomfive]

I think McConnell's thinking was, "If we lose the election, we'll just confirm the other guy before we leave."

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[maz2331]

Actually, there was little risk in his gamble, with all up-side. If Clinton had won, they would have just immediately confirmed Garland, so the court would shift marginally to the left. By waiting, they kept the same mix as before Scalia's death.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[ooloorie]

It wasn't a gamble at all, it was both reasonable and politically smart. Even many people who hated Trump's guts voted for him because they couldn't stand the idea of Hillary Clinton appointing more supreme court justices. I think that's what finally pushed Trump over the finish line.

And given the kind of people Obama had appointed before (Sotomayor, Kagan), Congress was not going to give him another chance. If SCOTUS had tilted any further to the left, Congress would like have taken drastic action, like simply creating three more seats, to be filled by conservatives. Obama and his appointees simply do not represent the American people.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama and his appointees simply do not represent the American people.

You realize more people voted for Clinton than Trump by a wide margin, right?

And that the Supreme Court doesn't even come close to accurately representing the demographics of the USA? The United States is not 5/9 ths white men.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he doesn't realize that. We'll be in a 90/10 South Africa situation with a bunch of his kind in armed-guarded compounds to protect them from the starving masses, and he'll still be bitching online that his 10% isn't accurately represented in the federal government.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Cmdln Daco]

There is no such thing as a 'popular vote.' The votes in every state in our Federal Republic all count only within the self-contained boundaries of each state.

The only thing a 'popular vote' represents is journalists running around gathering up numbers from all the states. Numbers which have no meaning outside of state boundaries.

Deal with it.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Etcetera]

I guess stopping everything that black guy tried to do was the primary objective.

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan might have some words about your dipshit contention.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even many people who hated Trump's guts voted for him because they couldn't stand the idea of Hillary Clinton appointing more supreme court justices.

I think you overestimate the electorate. Who goes into the polling booth thinking about who will end up in the SCOTUS?!

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[AthanasiusKircher]

Obama and his appointees simply do not represent the American people.

[Citation needed.] Let's look up some stats, shall we?

-- Polls of Sotomayor nomination: 54-55% approve, 25-26% disapprove, 20% don't know/no opinion.
-- Polls of Kagan nomination: 46-48% approve, 30-34% disapprove, 20-22% don't know/no opinion

Gorsuch falls in this general range, a bit higher than Kagan, but lower than Sotomayor. Notably, polls for Alito and Roberts had significantly lower approval numbers (though also higher "don't know" numbers).

Also, ~50% of Americans approved of Garland's nomination for what it's worth, and depending on which poll you believe, somewhere between about 50 and 65% of Americans thought he deserved a hearing.

So, I'd say there's little evidence to support your assertion that Obama's appointees "do not represent the America people" when polls about the nominees suggest more people approved than disapproved of all of them.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

The popular vote is meaningless but it's still true that the Electoral College has extreme problems, mainly dealing with the fact that states are "winner take all." That needs to be done way with. I'd love to see an amendment requiring that electoral votes from representatives MUST go to the winner of that district, and then leave the two electoral votes for senators to be up to the state to decide.

The reality is that tons of voters are disenfranchised by winner takes all because their votes may as well not exist. That would correct that problem and also correctly reflect the reality that there are no "blue states," only purple states with large cities.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[dywolf]

"tilted any further to the left"
cause 4 out of 9 is "tilting to the left".
proving once again you are neither insightful, nor based in reality.

also, you're fucking stupid if you think the conservatives, pro-business and anti-public as they are, are more representitiive of the people than Obama and his noms were. but then we already established that.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama and his appointees simply do not represent the American people.

I don't get it, are you saying that Trump who did not get the votes of the majority of the people and HIS appointees are the ones who represent the American people? Perhaps you are retarded?

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.... Virtually all of this can be traced by to Clinton.

If she hadn't cheated in the GOP primaries, there is a good chance Trump would have lost that primary as the media would have given him the Sanders treatment and overall ignored him except to say how unelectable he was.

If she hadn't cheated in the DNC primaries, changes are she would have lost and Sanders would have won and would have proceeded to destroy virtually anyone the GOP put up front as by all data given he was ahead of everyone and by bigger margins than Clinton and then if by some chance, Clinton had actually won that legitimate people would have been much more willing to stand behind her instead of staying home or voting against her either for Trump or a 3rd party rather than for the candidate that robbed them.

And even if she cheated and won like she did, if she had least not actively insulted and antagonized the Sanders supporters even that might have put her over the top.

Honestly, outside of the Electoral College intentionally being setup to disenfranchise the minority voters in all states, the entire thing comes down to Clinton cheating repeatedly and then antagonizing and insulting the voters during and after doing so. Clinton's stuff with Debbie Shultz cost her numbers of votes not only among Sanders supporters, it even got some of her own supporters to stay home in disgust of it.

Quite literally, the only reason Clinton stood a chance was because she was against Trump, whom she cheated to put there.
The only reason Trump stood a chance was because he was against Clinton, whom cheated to put herself there.
If you changed out Clinton with Sanders, he could have cleaned up against anyone the GOP put up.
If you changed out Trump with anyone but Cruz, they would have swept against Clinton and unlike now, would have actually had a legitimate win where the voters actually picked them.

So we can thank Clinton, the DNC, the Media, and Obama for meddling in the elections for this, they would rather loose to a toxic destructive buffoon than actually win with a candidate who might actually try to fix stuff because it actually weakens their power and their money train.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[ooloorie]

"tilted any further to the left" cause 4 out of 9 is "tilting to the left".

You misread. I didn't say it was already a "left wing court". Right now the court has a moderate conservative majority. If it "tilted any further to the left", it would have a progressive majority, which is too far.

also, you're fucking stupid if you think the conservatives, pro-business and anti-public as they are, are more representitiive of the people than Obama and his noms were

The Democrats are in the pocket of billionaires, unions, academics, and media companies. You are delusional if you think that those groups govern in the interest of the people.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

No such thing as a popular vote?

It's the very essence of democracy.
One person, one vote.

Deal with it

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except we don't know what the outcome of a popular vote would have been.

Don't forget that large numbers of Republican voters in California and New York have no vote and don't bother voting because they know that their votes will be overridden by a couple of cities.

And that's ignoring the millions of illegal voters because our voting system is woefully outdated.

In a true popular vote, there's every reason to believe Trump would still have won.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Ryanrule]

fuck you

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[ooloorie]

[Citation needed.] Let's look up some stats [cornell.edu], shall we?

I wasn't making a statement about whether majorities like them, I was making a statement about whether their beliefs actually align with the beliefs of the American people, and I don't believe they do. Nevertheless, if you do want to talk about polls, look at the page: in 2016, 37% say the court is "too liberal", vs 20% saying that it is "too conservative", and SCOTUS approval ratings have dropped sharply under Obama. The only reason approval ratings are still as high as they are is because courts and decisions are strongly distorted by the MSM.

