GOP Dares Call Gorsuch Filibuster Unprecedented—While Ignoring Their Blockade Of Garland

[easyt65]

We've gone a year. Why get in a rush now?

Because harry reid and the democrats made the convincing argument - and the Reid Rule to ensure it happens - that EVERY / ALL judges deserve an up or down vote.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm saying that given the GOP blockade of Merrick Garland (does a President serve a four year term or a three year term?), invoking the nuclear option would assure that no one but rabid partisans will ever be nominated to the bench again.

Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. Gorsuch is not a 'rabid partisan' nominee. He is one that is embraced by almost EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle except for 39 rabidly partisan Democrats who are butthurt about losing the election and are trying to do this because they have publicly dedicated the next 4 years of their publicly elected lives / terms to doing nothing but oppose everything this administration does for the sake of their own party rather than the good of the nation.

Everyone knows that - even their fellow Democrats who won't follow them in this filibuster. ONLY 39 Democrats, according to the latest report, want this.

Everyone can see that Gorsuch is not the problem, the GOP is not the problem, the nuclear option - that is apparently necessary TO UPHOLD THE DEMOCRATS' OWN REID RULE - is not the problem. The problem is 39 Democrats (out of HOW MANY?) that want to deny the majority of Americans, the GOP, AND most of the Democrats the Judge they like and want based on purely political partisan hatred / theatrics.

You could have written that post in 2013 making the exact same points. But you would have to substitute "Democrats" with "Republicans". Otherwise, everything you said was true.

Ironic, ain't it?

 

[easyt65]

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games.

No.

Again, the Democrats drove the nail by declaring 'EVERY Judge deserves an up or down vote' and passing the Reid Rule to ensure it happens....then when the GOP attempts to use THEIR OWN ARGUMENT AND RULE - with the support of EVERY DEMOCRAT EXCEPT 39 RABID PARTISANS - the Democrats hypocritically go back on their own argument and their own rule.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

/---- The GOP invoked the Crazy Joe Biden Rule on Obozo's nominee. View attachment 119331

I wonder if the judge at the time Biden said that went without even a hearing. Maybe you can clear that up for us.

 

[easyt65]

You could have written that post in 2013 making the exact same points. But you would have to substitute "Democrats" with "Republicans".

NO.

Democrats, not Republicans, declared every judge should have an up or down vote and created a rule to ensure that happened in the future...their own rule and argument they are going back on now because their rule and argument happens to pertain to a GOP judge now instead of one of their own.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

Amnesia is the last issue the left should be crying about... you have to be kidding me. BIDEN set the precedent that SCOTUS nominations should not be placed during an election season, instead wait for the next regime to make the nomination. Republicans just did the same with garland. That's not a filibuster. Filibustering a nominee that unanimously appointed by the right and left for his current position is ridiculous. Where were these objections before haha?

And since Reid used the nuclear option against filibusters for lesser things, are you going to all a sudden gain amnesia if that happens? I don't even think it will, he'll probably be nominated with little trouble .

There was no precedent set. Name the judge that was prevented by Biden's statement.

There's a difference between rhetoric and actually doing it.

 

[Mac1958]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

Welcome to politics newbie!

Yep. Both parties will do whatever it takes, and then scream when the other party does the same thing.
.

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

This is a common behavior across all issues and news events, though, not just those. If "my party" does it, it is somehow justified. If "your party" does it, it's not justified. This just happens over and over and over.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"Impose the nuclear option at your own peril. If the senate GOP invokes the nuclear option, there will be nothing but hard core partisans nominated to the bench. And that would make the SCOTUS another political arm of government.

I truly mean no disrespect when I say this, BUT that is one of the dumbest things I have heard in this argument.

When Gorsuch was 1st nominated both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS praised this man.

The liberal media declared him to be one of the most fitting candidates that could have been nominated.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) - the asshole now wanting to obstruct his up or down vote, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (Vt.) voted for Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006.

The recent news / polls show the majority of Americans want him as a USSC Judge, AND only 39 hard-core butt-hurt Democrats who are upset at the loss of the recent election - a few of them who have praised Gorsuch - plan on participating in a filibuster...meaning EVEN THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS LIKE THIS MAN.
.
.
.
So you are saying that 39 butthurt Democrats not getting the filibuster / Obstructionist outcome THEY want - that the majority of their own party does NOT want - is fair justification for trying to ram the most hard-core partisan Judges into the USSC in the future as 'payback' for a sleight to only THEM (39 Democrats who are only doing this for partisan hatred and not what is best for the country)...especially when the Democrats were so passionate about ensuring 'ALL' judges get an up or down vote from now on that they created the 'Reid rule'?

Again, that is just DUMB!

(BTW, are you saying Sotomayor, who once said she believed in empathy on the bench outweighing the law (paraphrased) and who believes in liberal legislation from the bench (IMO) was NOT a partisan appointment?)

When Gorsuch was 1st nominated both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS praised this man.

As with Garland.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

instead of spewing 24/7 on a message board

Do the words "Shoe, "Fits", and "Wear it" in the same sentence have any meaning to you, hack?

 

[Nosmo King]

You could have written that post in 2013 making the exact same points. But you would have to substitute "Democrats" with "Republicans".

