Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1164355][B]I enjoy the fact that green card holders are also barred from entering the US.[/B] Nothing says "we don't even trust the other branches of our gov't to properly vet potential immigrants" like banning them in addition to undocumented immigrants. You just know that will be repealed later and then the Dems are gonna eat it up like they made a difference. Meanwhile Trump sits there testing the limits of his powers while distracting us with bullshit.[/quote]

Ive watched someone on NBC news say this wasn't true?

There is so much misinformation about the move...is it even a ban? nobody really knows.

Honestly, there is so much bullshit out there and folks are generally just making up stuff, write a bs article on the internet and pass it off as fact. The reason is the media doesn't fact check, basically whatever trump says just makeup whatever you need to go against it.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164379]They have every right to protest, but when you protest everything it becomes meaningless.



I agree that the Republicans should have held hearings on Marland. A part of me wanted Trump to nominate him again to make the Democrats and Republicans freak out. (It was a small part of me, and i gave it a cupcake and it wandered off.)



Even had Marland gone to the full Senate, he wouldn't have been confirmed, so it isn't "stolen", but that doesn't minimize the wrong done by the Republicans in not holding hearings.[/QUOTE]



Well, I don't think protest is ever meaningless.
This is my favorite so far,....

[url]https://youtu.be/sqiwLYhwxAY[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164376]It is unreal. Either his supporters, (not you Cred as at least you are aware of the facts[the non- alternative ones]), are just unaware of recent history or completely full of shit. Or both.
They fought Obama for a freaking year, and want the red carpet rolled out immediately for Trumps pick????
I honestly believe that 70% of the people crying about the fight being put up about Trumps pick actually have no idea how this has all unfolded. Only thing worse than a hypocrite is an ignorant hypocrite.[/quote]

The only difference between the Republicans last year, and the Democrats this time, is that during the election this was a major point for both parties, and the Republicans won. BUT, and this is the only time I will give credence to the popular vote, the fact that HC won the popular vote should have held some bearing on Trump's nominee. It clearly didn't as this was a pick to satisfy the strict conservative, and (hypocritical) Christian base. I understand why he had to make this pick, but if it was up to me, I would have gone with a choice that Democrats and Republicans (not the 1/3 of each party that's just rabid, but the sane ones) could come together on.

The problem with that, is a judge is basically either a "the constitution is what is", or a "the constitution is a living document" judge. That doesn't leave much in the way of compromise, but I would like to think that if you really looked you would find one.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164380]Ive watched someone on NBC news say this wasn't true?

There is so much misinformation about the move...is it even a ban? nobody really knows.

Honestly, there is so much bullshit out there and folks are generally just making up stuff, write a bs article on the internet and pass it off as fact. The reason is the media doesn't fact check, basically whatever trump says just makeup whatever you need to go against it.[/quote]

I think the problem is that in the White House they are confused. Michael Flynn couldn't respond to his Canadian counterparts questions about the executive action and this the man who is supposed to be enforcing it. It looks pretty piss poor when the admins own team can't field these questions from inquiring governments. This is why there is so much confusion not journalist making stuff up.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1164382]The only difference between the Republicans last year, and the Democrats this time, is that during the election this was a major point for both parties, and the Republicans won. BUT, and this is the only time I will give credence to the popular vote, the fact that HC won the popular vote should have held some bearing on Trump's nominee. It clearly didn't as this was a pick to satisfy the strict conservative, and (hypocritical) Christian base. I understand why he had to make this pick, but if it was up to me, I would have gone with a choice that Democrats and Republicans (not the 1/3 of each party that's just rabid, but the sane ones) could come together on.



The problem with that, is a judge is basically either a "the constitution is what is", or a "the constitution is a living document" judge. That doesn't leave much in the way of compromise, but I would like to think that if you really looked you would find one.[/QUOTE]



Exactly this was a stick it to the right pick. And there was never an ounce of thought put into one that might help unify things. Trump is so hung up on his popularity that he is now in full battle mode with every action he takes. Has no intentions of unifying anybody. Good luck with that.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164381]Well, I don't think protest is ever meaningless.
This is my favorite so far,....

[url]https://youtu.be/sqiwLYhwxAY[/url][/quote]

Well at least it's not a high school pep rally chant like most you hear broadcast

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=punch it in;1164384]Exactly this was a stick it to the right pick. And there was never an ounce of thought put into one that might help unify things. Trump is so hung up on his popularity that he is now in full battle mode with every action he takes. Has no intentions of unifying anybody. Good luck with that.[/quote]

To be fair, the democrats have no intention of unifying anyone, the republicans have no intention of unifying anyone, and if this division were more along the geographical divide, we probably would be closer to a civil war then any point since the 1850's. I keep picturing FarmersOnly.com tractors encircling every urban city and splashing mud on all them fancy city boys

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1164383]I think the problem is that in the White House they are confused. Michael Flynn couldn't respond to his Canadian counterparts questions about the executive action and this the man who is supposed to be enforcing it. It looks pretty piss poor when the admins own team can't field these questions from inquiring governments. This is why there is so much confusion not journalist making stuff up.[/quote]

So if the media reports green cards are banned, writes articles stating the green cards are banned, that's ok?

Re: What would it take?
 

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1164392]Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

[B]Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).[/B]

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.[/quote]

Nailed it...everything ive read he is unbiased to the letter of the law type. I think the most important thing he said was...[B]a good judge should never be happy with all his rulings. [/B]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1164392]Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.[/quote]

In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.

That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1164397]In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that [B]Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.[/B]
That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.[/quote]

Could you have imagined if Scaila would have criticized Obama as a nominee for President like Ginsburg did?

Funny, didn't hear liberals say a peep about this when it happened several months ago.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1164390]So if the media reports green cards are banned, writes articles stating the green cards are banned, that's ok?[/quote]

No it means that those representing the administration need to get their shit together and make sure they are providing the same information when being interviewed instead of one person saying one thing and one saying the other.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1164399]No it means that those representing the administration need to get their shit together and make sure they are providing the same information when being interviewed instead of one person saying one thing and one saying the other.[/quote]

So you agree. The media should wait for the facts, that's all Im asking.

The media is so corrupt that dumb people believe this stuff.

Re: What would it take?
 

I can't get over this quote from the party of obstruction and do nothing.

[quote]“We did not inflict this kind of obstructionism on President Obama,” added Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), the only other senator in the room. He added that the Democrats were committing “a completely unprecedented level of obstruction. This is not what the American people expect of the United States Senate.”[/quote]

:doh:




[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-ram-through-committee-approval-of-trump-cabinet-nominees/2017/02/01/aa2b5458-e87f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.20c86142d11a[/url]

The Republicans are a total shit show. Say what you want about Democrats, but Republicans have taken insanity and "alternative facts" to a new level. It's why I won't vote for them anymore. That party died two decades ago.