If you check the news stories from last year and this year, you'll also see that people widely perceive SCOTUS nominations as a reason why people are might be/are/have been voting for Trump.

And you need to realize that polls tend to be biased in favor of the left because conservatives, libertarians, and/or independents rather hang up than voice a negative opinion to an anonymous stranger that has their personal information. People don't get fired, attacked, or beaten up for approving of Obama or progressive causes, but they do get fired, attacked and beaten up for supporting Trump or opposing affirmative action or opposing gay marriage. Keeping quiet in RL about conservative, libertarian, or independent viewpoints is pretty much ingrained now in many people.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[ooloorie]

Why are you angry at me? I'm just telling you what happened. I didn't vote for either of them.

But your reaction shows why Democrats keep losing politically: instead of facing reality, their supporters just become rude and throw temper tantrums.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[ooloorie]

I don't get it, are you saying that Trump who did not get the votes of the majority of the people

Nobody ever gets the votes of the majority of the American people. Hillary and Trump each got about 20% of the votes of the American people. The rest either couldn't vote or didn't choose to vote (like myself, who thought that both candidates were awful).

and HIS appointees are the ones who represent the American people? Perhaps you are retarded?

I'm saying that the US is a moderately conservative and libertarian country, and that Sotomayor and Kagan do not represent that. Who won the popular vote is irrelevant to that analysis.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Plus1Entropy]

If Clinton had won, Obama could have withdrawn Garland's appointment before the Senate could hold a vote. Especially considering they hadn't had any hearings yet.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Plus1Entropy]

It was absolutely politically smart, but it was not in any way reasonable. It shows a complete lack of statesmanship, putting party before country.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[amiga3D]

In one debate I watched Hilliary speak about appointing a progressive judge and after she finished speaking I knew we were fucked. But then Trump won. I'm not sure how Trump will end but just the fact that we have avoided a judge that thinks he should legislate from the bench is enough for me to call him a success. Imagine a SCOTUS like the 9th Circus Court.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[amiga3D]

All 3 million or so members of the NRA. Every damn one of them. Every gun owner I know, and that's several hundred people, voted for Trump.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[amiga3D]

After this last political cycle I no longer have any faith whatsoever in polls. Some of those polls were so far out they couldn't have been anything other than an attempt at manipulation. I'm not saying the ones you quote are wrong, they may be correct. I just don't look at polls the same way anymore because it seems all the people I used to trust have decided that "the end justifies the means" in their desperation.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your stats are completely dominated by the media, and have nothing to do with representing the american people.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[mydn]

I'm a gun owner. I voted for Hillary.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[mydn]

like myself, who thought that both candidates were awful

"Both" means two. There were more than two candidates.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

you want to know what people think of Obama's court picks and how they changed attitudes towards the court, so you go to polling when they were confirmed? that isn't even remotely the question being asked

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Orgasmatron]

A while back I had Bruce Perens swearing up and down that the turnout and composition of the election would have been exactly the same if the election had been held under different rules. He has, somehow, a reputation for being smart. If he is among their best, what chance do the rank and file Democrats have of understanding this?

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Orgasmatron]

Probably closer to 7 million. Wikipedia reports 5 million in 2013. Considering that Obama sold more guns than Tony Stark, it isn't hard to imagine a half million added per year since then.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[cats-paw]

Obama and his appointees simply do not represent the American people.

WTF? How does shit like this get uprated.

So let me understand this. Obama and his appointees don't represent those of us who elected him TWICE.

Is that about right ?

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say it was already a "left wing court". Right now the court has a moderate conservative majority. If it "tilted any further to the left", it would have a progressive majority, which is too far.

So "any further to the left" from "a moderate conservative majority" is "a progressive majority"?

Idiots like you transcend stupidity.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, Bruce Perens what actually stated was that he didn't believe your narrative.

Don't know why you are dumb enough to lie when his words can be examined quite easily:

What about the people who didn't vote? Are you trying to say that the decision might have been conclusive for Trump except that a lot of presumptive Trump supporters did not vote because they knew their vote would not count? I find it difficult to believe, and can't say I have much sympathy for folks who don't vote anyway.

But you seem to be saying that the popular vote would have been substantially different if there was no electoral college. Which is difficult to buy given the polarity of this election. There wasn't much middle ground.

You can't really have it both ways. Without the electoral college, the popular majority would be the list of counties here and we know how those counties voted. This would not have biased the election further in Trump's favor.

No, I am not being intentionally obtuse. I just don't believe you.
The thing I don't believe is that a non-voter is a rational actor who would have gladly gone to the polls except that somehow they felt their vote didn't matter. Nope. They're apathetic or lazy.

The proposition here that I have a problem with, however, is that Trump would have gotten more votes if some people were convinced that those votes did matter. He would at best have gotten the same amount of votes, and other conservative candidates would have had at least a fair chance against him if they didn't win.

Sorry dude, just because somebody doesn't believe you, doesn't mean you can lie about what they said.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

At which point Obama withdraws the nomination, and Hillary nominates someone even more objectionable.

It was dangerous and stupid. Unless, somehow, the GOP leaders knew the fix was in.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[EmeraldBot]

I wasn't making a statement about whether majorities like them, I was making a statement about whether their beliefs actually align with the beliefs of the American people, and I don't believe they do.

All right. You hardly speak for Americans, and in fact you don't align with my beliefs, but I understand setting the stage.

Nevertheless, if you do want to talk about polls, look at the page: in 2016, 37% say the court is "too liberal", vs 20% saying that it is "too conservative", and SCOTUS approval ratings have dropped sharply under Obama.

Yeah, and the problem with this is that it's not at all accurate. We have one of the most conservative courts in decades, and with Gorsuch on there, it now swerves even harder to the right. The thing about most people is that (surprisingly) they have absolutely no idea how the government actually works. There are 5 conservative judges and four liberal ones; that means that for every "liberal" decision, there has to be at least one conservative judge who agrees. Furthermore, Obama's name functions a bit like Republican-repellent; case in point, Obamacare. When he was in office, it was remarkably unpopular, and yet now, somehow, it's rocketed up in ratings. What magical things about it changed? Nothing, merely that people who were previously content to bitch about their government provided healthcare never realized that it was only possible through Obamacare. Lastly, I think it's worth a point that Congress and Trump are two of the most unpopular political entities of our time, and both are considered Republican (and conservative). If Americans really wanted a more conservative government, why would approval rates for their senators and representatives be so low? Why would many conservative stances, such as on repealing Obamacare and scaling back the EPA, be so unpopular? I don't think conservatives are what America wants at all.

If you check the news stories from last year and this year, you'll also see that people widely perceive SCOTUS nominations as a reason why people are might be/are/have been voting for Trump.

It's a strong reason why REPUBLICANS voted for Trump, who have an advantage because low population states allow them to punch above their weight, and they still couldn't even win a majority. Are Democrats not people anymore???

