Trump picks Gorsuch

sear said:
Originally Posted by Thing1
"Could you be any more of a hack?
Do you think Republicans behaved well by not even giving Obama's pick a hearing? Yes or no."

"not well..........brilliantly.......it gave them the white house..." PP #42

a) I disagree.
Majority Leader McConnell refusing to give Obama's SCOTUS nominee a hearing delayed filling the slot until a Republican president could do so.

That didn't give them the white house. It gave them, or perhaps more properly, "restored" a 5:4 Republican advantage they had while Scalia was on the court.

b) What gave them the white house was Trump's masterful manipulation of mass media to his own ends.

And what ends are those?

SURPRISE !!

immigration-ban-trump-countries-business.jpg


Wow!
Vote an unethical $Billionaire $Businessman into the most powerful job in the world,
and who knew he'd act in his own economic self-interest!

Gorsuch! Why the %$#@ didn't those low down dirty Democraps warn us?
Click to expand...

as has already been explained, this EO references a law passed by congress and signed by obama which created the current list of countries we are talking about. Trump used an existing law because obviously if the EO is challenged it's going to be pretty damn lock solid when backed up by already existing law. The Obama admin created the list of countries, not trump. Thanks for playing.
 
Even if we were to stipulate republicans fucked dems over on garland (which... sure.. fair point), they still played ball the first two times on nominations that clearly weren't up conservative alley. Democrats would be more consistent if they said "Fine, you get 2 but the 3rd is gonna cost ya"
 
"as has already been explained" + #64

Then why are you repeating it?

"this EO references a law passed by congress and signed by obama which created the current list"

But that law did not designate that list for the kind of discrimination Trump's EO imposes.

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; there's a significant controversy over this Trump executive order. IIRC one government official has already been fired for refusing to enforce it. I don't disagree with the firing. She should have resigned rather than refusing to enforce the edict. But either way, it confirms that there's quite a bit of controversy about this unprecedented Trump immigration move.

"Trump used an existing law because obviously if the EO is challenged it's going to be pretty damn lock solid when backed up by already existing law."

In logic that's known as a non sequitur.

The "existing law" you refer to doesn't specify the kind of discrimination Trump's EO specifies.

"The Obama admin created the list of countries, not trump. Thanks for playing."

Irrelevant.
Compiling a list, and imposing wholesale discrimination against refugees are two different things. The pre-existence of the list does not legitimize the discrimination. Are you really so out of touch that you need these fundamentals explained to you?
 
+ said:
Even if we were to stipulate republicans fucked dems over on garland (which... sure.. fair point), they still played ball the first two times on nominations that clearly weren't up conservative alley. Democrats would be more consistent if they said "Fine, you get 2 but the 3rd is gonna cost ya"
Click to expand...
This.

The dems cried in 1992 that there should be no SCOTUS picks during an election year. Long and behold, when the pubs merely follow their advice, they are all of a sudden wrong.

Honestly, I used be able to reason with liberals on this board like Thingy and BAC, but after the election, they both just lost it.
 
sear you should know I virtually never read your posts because of your moronic way of formatting. You should just never bother respond to anything I say to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top