That is not what happened and that is not what I said. :smack: Talk about making up new definitions…
I just want to say that I’m a Third Amendment absolutist. 
Me too! Goodness, think of the mess if we were all required to quarter soldiers!
Are they old enuf to make a informed decision? Then, why not? We allow those with hereditary issues to marry, do we not?
Yes, but I’m not against any consenting adults marrying, I really don’t see why I would care who gets married to who (or whom, whichever it is)
However, a lot of people draw the line at supporting “Everyone deserves the right to be married” when the 2 people are siblings, or mother/son, or father/daughter, etc.
Throw in the fact that you (the racer) tripped jimmy, which was apparently not against the rules, but that’s just because no one thought that the racer would stoop so low.
Back to the filibuster - this is the reason why Democrats should not filibuster Gorsuch if they knew what’s good for them (though I do hope they filibuster):
“There really is no justification for filibustering this individual. So another question is whether anyone on the Republican side will think that there should be some sort of negotiation,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Gang of 14 member.
“If it was another nominee that was polarizing, that was not more mainstream, maybe then this is an issue,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). “I believe very, very strongly that Neil Gorsuch needs to be confirmed. So I’m going to figure out a way to get him confirmed.”
Next time, with filibuster gone, and a more “extreme” SC Justice nominated, Democrats won’t be able to use Collins/Murkowski’s vacillations.
If I believed that such “vacillations” were genuine, then I might agree. But I don’t. I think there’s zero chance the Republicans wouldn’t “go nuclear” for any conservative nominee at all, whether they’re replacing Scalia or RBG.
Bipartisanship for anything at all controversial is dead. It’s sad, but it’s dead. The Democratic Senators needs to accept this. Everything, including SCOTUS nominations, is political.
I suppose Senate Democrats could, when the time to vote on Gorsuch arrives, just get up and walk out of the chamber, i.e. “We decided we would offer the same degree of participation in the consideration for nominee Gorsuch as the Republicans did for nominee Garland.” If walking out isn’t an option, let them sit silently and Gorsuch might get approved 52-0.
If they filibuster and the filibuster gets removed as a result, the Democrats will be idiots if they let it get restored the next time they have the Senate because the Republicans certainly will use it.
Reporting is that Schumer and the D leadership has not been lobbying the moderate D Senators to support the filibuster. Speculation is whether this implies that the leadership is OK with the filibuster failing (and just needs it for show, to appease the base) or whether they think they have 41 votes locked up already and don’t need anything further. I would guess the latter.
On the other side, various moderate and institutionalist Republicans have been indicating that they will support the nuclear option. So it looks like it’s full steam ahead on both sides, barring some sort of last minute deal.
If so, this is the best of the likely outcomes, IMO. Even better will be if it helps motivate support for a Constitutional amendment that would result in far less stakes in SCOTUS nominations, such as one that I suggested in another thread – either an age minimum of something like 70 for SCOTUS nominees, or 9 year terms (1 every year), resulting in far more turnover and thus much less significance to each individual nomination. I don’t think the rabbit of partisanship is going back into the hat… I think the country would be better off were SCOTUS-seats to turnover rather frequently.
Is this just boilerplate gibberish intended to lull the jury to sleep, or do you really know nothing about Fox News?
Your keen intelligence and discernment are well known here, so we look forward to getting the inside scoop about FoxNews. Is it, as the rest of your ilk believes, a better news source than the N.Y. Times?
Also: We know you voted against Trump with great regret. Since he’s appointed right-wingers of such sterling qualities to high posts and plans to stop government subsidies of opera, may we assume you’ve changed your mind and are now an enthusiastic Trump supporter?
Sure - but what you don’t know is that Jimmy is actually Hitler, and if he is allowed to grow up, he will start WWIII and everybody will die.
Also, I am blonde and have big boobs.
So the question is, if I shoot Jimmy, can I do so only with a flintlock musket, or can I use my time machine to go back in time before Roe v. Wade and force his mother to have a back alley abortion? What if I am actually a member of a militia?
Regards,
Shodan
Why do you have to defeat Jimmy? Shouldn’t you be working to protect Jimmy’s rights, and him working to protect yours, the mutual goal being freedom and justice for all?
I suspect there’s a commonality to your position on filibusters and your suggestion for SCOTUS terms; in both cases the more liberal position would gain in that liberal advances are hard to roll back.
How ursine are your arms?
That must be Jimmy Eat World. 
That certainly entered my thinking about the filibuster, but not for SCOTUS – I honestly think that the ultra-partisanship around SCOTUS nominations is dangerous for the country. And I’m not sure if “liberal” advances by the SCOTUS are harder to roll back, nor do I see how my 9 year term or minimum age of 70 proposal would advantage liberals (or conservatives).
I’d suggest making it an 18-year term, with nominations in odd-numbered years so they’re less entangled with election cycles.
Either you’re agreeing that your original analogy is so flawed there’s no way to fix it, or you’re agreeing that outcome does matter when talking about whether a process is good or bad. I’ll take either one :).