And you need to realize that polls tend to be biased in favor of the left because conservatives, libertarians, and/or independents rather hang up than voice a negative opinion to an anonymous stranger that has their personal information.

This is uncited. Until you can provide some evidence to back this up, I am not really inclined to believe that they wouldn't positively answer a poll in favor of their candidate.

People don't get fired, attacked, or beaten up for approving of Obama or progressive causes, but they do get fired, attacked and beaten up for supporting Trump or opposing affirmative action or opposing gay marriage. Keeping quiet in RL about conservative, libertarian, or independent viewpoints is pretty much ingrained now in many people.

That is absolutely not true. There are cases where violence occurs on both sides, but only one side has a president who says "knock the crap out of him" when he sees a protester of the other party, only one hide hung up dolls of the opposing candidate and set them on fire, only one side promised to gather up their weapons and Allahu Akbar the capital if their candidate didn't win, and only one side refuses to say anything bad about domestic terrorism or other forms of violence directed at American citizens. And if you really think Republicans won't attack you, go outside, proclaim yourself a progressive liberal democrat, and watch what happens.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, not the academics!

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, too bad the US of A isn't a democracy. Never has been.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

They were even worse!

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[amiga3D]

I don't know you. Btw...are you an NRA member?

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[amiga3D]

I was talking paying members. A lot of people agree with the NRA but don't join because they're cheap asses.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Are Democrats not people anymore???

We could always compromise and count them as three fifths of a person. Democrats loved that idea last time around.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[ooloorie]

And if you really think Republicans won't attack you, go outside, proclaim yourself a progressive liberal democrat, and watch what happens.

I can only speak for my own experience there. I'm a gay atheist and I used to be a vocal "progressive liberal Democrat" for a couple of decades. I never experienced threats of violence or even nastiness from conservatives; occasionally, they'd express their pity for me for being a sinner, others would just have me over for dinner. On the other hand, when I told progressives or Democrats that I couldn't in good conscience support Hillary and was just not going to vote, the amount of abuse, ostracism, and vitriol I was subjected to was just astounding.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[ooloorie]

So let me understand this. Obama and his appointees don't represent those of us who elected him TWICE.

Well, as someone who actually voted for Obama, I can say: he never represented me. Obama ran against a senile, war-mongering fool (McCain), and was saying the right things during the election about constitutionality and privacy. Obama won by process of elimination. After the election, Obama turned into what most American presidents turn into: corrupt, war mongering demagogues.

The idea that someone who gets around 20% of the votes of the American people after a contest between two candidates somehow "represents" the American people is laughable. The plurality of the voters stay home because it's not worth their time to participate in that circus.

In any case, my point was much simpler: Americans overall tend to be more conservative/moderate than progressive:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180...

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[ooloorie]

It shows a complete lack of statesmanship, putting party before country.

Sorry, no. Republicans genuinely believe that progressivism and the welfare state are bad for the country and are massively hurting people. You're welcome to disagree with their political beliefs, but you have no basis for accusing them of "putting party before country".

Just like Democrats, Republicans believe that they represent what's good for the country, otherwise they wouldn't be Republicans.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you arguing -- with a straight face -- that the Republicans are *less* in the pockets of billionaires and media companies? Yeehaw for Ooloorie-land, where things are as you would wish them to be, rather than as they actually are!

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Bartles]

There is no requirement that the Senate has hearings. They could call a confirmation vote seconds after the nomination is made if they want too.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Bartles]

That didn't make Bruce look any smarter.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[AutodidactLabrat]

Wrong.
Failing to exercise due diligence means the Senate surrendered the right
If Obama were a liberal, he would have summarily appointed Garland and let the chips fall where they would

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Bartles]

No. Not wrong. The confirmation process is laid out in the Constitution. Show me where it supports your assertion.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok, I was merely concerned with the misrepresentation of the conversation.

Bruce can make his own claims to intelligence. Or not, and prove himself the smarterest of them all.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except their tendency to switch their actions and beliefs based on the letter after the name. IOKIYAR.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Orgasmatron]

Holy fuck. Speaking of misrepresenting, here's some context:

Yes. If you had some variant of Condorcet as the voting process, you would have cast a valid first choice for Stein and a second choice for Clinton, and perhaps Clinton would have gotten the same number of votes overall but not more, and Stein would have had a fair chance

The proposition here that I have a problem with, however, is that Trump would have gotten more votes if some people were convinced that those votes did not matter. He would at best have gotten the same amount of votes, and other conservative candidates would have had at least a fair chance against him if they didn't win.

I bolded the part that you left out. You will note that this entire post is alien to the conversation that I was having with him. It was a reply to a different user and the context that I restored makes it entirely fucking clear that he is talking about some ghetto voting system and not the de-electoral-ized system that I was discussing with him.

Fans of Bruce Perens should read that entire topic. My favorite part, by far, is the part where I rebooted his brain.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

MSM? Pretty soon you're going to be reporting on Alex Jones, Hannity & O'Reilly for us. Distortion? You want to expound on the distortion from Fox and the vast Right Wing media cluster of TV, radio & blogs - aka 'the bubble'??

As for Democrat-nominated Justices beliefs not lining up with the American people’s, you clearly have no concept of just how conservative and ideological Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are - to say nothing of the dear departed Scalia. It's pretty clear that Presidents now are merely shooting for the youngest and the most ideological of Judges when they are picking nominees for the SCOTUS. Thomas was a mere 43 when he was placed on the SCOTUS. He isn't even 70 years old. And yet Justice Thomas never asks any questions during court session. Do you think it's maybe because he already knows how he's going to decide? That would certainly explain it, wouldn't it? Yes, he never fails to decide in favor of the strong over the weak; the corporation over the little guy. And you think that's representative of the rank and file of this country?

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

It does suck that you were treated that way. I can tell you why it is that way, however. Politics is merely a game for republicans. Most of them are pretty well-off and they don't even need government. Even if a Democrat president comes into power and places reams of new regulation in effect, such impact would pale in comparison to how a lower-class Democrat voter would be affected by a Republican president who would cut programs in favor of raising the budget for the military, for instance. Bottom line, a Republican president stands to do far more damage to a typical Democrat then the damage that a typical Republican would suffer by having a Democrat president in the White House.

I think most people can attest that your typical conservative can deliver a pretty good amount of hate. Liberals just hate to see the clock turn back when a Republican gets into office.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider myself middle and I literally never once heard ANYONE I ever spoke with say this.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your confusion and ignorance is astounding is astounding. Let's clarify a little. At the time, the Democrats were the party of slavery and the Republicans were the abolition party. The Democrats of the time wanted slaves to count as 1 full person for demographic purposes for assignment of house seats and electoral votes, which was basically a system for giving slave states disproportionate representation in the first place. The Republicans of the time didn't want the slaves to count at all when it came to assigning seats in the house and electoral college, partly because it was fundamentally unjust to use people for such political advantage while exploiting them and denying them the vote, and partly just because they were sick and tired of the Southern slave states getting everything they wanted and oppressing the North politically.
Since then, of course, the Republicans and Democrats essentially switched sides on the rights of former slaves (and present ones, since the US has never fully abolished slaves and still has a sizable slave population in prison). This was the Republican "Southern Strategy". There were of course the Dixiecrats and the like: Southern Democrats who stayed in the same party but kept racism in their politics. In this day and age, the party where racism (as well as sexism and various other such isms) is more obviously present is the Republicans

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

No... no running around is necessary by the journalists. You, I & everyone know what the popular vote is because it does clearly exist. Its the candidate who the majority of voters voted for. Simple as that. And something tell me that you'd be all up in arms about it if Hillary had won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote.

