General Discussion

metalbot

(1,058 posts)

33. On the contrary

Reply to Eliot Rosewater (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:33 AM

Oct 2017

"...anything less means we have no laws in this country."

Doing what you suggest would be proof that we aren't a nation of laws. Gorsuch is confirmed. If we are a nation of laws, then Gorsuch is on the court until he dies, resigns, or is impeached.

Elections have consequences. Had we held the senate, we'd have Garland. Had we won last year, we'd have Garland. If we get the Senate in 2018, I fully expect us to play hard ball and ensure that another seat doesn't go the way of Gorsuch.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Reminder, Gorsuch must be removed, Garland must be put in the seat [View all] Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 OP

Exactly how can that be done? The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2017 #1

If not we live in a country with no laws. Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 #2

A nomination to SCOTUS isn't a "political process" AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #8

But how can it be done? The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2017 #9

I would prefer that when the Dems retake control maxrandb Oct 2017 #21

FDR tried court-packing. It didn't work out well. The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2017 #22

I keep hearing that FDR bullshit maxrandb Oct 2017 #25

I'm not sure that's the applicable lesson anymore Pope George Ringo II Oct 2017 #39

Agreed. Beat them at their own game, and do it for the good of the country dalton99a Oct 2017 #31

Sounds right to me! rock Oct 2017 #37

We have no laws that Republicans are bound do to follow! CanonRay Oct 2017 #10

there is no law fallout87 Oct 2017 #41

How? There is NO Constitutional authority for anyone to do that. AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #3

This will never happen Dotarded Oct 2017 #4

Um, how? Tommy_Carcetti Oct 2017 #5

The Garland appointment was not consented to by the Senate. His rejection was hardball politics... PoliticAverse Oct 2017 #6

Hardball to the face I would say.......... Old Vet Oct 2017 #42

Nice thought, but we might as well say cancer must be cured by next year. Too late now to Hoyt Oct 2017 #7

wishful thinking bluestarone Oct 2017 #11

Our time would be better spent trying to impeach Clarence Thomas for lying under oath. Tatiana Oct 2017 #12

A 6-6 court? There are 9 SCOTUS Justices. AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #13

Thanks for the correction. I meant 4-4. Tatiana Oct 2017 #15

That leaves lower court rulings in place....in a SCTOUS tie...not always good. AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #16

In fact, we do have laws Mr. Ected Oct 2017 #14

He can be impeached. Historic NY Oct 2017 #17

No law was broken. The Pukes played hardball Codeine Oct 2017 #18

It was the idiots who thought there was no difference between republicans and Democrats when they still_one Oct 2017 #27

This. This exactly. Codeine Oct 2017 #35

LOL Lurks Often Oct 2017 #19

Yep. His appointment was compromised Drahthaardogs Oct 2017 #20

Law is NOT the same as Justice. We try very hard to make Law as close an approximation as we can, Volaris Oct 2017 #23

I'll admit, it's a catch 22 situation ProudLib72 Oct 2017 #24

Nevery going to happen Eliot, I'm sorry to say. Elections have consequences. Squinch Oct 2017 #26

The GOPers are in panic and blame mode Iliyah Oct 2017 #28

Love the idea in theory, but would set a horrible precedent. Amimnoch Oct 2017 #29

Zero chance of that happening oberliner Oct 2017 #30

Abso-fuckin-lutely!! And BEFORE anymore nominees by the Nazi-in-Chief are considered. InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2017 #32

On the contrary metalbot Oct 2017 #33

Eliot, agreed jodymarie aimee Oct 2017 #34

Just a reminder. We have a constitution mythology Oct 2017 #36

The thing about Constitutional Coups, they work. But they work both ways. L. Coyote Oct 2017 #38

No words... demmiblue Oct 2017 #40