NO.

Democrats, not Republicans, declared every judge should have an up or down vote and created a rule to ensure that happened in the future...their own rule and argument they are going back on now because their rule and argument happens to pertain to a GOP judge now instead of one of their own.

An up or down vote. Not the nuclear option which means changing that vote to a majority of one, not ten.

 

[easyt65]

When Gorsuch was 1st nominated both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS praised this man.

As with Garland.

It was wrong for the GOP to deny Garland and up or down vote then, and it is wrong for the lone 39 Democrats to attempt to deny Gorsuch such a vote now.

Those 39 Democrats are demonstrating NOW that they believe it is only wrong to deny a judge an up or down vote when it is THIER nominee being denied. Embrace that fact.

 

[saveliberty]

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

That's rich, escalating the Reid rule.

Of course, Democrats could just let it go to a vote. Unless they are trying to one upmanship...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

Welcome to politics newbie!

Yep. Both parties will do whatever it takes, and then scream when the other party does the same thing.
.

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

This is a common behavior across all issues and news events, though, not just those. If "my party" does it, it is somehow justified. If "your party" does it, it's not justified. This just happens over and over and over.
.

So you won't answer?
Dems had never blocked presidential nominees the way the Repubs did. There is no equivalence. It was unprecedented just as this next escalation will be.

 

[easyt65]

An up or down vote. Not the nuclear option which means changing that vote to a majority of one, not ten.

An up-or-down vote is the GOAL . OBJECTIVE the Democrats believe every judge deserves. The 'nuclear option' is a METHOD that can be used - and looks to be necessary - to ensure the Democrat's argument and rule is carried out / adhered to.

Again - 39 Democrats out of the entire list of elected Democrats want to deny Gorsuch such a vote. After making the argument they did and passing the Reid rule to make sure that happens, the actions of those 39 must be (should be) pretty embarrassing for the Democratic Party - it makes them look like a bunch of partisan hypocrites who really don't mean what they say.

 

[blackhawk]

And the Democrats who are now threatening a filibuster have forgotten they were the ones demanding the straight up or down vote for Garland. Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

Garland never even had a hearing.

Yes that has been established as has the fact the Democrats were prepared to do the same thing if President Bush got the chance to fill a Supreme Court seat in his final two years in office. Ironically it was Chuck Schumer ready to go down that road in 2007.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

That's rich, escalating the Reid rule.

Of course, Democrats could just let it go to a vote. Unless they are trying to one upmanship...

It's well within their rights to filibuster. That would not be upmanship. The Repubs escalating would be.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

GOP quotes Reid to justify Supreme Court fight

In an op-ed to appear in Friday's Washington Post, the two Republicans noted that Reid himself pointed out in a floor speech that the Senate didn't have to consider any of Bush's nominees.

"The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States," Reid said at the time. "Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying every nominee receives a vote."

Liberals do it, then when the Republicans do it back at the liberals, the libs go bat shit crazy.. Harry Reid did the nuclear option, now the Republicans will use it also, and again watch how bat shit crazy the liberals act again. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal.

It has never been used on a SC justice in our history. Now if Congress would have confirmed Obama's choices for judgeships along with a bunch of other legislation then Harry would not have need to do anything. Just remember where this began- 2009

Maybe so, but Obama was the first Democrat to nominate a SC Justice since the The Biden Rule.

I understand that you're a Leftist and think rules only apply to Republicans, but since the creation of The Biden Rule do you think it would have been any different? A Democrat Senate/Republican WH allowing a SC nominee a vote in the months before an election when you were uncertain of the winning party?

Let me clarify, would a Democrat Senate allow a Republican Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed just a few months before the possible election of a Democrat President, taking away his/her opportunity to nominate a Democrat Justice?

I thought not.

 

[AntonToo]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

Welcome to politics newbie!

Wait until the GOP uses the nuclear option, then the left will be screaming "This is unprecedented!!!"

because IT ACTUALLY WOULD BE.

 

[Mac1958]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

Welcome to politics newbie!

Yep. Both parties will do whatever it takes, and then scream when the other party does the same thing.
.

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

This is a common behavior across all issues and news events, though, not just those. If "my party" does it, it is somehow justified. If "your party" does it, it's not justified. This just happens over and over and over.
.

So you won't answer?
Dems had never blocked presidential nominees the way the Repubs did. There is no equivalence. It was unprecedented just as this next escalation will be.

My macro answer stands.

Sure, the GOP acted like children for eight years. The Dems have a choice. They can choose to act like children too, or they can rise above it.

"He did it first" is fine for a child, but not for the supposed "leaders" of our country. Someone has to be the adult in the room, eventually.

Or, maybe not.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When Gorsuch was 1st nominated both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS praised this man.

As with Garland.

It was wrong for the GOP to deny Garland and up or down vote then, and it is wrong for the lone 39 Democrats to attempt to deny Gorsuch such a vote now.

Those 39 Democrats are demonstrating NOW that they believe it is only wrong to deny a judge an up or down vote when it is THIER nominee being denied. Embrace that fact.

The Dems are well within their rights to vote no or even filibuster Gorsuch. There is nothing Wrong with that.