Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, DanRydell said:

So you started a thread for the purpose of accusing Democrats of obstructing Trump's executive nominees but you don't actually have any knowledge of what nominees have been obstructed or how?

Forget it Jake, it's TahoeHorn.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Is that an argument that the NLRB guy is a puppet?

under a rational POTUS the answer would be no.   Trump probably demands a loyalty pledge from every appointee. 

Edited by Gil Bang
Posted

Well, to be fair, his argument was also that Trump wasn't doing a good job of pushing his nominees, too.  You know, reduction of checks and balances AND increasing the power of the central leader.

Posted

At this point in Obama's term 19 of his District Court nominees were confirmed.  Trump has had 20 of his District Court nominees confirmed.  

And Trump's nominated so called attorneys who don't know what a motion in limine is,  have never been to a deposition, and couldn't tell you if Brown v. Board of Ed was rightly decided.

Posted
Just now, lemonlime said:

At this point in Obama's term 19 of his District Court nominees were confirmed.  Trump has had 20 of his District Court nominees confirmed.  

And Trump's nominated so called attorneys who don't know what a motion in limine is,  have never been to a deposition, and couldn't tell you if Brown v. Board of Ed was rightly decided.

GOP List bro.  That was Tahoe's pot of gold; that fucking list. 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

At this point in Obama's term 19 of his District Court nominees were confirmed.  Trump has had 20 of his District Court nominees confirmed.  

And Trump's nominated so called attorneys who don't know what a motion in limine is,  have never been to a deposition, and couldn't tell you if Brown v. Board of Ed was rightly decided.

That guy was bounced by his own REPUBLICAN Senator.

 

Oh, and the Brown thing is a cheap publicity stunt.  These nominees are not supposed to have an opinion on ANY issue which could come before them.  Because it's tough to say what will and what won't they have taken positions not to opine on past cases.  There was no suggestion that Brown was wrongly decided and the point was clear that the nominee would give no opinion on any case.

Edited by TahoeHorn
Posted (edited)

According to WaPo, Trumps nominees face a 85-day waiting period.  How does that compared to previous administrations?

As to quality of nominee: what percent have failed to be confirmed?

Edited by JBJ
Posted (edited)

 

8 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

That guy was bounced by his own REPUBLICAN Senator.

 

Oh, and the Brown thing is a cheap publicity stunt.  These nominees are not supposed to have an opinion on ANY issue which could come before them.  Because it's tough to say what will and what won't they have taken positions not to opine on past cases.  There was no suggestion that Brown was wrongly decided and the point was clear that the nominee would give no opinion on any case.

he's from DC.  Who's his senator?

Edited by Gil Bang
Posted
59 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Yes there is.  And that's the point.  The Dems can, and do,  take up hours and hours with each appointee.The GOP can eventually stop it but unless they change the rules the Dems can chew up the calendar.  From the time a person is nominated till the time he's confirmed is taking about three months if he's a priority.

Oh no. .. a couple of hours to consider appointments..some of which are lifetime?   That's horrible!   For some reason I don't remember your outrage at O's appointments being blocked for years.

  • Like 2
Posted

Remember that time Republicans refused to hold hearing regarding a President’s Supreme Court nominee for a year, and then spent the next two years calling democrats obstructionists? Good times.

Also, this is a troll thread. We need to stop feeding this disingenuous douchebag.

  • Like 1
Posted

Since Tahoe has decided to bring up his bullshit claims of imaginary Democrat obstruction of judges in here too, he now has two threads literally bitching about the exact same topic on the front page.

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Still wondering which one of Trumps nominees were filibustered.

All of them.  (I think.  I don't remember any that weren't.) None were blocked.  All were stalled.  The Dems chewed up hours of floor time then the GOP voted to cut off "debate".

Edited by TahoeHorn
Posted
10 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 


I don’t have time to watch. Are you suggesting that the nominee is from Louisiana?

 

No.  I'm suggesting the Senator is Republican.

Posted

The terrible Judicial nominee who was so embarrassed during a hearing that he withdrew his name from consideration is being used as evidence that the confirmation process should be sped up.  Straight up trolling.

Posted
47 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Oh, and the Brown thing is a cheap publicity stunt.  These nominees are not supposed to have an opinion on ANY issue which could come before them.

I know the Trump admin is racist, but do you really expect Brown vs. Education to be retried in the Federal Courts?

Posted
No.  I'm suggesting the Senator is Republican.

 

You referred to him as “...his own REPUBLICAN Senator”, not “a Republican” but “his own” Which is inaccurate and I suspect, intentionally misleading.

 

They are not from the same state. The nominee was not from Louisiana.

 

 

Posted (edited)

Tahoe has a dream that one day little black boys and girls will going to separate schools from little white boys and girls.

Edited by kevwun
Posted
19 hours ago, DanRydell said:

So you started a thread for the purpose of accusing Democrats of obstructing Trump's executive nominees but you don't actually have any knowledge of what nominees have been obstructed or how?

Yes I do.  You didn't read.  I started the thread after watching the obstruction of Kenneth L Marcus.

Posted

Tahoe:  "They are demanding hearings, using filibusters and demanding roll call votes for uncontroversial nominees."

Also Tahoe:  my example is a controversial nominee who eventually got through on a party-line 50-46 vote. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Yes I do.  You didn't read.  I started the thread after watching the obstruction of Kenneth L Marcus.

Marcus was confirmed 50-46, so at least based on the final vote, it appears he does not fit your criteria of being uncontroversial.

