Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
If the email is registered with our site, you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Password reset link sent to:
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

What Justice...  

tickles4us 62M
1600 posts
4/10/2017 9:56 am

Last Read:
5/12/2017 9:01 pm

What Justice...


So today Neil Gorsuch is getting sworn in.

I can't help but think how I would feel if I was in his position and being sworn in only because the senate had changed the rules in order to lower the standards.

To know that instead of the usual super majority of 60 votes the senate republicans had used and abused their power to changed the rules to allow a simple majority vote of 51 votes to confirm an appointment to a position as important as a supreme court justice. A position that is a lifetime appointment and certainly should be a bipartisan appointment.

Yes the Democrats did the same thing back in 2013 after years of obstructionism by the Republicans for most of the presidential appointment positions such as the federal judicial nominees and the executive-office appointments. I bet they have been kicking themselves in the ass since Trump started filling his cabinet and look at the people who have been confirmed by the Republicans.

In 2013 Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) led the fight opposing the move by the Democrats.

“It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate,” McConnell said, calling the move a Democratic “power grab.”

Harry Reid (D-Nev) said “The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

Sounds familiar doesn't it only from different sides this time round.

Of course this brings back the issue of Judge Merrick Garland who was totally ignored by many of the Republican Senators when he was selected by Obama way back on the 16th of March 2016. I don't think that was at all the right thing to do.

From wikipedia....

After the death of Scalia, Republican Senate leaders announced that they planned to hold no vote on any potential nomination during the president's last year in office. Senate Democrats responded that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election. Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress. The nomination remained before the Senate for 293 days, the longest nomination process in the history of Supreme Court nomination. President Donald Trump, a Republican, instead nominated Neil Gorsuch on January 31, 2017.

End quote.

Now I will say that certainly both sides have opposed the other often at times throughout the history of this country and sometimes virulently so but it seems to me the Republicans have become entrenched in the last twenty years or so and that they are causing most of the problems and creating the idea that the government doesn't work. That's not to say by any means that the Democrats aren't equally at fault for this situation as they certainly have a history of pursuing their ideology when they are in power with little care for the Republicans concerns.

Certainly the Republicans know that when the Democrats get back the Senate and the presidency they are not likely to change the rules back. So this all means that the supreme court will end up becoming more partisan and less justice oriented. Kind of similar to the Senate.

I can understand the reason the Democrats chose to do what they did back in 2013 as I saw the obstructionism the Republicans were engaging in just to be difficult when they could. Opposing Obama at every step just as the bigoted McConnell said they would. But they went ahead and did it anyway even when the Republicans were saying how bad it would be for the government and yet the Republicans now turn around and do exactly what they were so against back then. Well the Republicans said they would reciprocate when they reclaimed the majority and I guess they kept their word on that. It seems it is a payback form of government rather than a cooperative form doesn't it. So we the people end up getting slapped back and forth between the Democrats who want to over protect and the Republicans who want turn everything loose.

Myself I think I would have appeared before the Senate and told them not to change the rules to get myself appointed as it isn't the way this country is supposed to work. I'm sure I would have been less kind in the speech I would have made though.

I'm an Independent and don't care a whole lot for either sides extremism, I care about what is right for We the People.

Vive La Difference


wickedeasy 74F
32404 posts
4/10/2017 2:50 pm

if I were gorsuch, I would refuse the position stating that a decision that breaks senate guidelines does not evoke the support of the people and that until such time as the FBI investigation is completed, his nomination is sullied.

but then, maybe he needs job security.......or maybe he's just an ass.

You cannot conceive the many without the one.


tickles4us replies on 4/10/2017 5:57 pm:
I think it's the last choice.

spunkycumfun 63M/69F
41171 posts
4/10/2017 12:07 pm

Though there's a lot going for the American constitution - apparent now witb Trump as President - I'm not sure Supreme Court judges should be appointed in this way.


tickles4us replies on 4/10/2017 5:48 pm:
They definitely shouldn't get approved with only a simple majority. Maybe the justices should have a part in deciding which individuals should be qualified to be selected.

Furbal1972 51M
18571 posts
4/10/2017 10:33 am

They broke into my mindless morning television to show me the nauseating swearing in ceremony. amp;

It is a different experience seeing things happen "from the other side if the isle". .. So much of all of this had been done before, by both sides. .. I remember crying "obstructionism" during so much of Obama's terms. .. Now I'm the one screaming "OBSTRUCT OBSTRUCT OBSTRUCT"! Some people really play the long game. .. The GOP finally gets a 'win' with this nomination that will affect the court for decades.

I do hope they can start working together soon. .. Scores have been settled. .. Now its time for them to get to work.

Read my diary Journal of a Taxi Driver for taxi stories and pictures of flowers and trees.


tickles4us replies on 4/10/2017 5:44 pm:
Imagine that, if the congress suddenly decided to act like responsible adults and compromise without the intent to screw the other side.

It would piss off all the extremist but I think most of the people would prefer it.

greekphilosopher 61M
4077 posts
4/10/2017 10:30 am

I found this oldie goldie for you. Senators, congress men, politicians, all criminals! And from all sides.

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

*29 have been accused of spousal abuse
*7 have been arrested for fraud
*19 have been accused of writing bad checks
*117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
*3 have done time for assault
*71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
*14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
*8 have been arrested for shoplifting
*21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
*84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year Can you guess which organization this is?

GIVE UP YET?????

IT IS THE 535 MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

We had a guy in Greece, I think his name was Evangelos Averoff-Tositsas, who over his political career, spanning 50 years, managed to be an active, leading part of every other political party there was. A minister of sorts, no matter who was in government. What surprises me stil to date, is those in the know, why they keep voting for these people? Needless to say I have never voted! Bunch of crooks!


tickles4us replies on 4/10/2017 5:39 pm:
I know, they are just the same as the general public as far as their faults go. Some of those faults should certainly keep them from even running for office let alone winning the race. But as it seems it is the charismatic and sometimes power hungry that often run for public offices and they often are also, shall we say less than honest, I guess it is not surprising that they sometimes have a history of problems.

But you know what they say, If you don't vote you don't have much right to complain.

goodatpoetry2 74M
16552 posts
4/10/2017 10:11 am

I can't help but think how I would feel if I was in his position and being sworn in only because the senate had changed the rules in order to lower the standards.

I am SURE that this doesn't bother him one bit.
Someday, we need to make some changes that won't be so easy to undo.


tickles4us replies on 4/10/2017 10:13 am:
I agree. Rule changes like they seem to think they can make willy nilly when they are in power cheapen the government.

tickles4us 62M
7262 posts
4/10/2017 9:56 am

Power to the People!

Vive La Difference


Become a member to create a blog