Re: It was a hell of a gamble...

[AutodidactLabrat]

In every contract law ever tested.
Abandon your duties and your contract is null and void

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Ryanrule]

again, fuck you. you are so obvious.

Re:It was a hell of a gamble...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I thought I wasn't going to like Trump. But with people like you around, I'm warming up to him.

gotta love the whiny libtards

[Anonymous Coward]

"A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to re-fight the result of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal."
- President Barack Obama Nov. 2013 when Reid used the nuclear option for the first time on all federal judges except for the supreme court.

Investment Opportunity Awaits! COATHANGERS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Coathangers! Lots and lots of them! This is WHY we are REPUBLICANS!

Interesting take on Gorsuch from a Democrat

[avandesande]

https://qz.com/950828/neil-gor...

Thank you Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitler isn't my president. Gorsuch isn't my judge. Every opinion he writes is, by definition flawed as far as I'm concerned. Every side he votes for is the wrong side..
I now feel completely justified – as if I wasn't already – in blaming Republicans for everything that is wrong, everything that goes wrong.
When the pendulum swings – and it will swing – you'll be sorry that you changed the rules.
In the mean time every time a supreme court ruling favors Big Business at the expense of the little guy, we'll blame the Republicans.
Every time a supreme court ruling comes down against women's right to choose, we'll blame the Republicans.
And so on.
So again, thanks.
Oh, and Mitch, I hope you die a long lingering painful death from something like colon cancer. I never thought I'd see the day that I'd wish that on anyone, but if it takes that smarmy, smug smile off your face, it'll be so worth it. That seat was Obama's to fill, and you stole it from him and from the American people. You Mitch are the greatest crook of all time.

Re:Thank you Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice quote from Warren. Question for you, what if the law is on the side of a corporation? Should a judge unilaterally decide to ignore the law just to let the little guy stick it to the man?

Turtle Man Kobayashi Maru's government seat

[neurosine]

If you can't beat the hare, well....you just change the rules of the race. Um....yep.

Golly. Gee. Gosh.

[waspleg]

I didn't see that coming. Anti-gay, Anti-Abortion, Pro-death penalty with a reputation of being "to the right of Scalia" and they had to change the rules to get him appointed to a stolen seat.

A fucking shocker, truly. /sarcasm

Re:Golly. Gee. Gosh.

[Imrik]

Pro death penalty I can see, the other two not so much. He has complained about liberals trying to legislate in the court room when they can't get laws passed, including on gay rights issues. He has also commented that abortion rights are dependent on the court's finding that a fetus does not qualify as a person, which even the most liberal judge should agree with.

Re:Golly. Gee. Gosh.

[Dragonslicer]

He has complained about liberals trying to legislate in the court room when they can't get laws passed, including on gay rights issues.

Is that because he isn't familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? That's rather disturbing for a Supreme Court Justice.

Slashdot hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

When democrats change the rules... It's evil
When republicans change the rules... It's the interest of the people...

Re: Slashdot hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

If the comments here on /. are any indication, it solely depends on which Team you identify with. Red or Blue.

SJW angle

[Anonymous Coward]

It is appalling that they missed an historic opportunity to appoint a transgender judge to the Supreme Court, to represent the 18% of Americans who are LGBTQ2S.

So...time for Ginsburg to step down, right?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."

If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Re:So...time for Ginsburg to step down, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you insult our country's most prestigious pile of dust.

Re:So...time for Ginsburg to step down, right?

[BitterOak]

>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..." If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?

Whatever you may think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's politics or decisions, she is an intellectual giant, much smarter and sharper than the vast majority of people half her age. There's a good reason she and Scalia were such good friends. Despite almost polar opposite politics, there were few others in the world that were their intellectual equal. And they were both wise enough to understand that associating yourself only with those whose political beliefs are aligned with yours is really self-limiting, and ultimately rather boring.

Re:So...time for Ginsburg to step down, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they were both wise enough to understand that associating yourself only with those whose political beliefs are aligned with yours is really self-limiting, and ultimately rather boring.

Lots and lots of right wingers at work. Oh sure you can often argue various points with them, but never in a way where they would ever consider voting for a democrat. I'd be far more apt to vote for a republican. Perhaps I'm just not very persuasive, but I've found efforts to reach out and discuss things with right wingers to just be a thankless soul crushing task. At some level they often tend to "believe" in their "cause(s)". It becomes arguing with something they consider an absolute, which is pretty much pointless, since your reality will not match up to their absolute set of values.

It was the phrase "political beliefs" that caught my attention. I'd tend to argue that governing should have absolutely nothing to do with beliefs. We need to govern based on hard data and proven models that we continue to tune. The only place belief should even enter in is when we set a value on certain things, relative to other things and then only there because we may not be able to empirically measure such things.

You don't necessarily need to solve every problem, but common metrics are required so a debate has some small chance of being productive. For instance, what are acceptable benefits of health care? I'd argue that like in computer programming you first focus on the 80% solution, that works for most people. You also have to choose between discriminating and not. If you discriminate against those who have higher expenses such as women, and those who are actually sick, well premiums can be cheaper except for those people you discriminated against, who may no longer be able to afford it. Is that really what we want? Bear in mind that means that hospitals and such get the right to throw people out. You can't say you have a right to be treated and expect the hospitals and such to just absorb the costs for everyone who can't afford it, or worse, chooses not to. How is forcing a group into a form of involuntary servitude the correct answer?

Finally with the nomination of Neil, well I'd have been fine with it, if the election wasn't effectively thrown to Trump and if the republicans had given Garland an actual hearing and cleanly voted him down.

Re:So...time for Ginsburg to step down, right?

[Uberbah]

There's a good reason she and Scalia were such good friends. Despite almost polar opposite politics, there were few others in the world that were their intellectual equal.

Except: Scalia was a hack. And an idiot. He routinely engaged in reasoning that he would have flipped shit over if it came from another judge. Just one example:

"In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the Fourteenth Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation," Scalia said in an interview with the legal magazine California Lawyer.

"So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the Fourteenth Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that."

However, if the "original intent" of the amendment's drafters was so determinative that the Fourteenth Amendment supposedly was only meant to apply to black men at the end of slavery it might be safe to assume that the drafters weren't thinking about protecting a white man like George W. Bush from possibly losing an election in Florida in 2000.

