I'll bet you $5 that the leftists on this board actually think the Constitution requires sixty votes to confirm.
Since you nitwits are so much in love of a simple majority, you forget WHO won the popular vote and were bailed out by the outdated EC......
Look, I don't mind if Gorsuch gets in........and that you right wingers want to "forget" how Garland was treated by the turtle-faced, McConnell.......after all, the makeup of the SCOTUS would not be much different than when the ultra-partisan Scalia (may the devil torture his soul) was alive................HOWEVER, if another opening were to come up under Trump, filibuster is not only an option, IT IS A MUST !!!
Since you nitwits are so much in love with blanket "always or never" applications of concept, you forget that different situations have different circumstances and different rules, and they do so for a reason.
I do not "love" simple majorities OR hate them, and even if I did one or the other, that would not automatically mean that they always apply, you frigging halfwit bandwidth-wasting moron. For the record, I also did not express a personal "feelz" about either way. I just made reference to the fact that the Constitution does not require 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. The Constitution - which you should really read at some point - also contains the OTHER factual point you seem to have so much trouble wrapping both brain cells around: that the election of a President has diddly squat to do with your apocryphal (read: bullshit invention) "popular vote".
And while I realize this likely is not actually written down anywhere (not that you ever bother to frigging READ what's written down, anyway), there is no provision for laws to stop taking effect merely because they're "outdated" (translation: this law has prevented me from doing whatever I want for a really long time!).
Furthermore, pinhead, I have no desire whatsoever to forget the proceedings surrounding Garland because, despite your clearly-stated opinion to the contrary, I have no actual problem, morally or procedurally, with them. You never seem to get it through your damned head that your worldview doesn't constitute a moral standard I aspire to, YOU do not constitute a moral authority I answer to, and I would consider it a high insult if the likes of you actually approved of me.
While it is true that Garland would have created a different makeup on the Court than Justice Scalia did, it is utterly irrelevant to anything being discussed here, as is your incredibly classy wishing ill on the dead. Tell me, have you always been gutter trash, or does the DNC offer classes on it when you submit your voter registration?
