American Politics XIII: (Un)Lucky For Some

[Tarsonis]

I meant in the Senate. I know you hated him, you hate everybody.

Nonsense, I just hate bad people is all.

It's just happenstance that everyone is bad right?

[Tarsonis]

Cause of who left the vacancy for starters.

A conservative isn’t entitled to that seat.

Neither was Garland. Clearly

No one is entitled to a seat, but there are as we say, political realities.

To quote God queen Evelyn Baker Lang

"A conservative anchor just died. A young, brilliant thinker who brought the right out of the closet and championed a whole conservative revival. You cannot replace Owen Brady with a woman who overturned a parental consent law. You'd be shish-kabobbed and set aflame on the south lawn. "

[American Legionaries]

Nonsense, I just hate bad people is all.

It's just happenstance that everyone is bad right?

No, that would be horrible.

[San Lumen]

A conservative isn’t entitled to that seat.

Neither was Garland. Clearly

And we are back again to unless your party controls the Senate you don’t get a Supreme Court pick.

[American Legionaries]

Neither was Garland. Clearly

And we are back again to unless your party controls the Senate you don’t get a Supreme Court pick.

We've always been there, Lumen. Senate affirmation of SCOTUS nominees isn't a new concept.

[Uiiop]

They didn’t exactly purge garland form their party when they rejected him.

Nobody had a problem with Garland, per se, it was more who he was replacing. Granted Gorsuch isn't as conservative as Scalia was either.

If their replacement wasn't even an ideological match then there doesn't seem to be much in the way of constienecy with your claims.
Hard to say you felt an value mismatch if your own choice doesn't even fit. What's even the difference between just Gorsuch and Garland. I'm not even sure Garland wouldn't just begrudgingly take the gig if trump was the one who picked him.

[San Lumen]

And we are back again to unless your party controls the Senate you don’t get a Supreme Court pick.

We've always been there, Lumen. Senate affirmation of SCOTUS nominees isn't a new concept.

It’s also recently we’ve set that precedent. If Republicans get the Senate all hearings and votes on nominations will stop.

[American Legionaries]

We've always been there, Lumen. Senate affirmation of SCOTUS nominees isn't a new concept.

It’s also recently we’ve set that precedent. If Republicans get the Senate all hearings and votes on nominations will stop.

1828 is recent?

[Tarsonis]

Neither was Garland. Clearly

And we are back again to unless your party controls the Senate you don’t get a Supreme Court pick.

Sure you do, you just have to pick someone the Senate will approve.

Go watch "the Supremes" episode 5x17 of The West Wing, it's quite informative on how the bidding process works.

[San Lumen]

It’s also recently we’ve set that precedent. If Republicans get the Senate all hearings and votes on nominations will stop.

1828 is recent?

Rejections of Supreme Court nominations are rare. I ask once again if Democrats blocked all nominations of Republican president or Governor would that be acceptable to you?

[Tarsonis]

It’s also recently we’ve set that precedent. If Republicans get the Senate all hearings and votes on nominations will stop.

1828 is recent?

1789 technically

[San Lumen]

And we are back again to unless your party controls the Senate you don’t get a Supreme Court pick.

Sure you do, you just have to pick someone the Senate will approve.

Go watch "the Supremes" episode 5x17 of The West Wing, it's quite informative on how the bidding process works.

So pick someone who doesn’t agree with your values? I’ve seen the episode. Republicans of today would say we get both positions or you get neither.

[American Legionaries]

1828 is recent?

1789 technically

1828 was the first time the Senate declined to give a nominee an up or down vote at all with the express desire to push the decision to the next president.

[Tarsonis]

Nobody had a problem with Garland, per se, it was more who he was replacing. Granted Gorsuch isn't as conservative as Scalia was either.

If their replacement wasn't even an ideological match then there doesn't seem to be much in the way of constienecy with your claims.
Hard to say you felt an value mismatch if your own choice doesn't even fit. What's even the difference between just Gorsuch and Garland. I'm not even sure Garland wouldn't just begrudgingly take the gig if trump was the one who picked him.