Yet, the Fourteenth Amendment was precisely what Scalia and four other partisan Republicans on the Supreme Court cited to justify shutting down the Florida recount and handing the White House to Bush, despite the fact that he lost the national popular vote and apparently would have come out on the short end of the Florida recount if all legally cast ballots were counted.

Re:So...time for Ginsburg to step down, right?

[clovis]

>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."

If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/a...

>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."

I want to call bullshit on that thought.
In what way is digital technological complex in regards to the law? What knowledge is required that (it is supposed) the present justices would not have?
And what has Gorsuch done to educate himself on technological issues that Judge Ginsburg, Thomas, et al has not?

Speaking as someone who fairly old, these "complex issues digital technology raises" are not problems that would be difficult for anyone who's been doing the law for any amount of time. I just don't see complexity in there.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Give me an example of a legal issue involving "complex issue of digital technology" that would be difficult for an intelligent novice to understand with only a few days analysis.

Is there something that prevents people from learning anything new after they turn a 40, or is it just "complex issues digital technology raises" that only young people can understand?

Re:So...time for Ginsburg to step down, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only after Trump is impeached and Democrats gerrymander Texas to their liking.

And that is why Joe is Vice President

[rsilvergun]

and not President. But nice Strawman there.

Oh, poor white people!

[Rujiel]

Aww, you have to put up with PC bullshit and bad SJW memes and tumblristas? Poor baby. Meanwhile, nonwhites are getting stopped and frisked, with a guilt rate of 2%.. meanwhile people are being interrogated for hours upon entering the country because of their religion. So from one white person to enother, please spare me your victim complex bullshit.

Made this one a little harder

[Anonymous Coward]

And the next one's going to be easy. And the next one could matter, too. Thanks Dems!

A rear-guard action for a fading party

[1369IC]

The conservatives know demographics are running against them, that's why they're dropping all pretense of playing ball and doing things like this. Gorsuch gives them decades of a reliable conservative vote on the supreme court, which they need because during those decades the power of the old, white conservative party will be fading. Despite the cat-bird seat they find themselves in now, they lost seats in both houses last time and only stomach the guy in the white house so he can do things like bump up the defense budget and nominate guys like Gorsuch. It's been a good strategy. Take state houses, gerrymander, be the ultimate party of obstruction. But it's breaking down because they empowered the wacko right, which is making them unable to govern and they really don't want to deliver what the voters want anyway. So they had some of the people some of the time, but they need to do something new.

Re:A rear-guard action for a fading party

[Anonymous Coward]

When all those lovely new democratic minority voters are herded together in California and New York it doesn't really do you much good. And considering republicans are 6 state legislatures away from being able to rewrite the entire constitution top to bottom without the cooperation of a single democrat anywhere, the electoral college isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Re:A rear-guard action for a fading party

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative, but this myth has no legs.

Count the number of state legislatures run by the GOP... the number of governorships... the number of states under complete GOP control... the House, the Senate...

For 20 years, the demographics have worked against them.

Meh. I think this is the racist belief that people of X ethnic group all vote as a monolithic, unthinking block instead of individuals.

The GOP will lose some of this power, because it is exceptionally high... but then, the GOP isn't exactly the same GOP that it was during the 1980s, considering it's now run by a New York liberal.

Your thinking here is really out of date.

Re:A rear-guard action for a fading party

[phantomfive]

The conservatives know demographics are running against them,

Depends on how you slice it. Lots of Latinos are moving in, and they tend to be more conservative, to the point that some Latin American countries even ban abortion. They tend to be much more religious and socially conservative in general.

FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

The "majority" Trump got was the goddamn electoral college. 71% of eligible voters, and 78% -- SEVENTY-EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT -- of the American People as a whole, did NOT vote for her!

Two can play the bullshit math rhetoric games, and guess who wins? TRUMP YOU CRY BABY!

Every Muslim who does not have the courage ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Muslim who does not have the courage ...

Do I really need to complete the thought?

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[Anonymous Coward]

meanwhile people are being interrogated for hours upon entering the country because of their religion

Incorrect. They are being interrogated for hours because of their culture of radicalization. It is simple prudence.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[Cmdln Daco]

People are being interrogated for hours entering the country because of their nation origin. You can call it 'religion' if you like, but that's just your racism emerging.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can sit there a spit venom at everyone, and when criticize them for defending ourselves. What the hell is wrong with you?

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Anonymous Coward]

And Mohammed Ali Jr. was born where, exactly?

something to think about

[Ol Olsoc]

while God fearing, patriotic Republicans have wrested the illegal and immoral blocking of this appointment of a true patriot, a fineman who will set America back on the right track........

The nuclear option will come back to haunt them.

You would think that the party of the filibuster as a basic tactic would have figured this out, because as that "commie bitch" on the Supreme court noted, the situation is a pendulum, and if you do a little math and dating, the Democrats are poised for ramming some supreme court nominees who are not going to be appreciated by the Republicans.

That's so obvious that it qualifies not as the law of nintended consequences, but more like plain old unfixable stupid.

Re:something to think about

[guruevi]

Both sides have done this. The 'rules' are put in and out of place to allow or block votes as people see fit. As long as it's constitutional (a majority vote is necessary to change the rules), there isn't much you can do about this.

The Republicans have the majority, it's their show to run. Obama lost a bunch of seats for the Dems both at State and Federal levels over the last 8 years. If Bernie or Trump had gone third party, there would be a viable third party in this country right now, they both have proven that they're not that interested in real change.

Re:something to think about

[Ol Olsoc]

Both sides have done this. The 'rules' are put in and out of place to allow or block votes as people see fit.

Why is every mention of something a Republican does countered with blaming Democrats for the same thing? That isn't an argument, despite what you thing. You are excusing the Democrats. while trying to blame them. And in the end, you just stood up for Democrats abusing Republicans, and said it was okay.

My point still stands.

I think this is where you bring up something about Hillary Clinton.

Re:something to think about

[guruevi]

No, it just goes to show that when you align yourself with either party, you're not going to get any real change in your politics. You're the one that just made it a binary choice. I pointed out that both parties do it because they're the ones in power and they know people like you will continue with the same pattern.

Re:something to think about

[Ol Olsoc]

No, it just goes to show that when you align yourself with either party, you're not going to get any real change in your politics. You're the one that just made it a binary choice. I pointed out that both parties do it because they're the ones in power and they know people like you will continue with the same pattern.

Nope, its a classic diversion tactic, used to good effect by Kellyanne Conway. Anytime asked a question she deflects it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... without answering the question.

I don't give a fuck if the Democrats used the tactic. I don't care if they installed a supreme court justice that mandated abortions for all. Perhaps this is it backfiring on them Maybe, maybe not. But what I am saying is that it will indeed backfire on the Republican party. Do you deny this? Are teh Democrats just going to roll over and play dead? Or are you one of those people like Republican moral leader Trent Lott, who is the architect of the permanent Republican majority> Times change, and the Republicans like to remind us tht they are the party of the moral high ground. It's too bad that they decided to railroad a nominee through that had solid opposition.

