Democrats: What would the politics be behind a Gorsuch filibuster?

[JakeStarkey]

Todd, you can't disprove my assertion.

Thus, we will have to leave it to SCOTUS not you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Gorsuch is in favor of Citizens United, wants our elections controlled by bug money.

He's against the most basic rights for the working class and poor.

He has said he would not vote again Roe v Wade but he's a liar about other things, including proven cases of plagiarism.

That's more than enough reason he should not be confirmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, you can't disprove my assertion.

Thus, we will have to leave it to SCOTUS not you.

Todd, you can't disprove my assertion.

Your assertion is Congress can pass a law that also says you need a 2/3rds vote (or whatever number) to repeal.

So prove it.
Give an example where Congress did that and the law still exists today and survived an attempt to repeal.

If you were correct, Trump could sign a bill that cuts taxes and needs a 90% vote to raise rates in the future.
Imagine the fun you could have with that ability.

After nearly 230 years, the record has to be littered with hundreds of examples of things that can't be overturned.

LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gorsuch is in favor of Citizens United, wants our elections controlled by bug money.

He's against the most basic rights for the working class and poor.

He has said he would not vote again Roe v Wade but he's a liar about other things, including proven cases of plagiarism.

That's more than enough reason he should not be confirmed.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Gorsuch is in favor of Citizens United

Too much free speech, eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, Todd, you can't carry the water tonight.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, Todd, you can't carry the water tonight.

Let me know when you find proof of your claim.

 

[hadit]

y

Is it a good thing to block the president, a bad thing, or only a bad thing when Republicans do it?

don't expect an answer. the dems and libs cannot get over the fact that the American voters rejected crooked Hillary and that Trump is now president with control of both houses of congress. They lost and they cannot deal with it.

You have no choice, the elites and Russia helped Trump and some of the poorly educated. Never forgot who and what you voted for. It will come back to haunt you.

the elites and Russia helped Trump

The same elite Russians that gave Hillary so much money?

Putin didn't like Clinton or the Obama Admin. Note how Rex has become SOS and is also a friend of Russia. Putin helped Trump win, there is no doubt about that.

Putin didn't like Clinton or the Obama Admin.

Even after all of their ass kissing? They must have been even less competent than I thought.

Putin helped Trump win, there is no doubt about that.

How? By exposing the DNC's and Hillary's corruption?
Don't you hate it when the public learns the truth about your heroes?

And now Trump is daring Putin to respond in Syria. Yeah, Putin wanted Trump in office all right.

 

[hadit]

Seriously, Gorsuch is far from an extremist.

So was Garland. Who cares?

They were wrong to deny an up or down vote, and should have done it as far from the election as possible. Does that make it right for democrats to do the same?

 

[Redfish]

Seriously, Gorsuch is far from an extremist.

So was Garland. Who cares?

They were wrong to deny an up or down vote, and should have done it as far from the election as possible. Does that make it right for democrats to do the same?

it would have been a waste of time. The republicans had the majority and were not going to let Obama put 3 liberals on the court.

 

[hadit]

Seriously, Gorsuch is far from an extremist.

So was Garland. Who cares?

They were wrong to deny an up or down vote, and should have done it as far from the election as possible. Does that make it right for democrats to do the same?

it would have been a waste of time. The republicans had the majority and were not going to let Obama put 3 liberals on the court.

And they could have by voting his appointees down.

 

[oreo]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

It's definitely political, and unfortunately Republicans played right into Democrats hands. This is political payback for Republicans blocking Merrick Garland--and that's all it is.

Republicans have no issues with Niel Gorsuch, they have voted for him in the past. Here is the list of Democrats that confirmed him as a G.W. Bush district court judge in 2006. In 2006 Democrats owned the Senate so they could have easily rejected him.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Gorsuch, the first nominee to my memory that stated Roe v Wade is precedent aka set in stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many Republicans voted for Trump believing that Roe v Wade would be overturned. Trump was campaigning on that.

The bad news for Republicans is that Democrats will take over in 2018--and then the Trump Supreme court is in their hands They will have full control as to what nominees are acceptable. When Democrats win the Presidency in 2020- they will have a run on the court-and Republicans won't be able to stop them, because now Republicans have set precedent for confirming US Supreme Court nominees.

