For some reason this HB versus Cepheus bet reminded me of the time hustlersux challenged everyone in the forum to FR 4/8.

I'm not worried since space doesn't exist and man has never been to the moon.

William Pryor...one time please

Why him over the others (haven't paid attention to how many there are)? All are self-proclaimed originalists and unquestionably conservative, no?

It's amazing how Palo Alto has changed in the past 20 years. I've been back a few times over the years and noticed changes but today was the first chance I had to just walk around for an hour.

The local bank where I didn't need $1,000 to avoid monthly fees? Now a Wells Fargo "Private Membership" bank. The bookstore where I used to hang out? Now one of those workspace factories with a Blue Bottle Coffee stand inside.

Bike store where I bought a bike is still the same. No more bargain bin though. I bought these two beaters, one with a missing seat and another with malfunctioning brakes, and Frankensteined them to 1 working bike. That led to my first lesson on biking in California - no matter how ****ty your bike is, someone will steal it if it's not U-locked. (Second lesson: even if it's ****ty and U-locked, people will still steal it. Dammit.)

Good times.

Nope, somehow this needle in a haystack emerged from a city of 100K liberals...

I'm as apolitical as they come but unveiling a Supreme Court nominee in the same manner as announcing the winner of a pageant should be an impeachable offense. I'm not even close to kidding.

I like gorsuch a lot as well. Pretty happy with the selection

I'm getting dumped on in that thread, lol. I've been trying this, that and the other thing to see what might work best against the bot, mention that I dump small pairs more than they like, and don't pay attention to the part where I say that I'm trying different things. I wonder if they've tried the damn thing, which btw, is being kept busy. It will only play 4 players at a time and there's often a significant waiting period and I'm guessing that thread is the reason why.

I have to say I missed what exactly happened here...can anyone give me the cliff notes version of how they managed to leave a supreme court vacancy for a full year without President Obama being able to appoint a new one, and this was not some kind of major scandal??

It was/is a major scandal. Dems will oppose the nomination and Republicans will have to invoke the nuclear option.

Just researched a bit and remembered I did hear about this early last spring. I wouldn't call it a major scandal since I haven't heard about it since then though and had forgotten about it.

Seems like this would have been talked about everywhere during the November elections and made the republicans look so terrible they would have had all their senators lose reelection. Hard for me to believe that anyone could support such an unprecedented violation of the constitution and tradition. Obama did appoint someone, but they didn't even reject him, just never got around to voting on it for a year? Pretty ridiculous, gives me even less respect for republicans than I did before.

It was kind of a major scandal, just overshadowed by the election.

Here are the real cliffs: Everything is a hyperpartisan issue now. Whenever the party in power (Democrats in 2008, Republicans in 2016) does anything, it's no longer democracy at work, it's the end of the ****ing world. If the government is not unilaterally controlled by one party, nothing at all can be accomplished ever.

This is what's wrong with the political system. Nobody can just vote "no" and accept a 50-something to 40-something loss. They have to filibuster and grandstand and make it the goddamn end of the world until the other party threatens nuclear war.

And while I'm looking squarely at Democrats right now, this was basically Republicans for most of the past decade.

LOL, no, because it's been Senate tradition for decades by Repubs and Dems alike, that late in a Presidential term, the SCOTUS nominee will be made by the new POTUS.

Scalia died about 78% of the way through Obama's second term. What exactly is your definition of "late in a Presidential term"?

Define late. This was a full year. The constitution says advise and consent as long as they are qualified.

Does anyone know what the previous longest delay had been?

I just read that Anthony Kennedy was nominated and approved even later in Reagan's term in 1988.

Where did you get this information? Because it's completely fabricated. Cite a single example and you win.

don't remember all the details but similar happened when LBJ tried to appoint a new chief justice right at end of his term.

There was no need to filibuster Obama's pick since the Republicans held the Senate majority and would simply vote 'no.' That's why there was no 'major scandal.'

A filibuster has two risks for the Democrats. The first being the 'nuclear option' where the Republicans change the Senate rules re filibusters. Despite Cruz's rhetoric, I think that's unlikely.

But, there are ten Democratic senators up for re-election next year in states that Trump won. Prolonged participation in a filibuster, particularly if those states' electorate generally approve of the SCOTUS nominee, could cost those senators their job.

"Forget what's best for the people, I don't wanna lose my job."

-modern politics in a nutshell.

----

oh good morning.

----

Gonna be at Foxwoods for my birthday this weekend.

----

So even if Rodeo loses the bet, is he gonna deny that they made it to Mars?

----

I'm alive!

----

That's all. Carry on with your mature discussion.

My thoughts exactly. Self-preservation has and will always be at odds with the principles of any democratic republic though.

While that is true some of the time, it's also true that folks are elected to represent their constituency. Failing to do so will often result in that constituency choosing someone else to represent them.

So they didn't vote no, they didn't filibuster, they just did the one thing which is clearly unconstitutional, ignore the nomination?