All it means is Democrats really need to turn out to vote in the 2018 midterms.

Problem is, both parties are being petty about stuff anymore

True, but I'll stick with the party that does still believe in climate change and civil rights. Given the last few months, I don't think the "both parties are the same" mantra really stands anymore.

Oh I was not saying that in that manner, the only thing they can both agree on is that they like money lol

I really don't feel like politicians have given two shits about the rest of us for a long time, they just say what they have to to get in and then turn 180° till they're up for reelection :/

That's because their real loyalty lies with their biggest donors, because they need that money to operate. We are essentially a democratic plutocracy at this point.

Yep, which is funny to me since that is kinda why this nation was founded, the way British parliament was back then, I'm no history buff but the irony is almost comical

I would also like to say that trying to read a political thing and then see your Icon beside it.... It's really distracting XD course, I prefer the bouncy boobs to political crap anyway :>

The nutshell just keeps growing.

I knew a few years ago when Democrats invoked the nuclear option that it would come back to bite them. First rule of politics is never vote yourself power that you don't want your rivals to eventually have. Now it's no longer "the nuclear option." It's status quo.

They're puppets to the companies..bunch of idiots really

"Words as written"

You mean ACTUALLY upholding the law? Wow, how HORRIBLE that FEELS no longer override THE LAW!

I stopped reading after that because there's no chance the rest of your inane screed is any less headass.

But please, by all means, keep parroting everything you see on TV and pretending you're smart and righteous for doing so.

^Is going off the rails like this really necessary? You also seem to be making a number of presumptions about me.

Your comment grossly glazes over the fact that lawmakers and justices regularly disagree with the interpretation of law. Now matter how strongly you write law, there will be gray areas where there is no clear cut precedent for how the law applies to that case. Take the relevant Hively v. Ivy Tech case - she was fired after her boss saw her kissing another woman. Is this a violation of discrimination based on gender? Some lawmakers will interpret this as yes arguing that if she were a man there wouldn't have been an issue, whereas somebody that interprets law as written may judge that her gender itself was not involved in the decision but her actions and that Ivy Tech was legally allowed to fire her. This case may end up in the supreme court and may have huge ramifications for LGBT rights.

Laws are not simple, so please don't insult progressives like me by pretending that we are trying to rule based on 'feels'. I could argue that all laws are based on 'feels' and not wanting to change or evolve laws is also a 'feels' choice.

And for the record I don't hold Gorsuch in as much contempt as most democrats seem to, but we'll see what his rulings are.


And he blocked me too haha - clearly he is not interested in a discussion. Guess I made him butthurt

There used to be those that were more center oriented but ever since the political maps began to be redrawn it's gotten more and more extreme right or left with each round of politicians. It's gotten so bad that there is a group of politicians that want to make up a third group that is center focused and force the other two to compromise.

But they can be impeached like any other politician, right?

I mean, years ago in the country where I'm from, a Supreme Court Judge was impeched due to not disclosing a lot of information regarding his wealth and some other shady business practices.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp....._Renato_Corona

Well, this isn't really about Gorsuch - this is about the precedent of how he's getting into the supreme court. When justice Scalia died Obama still had a year left in his presidency - he nominated Garland (as was his right as president) and republicans basically just threw a temper tantrum and refused to even give Garland a hearing because they knew if they waited a year they could potentially win the presidency and submit their own conservative judge. The idea of one less conservative judge on the supreme court was so unacceptable to them they basically refused to do their job for a year.

My point is that I'm really dismayed how volatile the relationship between democrats is republicans are becoming. This party feud is only going to hurt America because for politicians it will be opposing the other party first, and working for America second.

Yeah, the Republicans are definitely are at their worst in recent years. I have a feeling this could only end in a people power revolution.

They've been very obstructive since Obama did the stimulus package, but democrats haven't been a whole lot better. They did pull the nuclear option in 2013 for the lower courts, granted by that point Republicans had committed an unprecedented number of filibusters for Obama's nominees. This whole shit show is basically the republicans deciding to oppose any and everything Obama the democrats would do once Obama went ahead and put out the stimulus.

Intelligent and civil political discussion is my second biggest weakness. Sexy dragons are my first. I'm so vulnerable right now! XD

*smothers in dragoness smoosh*

Is it depressing that it probably won't be that long until we do this all over again?

I honestly expect the situation to escalate and congress to eventually throw out filibusters altogether to stick it to the minority party - whether it's the democrats or republicans pulling the trigger.

Oh joy, political discussion!

I'm sure you already know the Democrats are throwing fits over Gorsuch's ruling in, which I find it to be incredibly ironic considering they wrote in the Nuclear Option back when they were the majority a few years ago when Obama was in office, via Harry Reid. They put in a lot of judges in the lower courts and intended to get supreme court judges of their mindset (who keep in mind are very liberal).

That is until Trump won and the republicans became the majority, now the very thing -they- (they being the democrats) implemented is being used against them. Its kind of expected for them to eat the very fire they started.

I read the comments and I'm obviously very baffled (yet not surprised) at how some think Obama was being obstructed by the republicans. Obama actually walked all over them, republicans didn't do much of anything to stop what he was doing, he was able to bypass congress with no one to really oppose him (which was unconstitutional). In fact some think Obama didn't do enough despite how regulated everything was.

Also if you want something akin to a judicial activist, look at the hawaii judge that is blocking Trump's executive order on travel. By far its unconstitutional because he's doing it based on opinion and 'feelings' and not by the law itself.

I was very disappointed in democrats throwing the switch for the nuclear option for the lower courts back then and I knew it would come back to bite them. But Republicans were not in the right refusing to hold hearings on Garland's nomination - they basically refused to do their jobs because they couldn't stand the idea of the supreme court possibly going 5-4 to the left. This too may come back to bite them, because if a Republican president has one year left in office I see no reason why democrats, should they hold majority, wouldn't refuse to hold hearings on that president's nominee. (But I want to note - and I can't stress this enough - I would NOT support this move).

With Obama, it was both I feel. There was a lot of obstruction, but Obama also did a lot without needing their approval. That's up to debate if it's unconstitutional because Obama did a lot of things that didn't require approval. I would support the president's powers being lowered.

That's complicated with the judge because the argument is that the travel ban is intended to be a Muslim ban, which if true would be unconstitutional. We'll see how the courts rule it. The fact is that Trump is claiming the ban is for America's safety, but in all my research into the statistics the numbers don't seem to support this argument.



I honestly don't care 'who started it' though - I'm just sick of both parties acting like children.