It's unfortunate for this country because this is where you'll get your too far left and too far right judges from.

 

[MarcATL]

Seriously, Gorsuch is far from an extremist.

So was Garland. Who cares?

They were wrong to deny an up or down vote, and should have done it as far from the election as possible. Does that make it right for democrats to do the same?

At this point and time, what difference does it make?

 

[MarcATL]

It's definitely political, and unfortunately Republicans played right into Democrats hands. This is political payback for Republicans blocking Merrick Garland--and that's all it is.

Republicans have no issues with Niel Gorsuch, they have voted for him in the past. Here is the list of Democrats that confirmed him as a G.W. Bush district court judge in 2006. In 2006 Democrats owned the Senate so they could have easily rejected him.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Gorsuch, the first nominee to my memory that stated Roe v Wade is precedent aka set in stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many Republicans voted for Trump believing that Roe v Wade would be overturned. Trump was campaigning on that.

The bad news for Republicans is that Democrats will take over in 2018--and then the Trump Supreme court is in their hands They will have full control as to what nominees are acceptable. When Democrats win the Presidency in 2020- they will have a run on the court-and Republicans won't be able to stop them, because now Republicans have set precedent for confirming US Supreme Court nominees.

It's unfortunate for this country because this is where you'll get your too far left and too far right judges from.

One thing's for damn sure, Democrats aren't crying over this, they're happy and content. As you said, the Republicans walked right into their trap.

Since the filibuster, practically every rightwing talk show, to a man/woman, were complaining about it, yet not one of the liberal hosts, nor callers were upset in any way, shape, or form.

We know who doesn't like this...and it ain't Democrats.

#LOLGOP #SMGOP

 

[hadit]

Seriously, Gorsuch is far from an extremist.

So was Garland. Who cares?

They were wrong to deny an up or down vote, and should have done it as far from the election as possible. Does that make it right for democrats to do the same?

At this point and time, what difference does it make?

That depends on the goal. They can either fall further into the sewer or try to climb out. I really don't have a lot of hope for the latter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's definitely political, and unfortunately Republicans played right into Democrats hands. This is political payback for Republicans blocking Merrick Garland--and that's all it is.

Republicans have no issues with Niel Gorsuch, they have voted for him in the past. Here is the list of Democrats that confirmed him as a G.W. Bush district court judge in 2006. In 2006 Democrats owned the Senate so they could have easily rejected him.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Gorsuch, the first nominee to my memory that stated Roe v Wade is precedent aka set in stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many Republicans voted for Trump believing that Roe v Wade would be overturned. Trump was campaigning on that.

The bad news for Republicans is that Democrats will take over in 2018--and then the Trump Supreme court is in their hands They will have full control as to what nominees are acceptable. When Democrats win the Presidency in 2020- they will have a run on the court-and Republicans won't be able to stop them, because now Republicans have set precedent for confirming US Supreme Court nominees.

It's unfortunate for this country because this is where you'll get your too far left and too far right judges from.

One thing's for damn sure, Democrats aren't crying over this, they're happy and content. As you said, the Republicans walked right into their trap.

Since the filibuster, practically every rightwing talk show, to a man/woman, were complaining about it, yet not one of the liberal hosts, nor callers were upset in any way, shape, or form.

We know who doesn't like this...and it ain't Democrats.

#LOLGOP #SMGOP

One thing's for damn sure, Democrats aren't crying over this, they're happy and content.

I'm sure Dems will be happy when Trump appoints his next 2 Supreme Court justices.

 

[MarcATL]

It's definitely political, and unfortunately Republicans played right into Democrats hands. This is political payback for Republicans blocking Merrick Garland--and that's all it is.

Republicans have no issues with Niel Gorsuch, they have voted for him in the past. Here is the list of Democrats that confirmed him as a G.W. Bush district court judge in 2006. In 2006 Democrats owned the Senate so they could have easily rejected him.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Gorsuch, the first nominee to my memory that stated Roe v Wade is precedent aka set in stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many Republicans voted for Trump believing that Roe v Wade would be overturned. Trump was campaigning on that.