He was referred out of committee and thus placed on the Senate Calendar on January 18 along with 29 other executive nominations.

Of those 30, 8 were confirmed with a voice vote within one month by a voice vote.

Only one has been confirmed with more than 50 votes.

Of the remaining 21, which ones are uncontroversial and what is your basis for concluding such?

Posted (edited)

You are conflating several arguments.  It is not my contention that all nominees are uncontroversial.   Marcus was controversial.  Many others have been as well.  Many more will be.

I am not arguing that the Dems are doing anything immoral or anything the GOP hasn't done.  I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US.

Imagine an argument about a proposed rule change to prevent injuries to football players.  I wouldn't be arguing that players were being immoral by engaging in the dangerous practice.  I wouldn't be arguing that only your team did it.  I wouldn't be arguing that every instance of engaging in the dangerous practice resulted in an injury.  I'd be saying "Let's make the game safer."  I really wouldn't want to go over film and argue which team engaged in the dangerous practice more. 

 

Edited by TahoeHorn
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
You are conflating several arguments.  It is not my contention that all nominees are uncontroversial.   Marcus was controversial.  Many others have been as well.  Many more will be.
I am not arguing that the Dems are doing anything immoral or anything the GOP hasn't done.  I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US.
Imagine an argument about a proposed rule change to prevent injuries to football players.  I wouldn't be arguing that players were being immoral by engaging in the dangerous practice.  I wouldn't be arguing that only your team did it.  I wouldn't be arguing that every instance of engaging in the dangerous practice resulted in an injury.  I'd be saying "Let's make the game safer."  I really wouldn't want to go over film and argue which team engaged in the dangerous practice more. 
 


I’m not conflating anything. I’m asking you what your calculus is for deeming a nominee uncontroversial.
Posted
1 minute ago, DanRydell said:

 


I’m not conflating anything. I’m asking you what your calculus is for deeming a nominee uncontroversial.

 

Whether a material number of Senators (say more than a dozen or so) oppose him.

Posted
Whether a material number of Senators (say more than a dozen or so) oppose him.

 

Which of the nominees not already confirmed by voice vote fit that criteria?

Posted
22 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

All of them.  (I think.  I don't remember any that weren't.) None were blocked.  All were stalled.  The Dems chewed up hours of floor time then the GOP voted to cut off "debate".

None of them were filibustered. None of them required 60 votes to end debate. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

None of them were filibustered. None of them required 60 votes to end debate. 

You are wrong.  I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it.    But you still don't know what a filibuster is.  If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.  

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
You are conflating several arguments.  It is not my contention that all nominees are uncontroversial.   Marcus was controversial.  Many others have been as well.  Many more will be.
I am not arguing that the Dems are doing anything immoral or anything the GOP hasn't done.  I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US.
Imagine an argument about a proposed rule change to prevent injuries to football players.  I wouldn't be arguing that players were being immoral by engaging in the dangerous practice.  I wouldn't be arguing that only your team did it.  I wouldn't be arguing that every instance of engaging in the dangerous practice resulted in an injury.  I'd be saying "Let's make the game safer."  I really wouldn't want to go over film and argue which team engaged in the dangerous practice more. 
 

Yet, for the previous 8 years you didn’t make those arguments
Posted
23 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You are wrong.  I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it.    But you still don't know what a filibuster is.  If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.  

Oh hey its the guy who constantly whines about personal insults calling someone stupid.  Not having a fun time trolling now that everyone is on to you? 

Posted
I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US.

 

You of all people don’t get to do that anymore. You and your donut eaters have set the tone, set the new precedent, and made a completely horrific set of rules as to how multiple branches of government will be run.

 

I look forward to the day they are used to fuck you up the ass. Hoisted on your own petard.

 

Which will CONTINUE to be bad for the country, but that ship has SAILED. We’re fucked, it’s over, and your guys celebrate that with glee. It’s gonna be fun when it’s their day in the barrel. No lube at all.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

 


You of all people don’t get to do that anymore. You and your donut eaters have set the tone, set the new precedent, and made a completely horrific set of rules as to how multiple branches of government will be run.

I look forward to the day they are used to fuck you up the ass. Hoosted on your own petard.

Which will CONTINUE to be bad for the country, but that ship has SAILED. We’re fucked, it’s over, and your guys celebrate that with glee. It’s gonna be fun when it’s their day in the barrel. No lube at all.

 

Silly boy.  You have a serious misunderstanding about how much impact I have.  I'm one of 325MM people influencing the process.  I'm not one of the Illuminati.

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
Silly boy.  You have a serious misunderstanding about how much impact I have.  I'm one of 325MM people influencing the process.  I'm not one of the Illuminati.

You have the influence of one person involved in politics.

And you use it to pervert the system, fuck over the country, and destroy all norms.

Your ironic suffering will be wonderful. Because it is so deserved.
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

You are wrong.  I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it.    But you still don't know what a filibuster is.  If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.  

Please cite a roll call that required 60 votes to end debate on any of Trump's nominees.

If debate ends with a majority vote, it isn't a filibuster, even if it is technically a cloture vote.

Edited by David Dennison
Posted
3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

You are wrong.  I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it.    But you still don't know what a filibuster is.  If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.  

Fuck off troll

Posted (edited)

I got to thinking today about how all these boot lickers in Congress remaining silent are going to be remembered 10 years from now.  I’m tempted to start making a list.  My GOP representative will be at the top.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz


×
×
  • Create New...