Why senate Dems. MUST filibuster Gorsuch's consent.....

[Sun Devil 92]

Respect the will of the people. Otherwise the people will reject you more

Who got MORE popular votes this past election????...

STOP being a moron and call yourself "the people"......You're just a loud and obnoxious minority..

Who got MORE popular votes this past election????...

Who got MORE electoral votes this past election????...

You're just a loud and obnoxious minority..

A loud and obnoxious minority..in control of the House, Senate and White House.

And don't forget the SCOTUS.....!!!

 

[nat4900]

What hypocrisy do you speak of? You mean allowing other nominees to get on the court and then not have a hearing for one during his last year of presidency?

Ask the turtle,McConnell, WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office?????

Go on, look it up and share it with the weak-chinned bastard.

 

[Avatar4321]

Respect the will of the people. Otherwise the people will reject you more

Who got MORE popular votes this past election????...

STOP being a moron and call yourself "the people"......You're just a loud and obnoxious minority..

Which is why we control the white house, house, senate, most of the state governorships, and state assemblies, etc. cause we are the minority.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What hypocrisy do you speak of? You mean allowing other nominees to get on the court and then not have a hearing for one during his last year of presidency?

Ask the turtle,McConnell, WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office?????

Go on, look it up and share it with the weak-chinned bastard.

It says the Senate is to advise and consent. If they don't have a hearing, obviously they didn't give their consent.

 

[nat4900]

Which is why we control the white house, house, senate, most of the state governorships, and state assemblies, etc. cause we are the minority.

CORRECT........The minority won...NOT the majority of people of this country...See the difference? Probably not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is why we control the white house, house, senate, most of the state governorships, and state assemblies, etc. cause we are the minority.

CORRECT........The minority won...NOT the majority of people of this country...See the difference? Probably not.

You don't know if the majority won or not because there was no race for the majority.

 

[Avatar4321]

So what you're saying is that you and your cohorts would not be complaining today if they had a hearing and still voted him down?

I don't think so.

Do you know what hypocrisy is?


Actually I would have been fine with that....As long as the hearing was televised for the rest of the world to see the level of right wing hypocrisy.

Do you know what hypocrisy is?

 

[Avatar4321]

Which is why we control the white house, house, senate, most of the state governorships, and state assemblies, etc. cause we are the minority.

CORRECT........The minority won...NOT the majority of people of this country...See the difference? Probably not.

Keep telling yourself that

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Which is why we control the white house, house, senate, most of the state governorships, and state assemblies, etc. cause we are the minority.

CORRECT........The minority won...NOT the majority of people of this country...See the difference? Probably not.

Majority of voters....

Of which too many reside in a single state.

Butthurt much ?

Guess what ?

It's over.

You lost.

Your man won't be headed to the SCOTUS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What hypocrisy do you speak of? You mean allowing other nominees to get on the court and then not have a hearing for one during his last year of presidency?

Ask the turtle,McConnell, WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office?????

Go on, look it up and share it with the weak-chinned bastard.

WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office

Where does it say one must have a hearing?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What hypocrisy do you speak of? You mean allowing other nominees to get on the court and then not have a hearing for one during his last year of presidency?

Ask the turtle,McConnell, WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office?????

Go on, look it up and share it with the weak-chinned bastard.

WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office

Where does it say one must have a hearing?

It's just hysteria at it's finest.

Theatre.....

 

[nat4900]

What hypocrisy do you speak of? You mean allowing other nominees to get on the court and then not have a hearing for one during his last year of presidency?

Ask the turtle,McConnell, WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office?????

Go on, look it up and share it with the weak-chinned bastard.

WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office

Where does it say one must have a hearing?