Gorsuch is more originality than Garland is, which is what they were going for. Republicans lost 2 seats in the 2016 senate elections. So while they could still through the end of Obama's presidency, they also didn't have the votes in the next senate to put up the Mulready they wanted. They got that though with ACB.

[San Lumen]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tj-cox-cha ... d-schemes/

Feds charge ex-congressman TJ Cox with 28 counts for alleged fraud schemes

[Tarsonis]

1789 technically

1828 was the first time the Senate declined to give a nominee an up or down vote at all with the express desire to push the decision to the next president.

Ah, very well then

[American Legionaries]

Sure you do, you just have to pick someone the Senate will approve.

Go watch "the Supremes" episode 5x17 of The West Wing, it's quite informative on how the bidding process works.

So pick someone who doesn’t agree with your values? I’ve seen the episode. Republicans of today would say we get both positions or you get neither.

Of course they would, because The West Wing is masturbatory fantasy for early 2000s liberals and doesn't reflect real life.

[San Lumen]

So pick someone who doesn’t agree with your values? I’ve seen the episode. Republicans of today would say we get both positions or you get neither.

Of course they would, because The West Wing is masturbatory fantasy for early 2000s liberals and doesn't reflect real life.

If only it did. The country would be in a better place.

[Tarsonis]

Sure you do, you just have to pick someone the Senate will approve.

Go watch "the Supremes" episode 5x17 of The West Wing, it's quite informative on how the bidding process works.

So pick someone who doesn’t agree with your values? I’ve seen the episode. Republicans of today would say we get both positions or you get neither.

That's just you being cynical, especially since it wouldn't work as one seat only opens if they agree to the terms. Plus Bartlett still had 3 years left, but the reality that the Senate could tread water for 3 years and give them nobody was already well understood by Toby Zeigler back then, so I don't understand why you're so shocked as if this is something new.

Political realities San, they exist.

[The Black Forrest]

Why would Obama have picked a conservative judge?

Cause of who left the vacancy for starters.

Well…..the problem with that argument; it was nullified by the replacement of RBG…….

[American Legionaries]

Of course they would, because The West Wing is masturbatory fantasy for early 2000s liberals and doesn't reflect real life.

If only it did. The country would be in a better place.

Better for you, perhaps.

[Tarsonis]

So pick someone who doesn’t agree with your values? I’ve seen the episode. Republicans of today would say we get both positions or you get neither.

Of course they would, because The West Wing is masturbatory fantasy for early 2000s liberals and doesn't reflect real life.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. Yeah it's an overly idealized version, but the mechanics, the process, they wheeling and dealing, that's all pretty accurate as many White House Alum have said. The always winning part, is where it becomes fantasy.

[San Lumen]

So pick someone who doesn’t agree with your values? I’ve seen the episode. Republicans of today would say we get both positions or you get neither.

That's just you being cynical, especially since it wouldn't work as one seat only opens if they agree to the terms. Plus Bartlett still had 3 years left, but the reality that the Senate could tread water for 3 years and give them nobody was already well understood by Toby Zeigler back then, so I don't understand why you're so shocked as if this is something new.

Political realities San, they exist.

Today’s republicans wouldn’t take such a deal. They’d refuse to confirm anyone nominated by a Democrat.

[Tarsonis]

That's just you being cynical, especially since it wouldn't work as one seat only opens if they agree to the terms. Plus Bartlett still had 3 years left, but the reality that the Senate could tread water for 3 years and give them nobody was already well understood by Toby Zeigler back then, so I don't understand why you're so shocked as if this is something new.

Political realities San, they exist.

Today’s republicans wouldn’t take such a deal. They’d refuse to confirm anyone nominated by a Democrat.

Perhaps, but again that's a political reality.

[American Legionaries]

That's just you being cynical, especially since it wouldn't work as one seat only opens if they agree to the terms. Plus Bartlett still had 3 years left, but the reality that the Senate could tread water for 3 years and give them nobody was already well understood by Toby Zeigler back then, so I don't understand why you're so shocked as if this is something new.

Political realities San, they exist.

Today’s republicans wouldn’t take such a deal. They’d refuse to confirm anyone nominated by a Democrat.

They'd have probably confirmed Neil Gorsuch, as has been repeatedly pointed out.