Now I'm certain you will claim this is fake news, but the party of the moral high ground did have an issue with the Kenyan terror baby's appointments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Now tell me how many the Evil demoncrats wrested judicial appointments from the Republicans. I would imagine you can prove that all of them were installed by the democrats. I gave you a citation, Now give me the citations that the Democrats used the nuclear option or other malfeasance on Republican nominees.

In other words, show me that the democrats did the same thing. You said they did, I'm certain you have the evidence to prove it. In 2016 there was a 10 percent vacancy rate in federal judge vacancies, I dunno, you figure that the Democrats didnt name any? They were blocked.

Is it a good idea to block appointments then fill them with your own parties hand picked? when you have the chance to railroad them through? Hard to imagine when you have the moral high ground that you would need to do that.

Re:something to think about

[guruevi]

Well, since you prefer to be blind, Wikipedia has a nice section on Democrats use of the nuclear option during Obama's presidency as well as the use of the option by Robert Byrd including raising the option during nominations blocked by Republicans.

It's not backfiring on anyone if it's just an option that both parties can and have used whenever they chose. If the Reps didn't do it this time, the Dems wouldn't be held back to do it again next time because "they didn't last time, so let's be nice".

Off course you don't give a fuck, you're clearly aligned against the Republicans using it, it doesn't matter to you when the Dems use it as long as the Reps don't and thus your argument is inconsequential to the discussion.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[dywolf]

hes talking about muslims, not republicans

The cost of hijacking the court nominee

[Anonymous Coward]

Will only be most Republican seats in both houses.
People dont like it if you dont follow the rules and 245 years of precedent even in politics.

Let's be clear...

[argStyopa]

....lets be clear: aside from USSC judges, Democrats had already in 2013 used 'the nuclear option' to remove the filibuster-ability for pretty much every OTHER appointment:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The mainstream media were all for the âoenuclear optionâ when it was Democrats doing the nuking.
The press showered praise upon the Senate for removing the filibuster for lower-court judicial nominees and executive appointments in 2013 in the effort spearheaded by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid.
MSNBCâ(TM)s Rachel Maddow assured her viewers at the time that âoejudges can be blocked on an up-or-down vote, a majority vote, like always.
âoeBut they cannot be blocked anymore by just a minority of votes,â Ms. Maddow said, reported the Media Research Centerâ(TM)s NewsBusters. âoeRepublicans cannot force that anymore.â
MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes similarly hailed the 2013 development as âoean affirmative win for democracy,â while his colleague Al Sharpton said âoeDemocrats took the bold step of changing Senate rules, scaling back the filibuster that Republicans have unfairly used to block the presidentâ(TM)s nominees.â
CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill said Republicans should have taken the Senate back if the party wanted to preserve the filibuster."

Clitorally Challenged Persons Of Palor

[knorthern knight]

> 31% of Americans are white men. The rest are definitely affected by "social justice."

White males need a catchy phrase, too. Women of Color... meet Clitorally Challenged Persons Of Palor

Re:Clitorally Challenged Persons Of Palor

[penandpaper]

I am still trying to figure out what the difference is between "colored people" and "people of color".

Re: Clitorally Challenged Persons Of Palor

[Anonymous Coward]

"Colored people" is blacks.

"People of color" means "nonwhite and therfore superior". It is a weaponized term because it calls on 80% of the world to attack a 20% minority for made up crimes, and preaches an inherent superiority based on skin color. It is textbook racism- until the social justice warriors rewrite the textbook and the dictionary, which they are desperately struggling to do.

People from muslim countries arebeing interrogated

[Rujiel]

Yes, seven Muslim majority countries chosen under Obama because of their, once again, majority Muslim populations. Meanwhile American muslims are being interrogated for travelling WITHIN the country, including a former police chief. So to say it's not over religion is either naiive or disingenuous.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[Rujiel]

"Culture of radicalization"? You mean, like.... Saudi Arabia? Care to tell me why the one country that gave us the 9/11 highjackers, which initiated all this bullshit security theater, would be exempted when it comea to "radicalization"? Your bigotry is so massive, you can't see around it.

politics is a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

so when the democrats get a senate and house majority, will they finally just shut out all republican voices and deny them any floor votes on their proposals, and refuse to consider any more supreme court nominations by Trump? i hope so. i hope they build a fucking wall in the senate chambers, and block repubs from even seeing whats going on. short of hunting down and killing every single republican party operative and dues paying/donating member, its the best thing we could do. fascist fifth columnist traitors, all of them. they deserve unmarked graves. hell, kill their children too, they are probably poisoned mentally. or would you like to know how i REALLY feel about republicans?

Re:politics is a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidentally, everything you say you want Democrats to do is exactly what a fascist party would do. Every hear of hypocrisy?

clearly forgetting cause for effect

[Uberbah]

....lets be clear: aside from USSC judges, Democrats had already in 2013 used 'the nuclear option' to remove the filibuster-ability for pretty much every OTHER appointment

Because the GOP was filibustering pretty much every nominee for purely partisan reasons. Funny how you left that part out.

Re:clearly forgetting cause for effect

[argStyopa]

Unlike liberals, who were going to filibuster Gorsich for what, altruistic reasons?

Claiming the Dems use of the nuclear option was for "good reasons" and the Republicans for "pure politics simply makes you a hypocrite.

Re:clearly forgetting cause for effect

[Uberbah]

Unlike liberals, who were going to filibuster Gorsich for what, altruistic reasons?

Ruling that a trucking company was right to fire a worker for....not freezing to death alone disqualifies him. Since you're obviously a partisan hack, I'll point out I said in 2010 that Elena Kagan had no business being on the Supreme Court after she argued you have no right to not be framed by cops for a crime you didn't commit.

Claiming the Dems use of the nuclear option was for "good reasons" and the Republicans for "pure politics simply makes you a hypocrite.

Pretending the first proposed filibuster (Trump's other nominees got up-or-down votes) is equivalent to 8 years of obstruction makes you an idiot as well as a partisan hack.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[epyT-R]

Those people don't have to come here. For instance, they could go to Germany instead. If it's ok to target white men for 'privilege' because they're white and male, then it's perfectly ok to target people with muslim backgrounds for indications of terrorist involvement.

The 'racist', 'nazi', and 'fascist' name calling got stale a long time ago, btw.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Trump's bigotry. I think Saudi Arabia should be on the list too. It's not on the list for purely political reasons.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[Rujiel]

Please regail me as to how you personally have been "targeted".

Enlighten us please!

[s.petry]

Lenin killed an estimated 15 million Russians, Stalin is estimated to kill between 40 and 50 million Russians, Mao killed between 50 and 80 million Chinese, Pol Pot killed an estimated 2 million Cambodians, Castro killed an estimated million, and on and on and on. Those are Leaders^Wevil shitlords that KILLED THEIR OWN PEOPLE! Simple source here. If you can't understand why the numbers are big ranges, there is only so much estimating you can do from mass graves.

