UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://ujrefugees.net/
And IMHO, that's a good thing.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 9:00 pm Please not I am not a fan of the Royal Presidency, in this or ANY OTHER administration. The struggle between the legislative and executive branches has been going on since the Republic was founded.
Trump started campaigning 2 days into office, more like it's half over than just already begun.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 pm I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.
Trump registered his reelection committee on inauguration day so he could sop up money right awaypraklatye wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 8:29 pmTrump started campaigning 2 days into office, more like it's half over than just already begun.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 pm I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.
I'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 pm I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.
I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:13 pmI'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 pm I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.
I'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:56 pmI would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:13 pmI'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 pm I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.
What rules are you talking about?Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:03 pmI'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:56 pmI would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:13 pmI'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 pm I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.
Let's start with Merrick Garland since you are chattyVinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:05 pmWhat rules are you talking about?Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:03 pmI'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:56 pmI would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:13 pmI'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 pm I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.
What about Merrill garland?CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:06 pmLet's start with Merrick Garland since you are chattyVinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:05 pmWhat rules are you talking about?Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:03 pmI'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:56 pmI would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:13 pmI'm ok with that, they went after the Clintons with anything they could.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 pm I think it's political. It's not about reassuring anybody of anything. In America, the 2020 campaign has already begun. It's going after Trump from all angles for 2020.
Are you fucking serious?VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:07 pmWhat about Merrill garland?CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:06 pmLet's start with Merrick Garland since you are chattyVinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:05 pmWhat rules are you talking about?Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:03 pmI'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:56 pmI would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.
VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:07 pmWhat about Merrill garland?CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:06 pmLet's start with Merrick Garland since you are chattyVinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:05 pmWhat rules are you talking about?Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:03 pmI'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:56 pmI would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.
Yes, I’m serious, how did they change the rules with Merrick garland?CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:10 pmAre you fucking serious?VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:07 pmWhat about Merrill garland?CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:06 pmLet's start with Merrick Garland since you are chattyVinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:05 pmWhat rules are you talking about?Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:03 pmI'd prefer that republicans stop changing the rules as they see fit to benefit their agenda. Since they're doing so, i'll be fine with the Democrats doing the same.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:56 pm I would prefer all the tit for tat ended. I was hoping we’d never see another independent prosecutor or counselor. It’s like the Israelis and Palestinians.
He refused to fulfill congressional duties outlined in the constitution, there is no defense.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:13 pmYes, I’m serious, how did they change the rules with Merrick garland?CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:10 pmAre you fucking serious?VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:07 pmWhat about Merrill garland?CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:06 pmLet's start with Merrick Garland since you are chatty
The defense is politics. Would I be pissed had it been done to my side? You bet. But they didn’t really change rules, did they? They changed precedent. Didn’t obama say the same should be done to Bush II? Though they didn’t do it. Look it up, I’m on an iPad.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:35 pmHe refused to fulfill congressional duties outlined in the constitution, there is no defense.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:13 pmYes, I’m serious, how did they change the rules with Merrick garland?
The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.
The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.
They ignored the rules, The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America it is not fucking precedent.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:39 pmThe defense is politics. Would I be pissed had it been done to my side? You bet. But they didn’t really change rules, did they? They changed precedent. Didn’t obama say the same should be done to Bush II? Though they didn’t do it. Look it up, I’m on an iPad.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:35 pmHe refused to fulfill congressional duties outlined in the constitution, there is no defense.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:13 pmYes, I’m serious, how did they change the rules with Merrick garland?
(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.FSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:47 pm Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.
But the point is this is a slippery slope we've been going down since at least Obama, and congresscritters should've seen this coming and realized it would eventually bite their side on the ass too. They've been idiots.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:51 pm(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.FSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:47 pm Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.
Didn’t they also pass Obamacare through reconciliation?FSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:53 pmBut the point is this is a slippery slope we've been going down since at least Obama, and congresscritters should've seen this coming and realized it would eventually bite their side on the ass too. They've been idiots.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:51 pm(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.FSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:47 pm Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.
Since Republicans got butthurt that America elected a black man and decided they will just stop following the rules. When the conservative ideas don't win through democratic means they will not change their ideas. They will reject democracyFSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:53 pmBut the point is this is a slippery slope we've been going down since at least Obama, and congresscritters should've seen this coming and realized it would eventually bite their side on the ass too. They've been idiots.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:51 pm(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.FSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:47 pm Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.
I committed a violation of precedent and quoted myself!FSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:53 pmBut the point is this is a slippery slope we've been going down since at least Obama, and congresscritters should've seen this coming and realized it would eventually bite their side on the ass too. They've been idiots.CaptQuint wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:51 pm(eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees) and Mitch eliminated that. Mitch obstructed so many Obama nominees that Trump is now on track to place a record amount of Judges.FSchmertz wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 11:47 pm Actually, the Washington Post says what happened can be blamed on Democratic precedent:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
The Democrats’ second big mistake was using the “nuclear option” to pack the federal circuit courts with liberal judges. After Democrats won control of the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies — particularly on the D.C. Circuit — with judges so left-wing they knew they could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” When Republicans (following the precedent Democrats had set) filibustered some of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats again broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees. The short-term gain of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the circuit courts from conservative to liberal majorities, including the D.C. Circuit. But the long-term costs were around the corner.The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil M. Gorsuch. After Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during President George W. Bush’s final year in office.