So "advice and consent" NOW have a whole different meaning in the 1984 world of the Trumpsers.....LOL

 

[Slade3200]

I lean left on many issues, especially social issues... but I'm just not seeing good reason to block Gorsuch. I hear the talking points but they seem like generic anti conservative attacks. What is the biggest threat to having a constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court? I haven't seen any evidence of Gorsuch playing partisan politics, he seems like a good honorable dude. The Dems, unfortunately, are at risk of blowing their load with all the protest and obstruction they are dishing out. It waters down their arguements with oversaturation. Plus, how will they be able to critique Republican obstruction when they do the same thing once the Dems regain power?? It's all very short sighted, hypocritical, and unproductive. Not how our government is intended to work.

The problem is he is a good honorable dude. He is going to obey the law. Doing that prevents progressives from ignoring law

Come on, you don't have to take everything to partisan squabbling. Progressives are out to ignore the law, they are out to progress causes that they are passionate about... Just like conservatives. Both sides have different views and interpretations of the law and role of government. It is a healthy contest of ideas that both progresses our society but also keeps it in check. Its a shame that more people on both sides can't show more respect for each other.

Respect is earned ... not awarded. This ain't a 'participation trophy' league.

Progressives have done nothing to earn respect. Instead, they have 'earned' ridicule and irrelevance.

Progressives gave blacks and women the right to vote did they not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What hypocrisy do you speak of? You mean allowing other nominees to get on the court and then not have a hearing for one during his last year of presidency?

Ask the turtle,McConnell, WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office?????

Go on, look it up and share it with the weak-chinned bastard.

WHERE in the Constitution it s stated that a president should NOT have a hearing for one of his SCOTUS nominees with a year left in office

Where does it say one must have a hearing?

So "advice and consent" NOW have a whole different meaning in the 1984 world of the Trumpsers.....LOL

Their advice was, we're not going to consent.

 

[Spare_change]

Pro

I lean left on many issues, especially social issues... but I'm just not seeing good reason to block Gorsuch. I hear the talking points but they seem like generic anti conservative attacks. What is the biggest threat to having a constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court? I haven't seen any evidence of Gorsuch playing partisan politics, he seems like a good honorable dude. The Dems, unfortunately, are at risk of blowing their load with all the protest and obstruction they are dishing out. It waters down their arguements with oversaturation. Plus, how will they be able to critique Republican obstruction when they do the same thing once the Dems regain power?? It's all very short sighted, hypocritical, and unproductive. Not how our government is intended to work.

The problem is he is a good honorable dude. He is going to obey the law. Doing that prevents progressives from ignoring law

Come on, you don't have to take everything to partisan squabbling. Progressives are out to ignore the law, they are out to progress causes that they are passionate about... Just like conservatives. Both sides have different views and interpretations of the law and role of government. It is a healthy contest of ideas that both progresses our society but also keeps it in check. Its a shame that more people on both sides can't show more respect for each other.

Respect is earned ... not awarded. This ain't a 'participation trophy' league.

Progressives have done nothing to earn respect. Instead, they have 'earned' ridicule and irrelevance.

Progressives gave blacks and women the right to vote did they not?

Progressives, in a perhaps misguided effort, have created systems that have kept blacks poor and women subjugated. Progressives are the worst enemies of both blacks and women.

 

[Slade3200]

Pro

I lean left on many issues, especially social issues... but I'm just not seeing good reason to block Gorsuch. I hear the talking points but they seem like generic anti conservative attacks. What is the biggest threat to having a constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court? I haven't seen any evidence of Gorsuch playing partisan politics, he seems like a good honorable dude. The Dems, unfortunately, are at risk of blowing their load with all the protest and obstruction they are dishing out. It waters down their arguements with oversaturation. Plus, how will they be able to critique Republican obstruction when they do the same thing once the Dems regain power?? It's all very short sighted, hypocritical, and unproductive. Not how our government is intended to work.

The problem is he is a good honorable dude. He is going to obey the law. Doing that prevents progressives from ignoring law

Come on, you don't have to take everything to partisan squabbling. Progressives are out to ignore the law, they are out to progress causes that they are passionate about... Just like conservatives. Both sides have different views and interpretations of the law and role of government. It is a healthy contest of ideas that both progresses our society but also keeps it in check. Its a shame that more people on both sides can't show more respect for each other.