If you believe that those Communists are better, or even "not so bad" prove it! Have the intestinal fortitude to commit to your beliefs! Go be a communist. If you live for twenty or so years, come back and tell us how great it is. People from those countries today do everything they can to get out, I'm sure there are people happy to switch countries with you.

Re: Enlighten us please!

[Anonymous Coward]

What I can't understand is why you're talking about communists, but I was talking about the misery caused by Capitalists. Which is quite extensive. For example, in China and India, pollution causes several million deaths each year, much of that to drive fa much of that from factories shipping goods for Capitalists across the world. Or the power plants to keep them running. Add in dozens of other countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil, the US, and that is a considerable death toll.

Then we have people killed to take resources like oil, lumber, diamonds.

And let's not forget the folks worked to death because that is easier than implementation of safety measures.

Also, tobacco (sold by Capitalists so brutal they had to be forced to abandon chattel slavery by force of arms) takes the lies of about six million people each year. Not all of them even have a choice about the exposure. Then add in the victims of crack, heroin, and other drugs. That means only two decades or so for it to overtop those individuals you name.

Who actually sold food on the world market, which means that you can blame Capitalism for those deaths too. After all, if you buy food taken from the starving, you are responsible.

Besides, remember, we're talking about the most. Being the fastest car does not make others slow. It just means you need to hold Capitalism to account for all it's murderous slaughter.

It really is a cruel and exploitative philosophy. Morally destitute. And yes, I kills its own.

Re: Enlighten us please!

[s.petry]

Because your complaint is only valid if there are better systems, and there are not. The only working Socialist systems rely on the non-Socialist (US mostly, but also the UK and France) systems for protection, and even then only worked when they were closed to immigration. Even then, the majority of people were locked into their social status and try like hell to leave to make a better life for themselves. I work with plenty of Finish people who sure as hell didn't come from Utopia as leftists in this country like to claim.

There are no better systems, but if the Governments of Capitalist systems behaved as they should (regulatory to defend against monopoly and prosecute wrong doing) the problems you describe would not occur (or would not occur for long). Instead of demanding the Government behave as it should, morons demand they move to communism or socialism (which is the same thing, but less violent).

Gorsuch is a monster

[doug141]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

No, not really

[s.petry]

Judges who believe that law is only what society perceives it to be at the moment are the activist judges. The overwhelming majority of those people have been leftists. Telltale signs are things like believing in a "living" Constitution. Such a claim requires ignoring not just the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers for history, but the US Constitution itself (Article 5).

These are the same "activist" judges that have been consistently overturned, even by other judges that lean left, including those on the Supreme Court.

I'm going to bet that you can find some Judges on the Right who meet the same criteria, but they are far more rare. They would tend to be the extreme Religious types, who don't last long due to Article I in the Bill of Rights.

Re: No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges who believe that the law's rightfulness depends on what they can construe it to be based on their purported representation of the laws are the actually harmful judges. The overwhelming majority of these people have been regressive conservatives. They are the ones responsible for the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, and even Lochner. Telltale signs are things like believing in a "original" Constitution and pretending that those values must not be questioned. Such a claim requires ignoring not just the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers for history, but the American Revolution and the adoption of the US Constitution. It also requires a person to abandon any moral responsibility for their own actions.

These are the same "textualist" judges that have been consistently overridden, as their falsehoods became apparent, including those on the Supreme Court. One time, it even resulted in a Civil War, as the regressive reprobates of the South, rather than abandon their abominable practices, sought to further coerce others into accepting them, finally exploding into a fit of temper leading to war once they saw they could no longer pretend to follow the Constitution. Of course, they had been resisting since earlier in the century when they resisted a tax plan on specious grounds and forcibly deported the Cherokee in violation of a court decision they didn't like.

I'm going to bet that you think can find some Judges on the Left who meet the same criteria, but I doubt it. Most such judges cloak themselves in a false adherence to the Founding Fathers, rather than be guided by actual moral principles, and only a conservative can remain in such a state of self-deception for long.

Though Taney's life after was only seven years.

Re: No, not really

[s.petry]

Every single politician pushing for slave ownership was on the Left, they are called Democrats. The Democrats pushed Jim Crow laws, filibustered the civil rights act, cheated the Indians on treaties, etc.. etc.. etc.. Lincoln was the first "Republican", a party who was pro human rights and anti-Slavery.

Facts are fun.

Stole nothin'

[amightywind]

This was Scalia's seat. The real fireworks come when Trump replaces Ginsburg or Breyer with a rock ribbed conservative. Face it liberals. You lost the court.

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians and policies are affected by politics. Who knew?

Drive a Car?

[rsilvergun]

Eat Bananas? Drink Coke? Then yeah, you kinda did. America uses it's military and CIA to maintain an empire that lets you do those things for a price you can afford at a profit margin tolerable to mega-Corprations. Or do you actually believe we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and meddled in South American politics for freedom's sake? You're complicit in it. Probably more so given your vehement denial of it.

I'm not saying the weight of the world needs to be on your shoulders alone. But I am saying you had a hand in it going to shit. Want to get rid of that guilt that made you speak up on a random internet forum? Push for public transportation and renewables. Demand an end to drone strikes. Demand the government take real action on poverty, disease and ignorance. Or don't, and keep deflecting that guilt on forums. It's worked for this long.

What pushed Trump to the finish line

[rsilvergun]

was a) Hilary didn't campaign in the eastern swing states. I mean that. Not at all. And b) Trump advocated for solutions to people's problems while Hilary had nothing but platitudes and insults. Nobody believes Trump, but like he said: What have you got to lose? For the 60-70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, not a whole lot.

Um... Yeah there is

[rsilvergun]

You wouldn't have been able to use the Phrase if there wasn't. Nice Straw Man though. You managed to completely ignore the real issue, which is that America isn't really a democracy and that our entire system was built from the ground up by wealthy oligarchs watching out for themselves. I mean, look at who wrote the Constitution. I mean _all_ of them. Not just the ones from 5th grade. They were a bunch of Rich assholes.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[epyT-R]

1. Affirmative action law affects quite a bit actually (eg how people are considered for job applications).
2. 'hate speech' law and its hypocritical advocates who want to silence criticism of socjus as bigotry.

Moar tears, plz

[Orgasmatron]

The Democrats really thought that we'd accept a 60-vote threshold for our candidates and a 51-vote threshold for theirs. Maybe if JEB! had won, but it appears that Trump's fighting spirit is spreading. It is catching on in unexpected places, like Congress.

So please, tell me more about how this is a "stolen seat". I need something to laugh at while I wait for Kennedy and Ginsburg to retire.