The bad news for Republicans is that Democrats will take over in 2018--and then the Trump Supreme court is in their hands They will have full control as to what nominees are acceptable. When Democrats win the Presidency in 2020- they will have a run on the court-and Republicans won't be able to stop them, because now Republicans have set precedent for confirming US Supreme Court nominees.

It's unfortunate for this country because this is where you'll get your too far left and too far right judges from.

One thing's for damn sure, Democrats aren't crying over this, they're happy and content. As you said, the Republicans walked right into their trap.

Since the filibuster, practically every rightwing talk show, to a man/woman, were complaining about it, yet not one of the liberal hosts, nor callers were upset in any way, shape, or form.

We know who doesn't like this...and it ain't Democrats.

#LOLGOP #SMGOP

One thing's for damn sure, Democrats aren't crying over this, they're happy and content.

I'm sure Dems will be happy when Trump appoints his next 2 Supreme Court justices.

So would you like to back it up sir?

If, before Trump leaves Office, and appoints 2 new SOTUS, then I leave. If he doesn't, then you leave, the USMB forum...permanently.

So how about it...up to the challenge?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's definitely political, and unfortunately Republicans played right into Democrats hands. This is political payback for Republicans blocking Merrick Garland--and that's all it is.

Republicans have no issues with Niel Gorsuch, they have voted for him in the past. Here is the list of Democrats that confirmed him as a G.W. Bush district court judge in 2006. In 2006 Democrats owned the Senate so they could have easily rejected him.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Gorsuch, the first nominee to my memory that stated Roe v Wade is precedent aka set in stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many Republicans voted for Trump believing that Roe v Wade would be overturned. Trump was campaigning on that.

The bad news for Republicans is that Democrats will take over in 2018--and then the Trump Supreme court is in their hands They will have full control as to what nominees are acceptable. When Democrats win the Presidency in 2020- they will have a run on the court-and Republicans won't be able to stop them, because now Republicans have set precedent for confirming US Supreme Court nominees.

It's unfortunate for this country because this is where you'll get your too far left and too far right judges from.

One thing's for damn sure, Democrats aren't crying over this, they're happy and content. As you said, the Republicans walked right into their trap.

Since the filibuster, practically every rightwing talk show, to a man/woman, were complaining about it, yet not one of the liberal hosts, nor callers were upset in any way, shape, or form.

We know who doesn't like this...and it ain't Democrats.

#LOLGOP #SMGOP

One thing's for damn sure, Democrats aren't crying over this, they're happy and content.

I'm sure Dems will be happy when Trump appoints his next 2 Supreme Court justices.

So would you like to back it up sir?

If, before Trump leaves Office, and appoints 2 new SOTUS, then I leave. If he doesn't, then you leave, the USMB forum...permanently.

So how about it...up to the challenge?

So would you like to back it up sir?

Back up my claim that Dems won't be "happy and content" when Trump appoints his next 2 Justices? Sure.

If, before Trump leaves Office, and appoints 2 new SOTUS, then I leave. If he doesn't, then you leave, the USMB forum...permanently.

What if he appoints 3 more?

 

[MarcATL]

So would you like to back it up sir?

Back up my claim that Dems won't be "happy and content" when Trump appoints his next 2 Justices? Sure.

If, before Trump leaves Office, and appoints 2 new SOTUS, then I leave. If he doesn't, then you leave, the USMB forum...permanently.

What if he appoints 3 more?

2 meets the mark, 3 is more than 2, so...do the math.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So would you like to back it up sir?

Back up my claim that Dems won't be "happy and content" when Trump appoints his next 2 Justices? Sure.

If, before Trump leaves Office, and appoints 2 new SOTUS, then I leave. If he doesn't, then you leave, the USMB forum...permanently.

What if he appoints 3 more?

2 meets the mark, 3 is more than 2, so...do the math.

So which libs have to be sad, instead of happy, for me to win?

 

[KeiserC]

Why can't they change the law back in say 3.5 or more years depending on midterms etc... then the democrats would have to have enough of a majority to change it back to what it is today...???