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[Orgasmatron]

Yes, Obama didn't want to offend one of the largest foreign donors to Obama's party. That's why Obama didn't put Saudi Arabia on Obama's list.

Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use the term "false flag" and you want to see what a fruit cake looks like just spend a minute in front of a mirror.

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, Obama issued the ban?

Fucking moron.

So executive order Gorsuch out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Job done.

When GOP have given up every pretense of being rational, why the fuck limit yourself to the sane? Kick the fucker out and put a leftist (and a REAL leftist) in and don't even give it a vote.

And when the complaints come in say "Well if you really liked the rules to be obeyed YOU SHOULD HAVE FUCKING DONE SO WHEN YOU WERE RESTRICTED BY THEM".

Stocks up...then we go to hell

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news for big corps, now they finally have a fanboi in SCOTUS. As far as other legislation goes, the social achievements of the past 50 years can be kissed good bye. If it would reach SCOTUS, Gorsuch would even vote to put segregation back in place. That kind of a classy guy he is!
The US is going straight to hell! No, it is not Trump's fault, it is the fault of the irresponsible, uneducated, and chronically naive voters who put that yahoo into office along with the dimwitted Tea Party radicals. Fighting ISIS in Syria and installing nationalistic extremistic nazis into Congress....that's America today!

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama only banned Iraqis. But the media didn't lose thier fucking shit, so you never knew that.

Obama: "Bring a gun"

[Anonymous Coward]

but only one side has a president who says "knock the crap out of him" when he sees a protester of the other party ...

Should I assume you're just sheltered and ignorant and not a lying sack of shit?

Obama: "bring a gun"

Obama: "argue with neighbors, get in their face"

Obama: "kick their ass"

Obama: "Latinos ... punish enemies [fellow Americans]

Grow some balls and see why you're ignorant of all this

If you are just ignorant and not a lying sack of shit.

And if you are just ignorant, it's got to be at least partially deliberate.

How the fuck did you miss "Fuck Trump! Fuck white people!" Ooooh! So "progressive"!

Re:Obama: "Bring a gun"

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we also assume that you're just ignorant and incapable of objectively assessing details and not a liar? The first one is a quote from _The Untouchables_ originally said by George Connery and is clearly metaphorical in context. The second is talking about talking. In the clip, he literally asks people to be ambassadors. The third is... basically impossible to evaluate because the google results are all over the place and it's impossible to tell what you're talking about The fourth is very specifically talking about voting.
Your fifth link... Makes me think that maybe you're just shilling to drive up views on that video. Just more biased "look how the liberal media distorts the truth" nonsense from a truth distorting member of the media.
The sixth link, while deplorable, doesn't seem to have anything whatsoever to any candidate besides Trump fomenting hatred and violence. Hillary Clinton, the less objectionable right-wing candidate from the election, never instructed people at her political rallies to kidnap people or do anything like this. Trump has pretty clearly specifically ordered people at his rallies to physically attack protesters, etc. and, in some cases, people have followed his direct instructions. He should be going to prison for it rather than just facing civil trials. The poster you replied to wasn't ignorant or lying. Your implication that they were was based on ignorance or dishonesty.

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Bartles]

Because we have diplomatic relations with the functions by government of Saudi Arabia. If we need a background check we can get it. You'll lose every debate if you fail to educate yourself about your opponents positions.

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interrog

[Bartles]

No, idiot. They were chosen because they have hostile or non functional governments and getting of their citizens is impossible. Unlike the other 43 majority Muslim nations.

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interro

[Bartles]

Vetting

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interrog

[Rujiel]

Six of the seven banned countries were among general Wesley Clark's list of countries the Pentagon planned to topple after 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... There was one other country in Clark's list that isn't among the travel ban countries, and--big surprise--it's majority Muslim too (Lebanon), not to mention another enemy of Israel. You are delusional if you think the travel ban list is some sort of unbiased evaluation of extremism: once again, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list when bin Laden and almost all the hijackers were saudi? Or if it's an evalutation of stability, Egypt went through a military coup, why aren't they on the list?

Smh

[Anonymous Coward]

And thus continues our slide into dystopia

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Rujiel]

The countries were supposedly decided under Obama, but had been chosen for destruction since the early 2000s.

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Rujiel]

We sure performed great background checks on the hijackers, didn't we? Oh, but that was just a boo boo, right?

Re:Oh, poor white people!

[Rujiel]

It's been shown in multiple studies that black-looking names on school and work applications result in lower response rates, so it's more than a bit paranoid to think the deck is stacked against you because of affirnative action.

How has your speech been limited in real life? Have you been harassed, taunted or threatened for things you say due to race differences?

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interro

[Bartles]

No. It's not an evaluation of extremism. It's an evaluation of our ability to get people from those countries.

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interr

[Bartles]

Vet

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Bartles]

It was a different time. But thanks for acknowledging I'm right.

More than tech issues...

[martinfb]

More than tech issues, this selection threatens to set society back with his stance on abortion, and other Rights issues!

Get your gun! You will likely need it for the coming revolution!!!

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama didn't ban anyone, just fyi.

You've been reading too much right wing propoganda.

If you're referring to the"ban" that occurred about 3 or 4 years ago, all he did was instituted stricter checks (you know, what the right wing has been screaming for) which delayed processing for a few months.

Most presidents ban specific countries for specific threats with specific end dates. The one that I've seen brought up like the Iranian hostage situation (banned until you help us with the hostages).

There's no "until terrorism is finished", because that's just dumb. It will never be finished - just look at Timothy McVeigh and the like (those who vandalise mosques). Even American citizens get in on the action.

Re: Oh, poor white people!

[Rujiel]

I didn't acknowledge anything, my point was that your excuse as to why we exempt Saudi Arabia is bullshit. Now you're backpedaling to implying that we once didn't have good background checks back then? "It was a different time" my ass, we had six of the seven banned countries on the list for destruction right after 9/11.

Oh, that's right, I mentioned that elsewhere and you failed to even respond to it--actually addressing what the other person says is a good technique if you like to win arguments, otherwise your talking points look paid.

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interro

[Rujiel]

I love how you keep getting vaguer as to precisely what our definition of countries worth banning would be, all the while acting more and more certain about the rationale. Just today there were terrorist bombings of Coptic cathedrals in Egypt. I repeat--why then is Egypt not on the list as well? Oh, that's right, you didn't have a response to that question the first time. It makes me wonder, are these your talking points, or someone else's?

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interro

[Bartles]

Because we can vet Egyptian citizens.

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interro

[Rujiel]

So let me get this straight: 15 years ago was "a differemt time", but six of the seven countries the pentagon wanted to invade back then just miraculously happened to all entail vetting issues now, in thos very different time 15 years later, such that we could still justify banning their people? Where did you even read about this vetting issue that you're so attached to it?

Re: People from muslim countries arebeing interro

[Bartles]

That was the reason given by the Obama Administration for selecting those 7 countries. You seem to be saying we should just put a travel ban on all the Muslim nations including the ones we have decent relations with.