Respect is earned ... not awarded. This ain't a 'participation trophy' league.

Progressives have done nothing to earn respect. Instead, they have 'earned' ridicule and irrelevance.

Progressives gave blacks and women the right to vote did they not?

Progressives, in a perhaps misguided effort, have created systems that have kept blacks poor and women subjugated. Progressives are the worst enemies of both blacks and women.

You glossed right over my statement didn't ya? Did the progressives provide for blacks and women the right to vote? Yes or no?

The answer is yes. Those two things are undeniably respectful.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pro

The problem is he is a good honorable dude. He is going to obey the law. Doing that prevents progressives from ignoring law

Come on, you don't have to take everything to partisan squabbling. Progressives are out to ignore the law, they are out to progress causes that they are passionate about... Just like conservatives. Both sides have different views and interpretations of the law and role of government. It is a healthy contest of ideas that both progresses our society but also keeps it in check. Its a shame that more people on both sides can't show more respect for each other.

Respect is earned ... not awarded. This ain't a 'participation trophy' league.

Progressives have done nothing to earn respect. Instead, they have 'earned' ridicule and irrelevance.

Progressives gave blacks and women the right to vote did they not?

Progressives, in a perhaps misguided effort, have created systems that have kept blacks poor and women subjugated. Progressives are the worst enemies of both blacks and women.

You glossed right over my statement didn't ya? Did the progressives provide for blacks and women the right to vote? Yes or no?

The answer is yes. Those two things are undeniably respectful.

19th Amendment Vote
May 21, 1919
2/3rds required for passage


On January 10, 1918, in the midst of World War I, the House passed a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote by a count of 274 to 136. On October 1, 1918, after five days of debate, the U.S. Senate, failed to pass the amendment by a vote of 62 to 34 (64.5% of the vote).

Seven months later, the amendment was reintroduced in the House in the 66th Congress (1919–1921), which convened on March 4, 1919. House Suffrage Committee Chairman, James R. Mann, managed to get the Amendment through committee and to the house floor on May 21st and after two hours of debate it was passed by a vote of 304 ayes to 89 nays. With 91% of Republicans voting for the measure, the 2/3 rds was bested by 42 votes.

United States Constitution and Citizenship Day: 19th Amendment

 

[Slade3200]

Pro

Come on, you don't have to take everything to partisan squabbling. Progressives are out to ignore the law, they are out to progress causes that they are passionate about... Just like conservatives. Both sides have different views and interpretations of the law and role of government. It is a healthy contest of ideas that both progresses our society but also keeps it in check. Its a shame that more people on both sides can't show more respect for each other.

Respect is earned ... not awarded. This ain't a 'participation trophy' league.

Progressives have done nothing to earn respect. Instead, they have 'earned' ridicule and irrelevance.

Progressives gave blacks and women the right to vote did they not?

Progressives, in a perhaps misguided effort, have created systems that have kept blacks poor and women subjugated. Progressives are the worst enemies of both blacks and women.

You glossed right over my statement didn't ya? Did the progressives provide for blacks and women the right to vote? Yes or no?

The answer is yes. Those two things are undeniably respectful.

19th Amendment Vote
May 21, 1919
2/3rds required for passage


On January 10, 1918, in the midst of World War I, the House passed a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote by a count of 274 to 136. On October 1, 1918, after five days of debate, the U.S. Senate, failed to pass the amendment by a vote of 62 to 34 (64.5% of the vote).

Seven months later, the amendment was reintroduced in the House in the 66th Congress (1919–1921), which convened on March 4, 1919. House Suffrage Committee Chairman, James R. Mann, managed to get the Amendment through committee and to the house floor on May 21st and after two hours of debate it was passed by a vote of 304 ayes to 89 nays. With 91% of Republicans voting for the measure, the 2/3 rds was bested by 42 votes.

United States Constitution and Citizenship Day: 19th Amendment

What was your point?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pro

Respect is earned ... not awarded. This ain't a 'participation trophy' league.

Progressives have done nothing to earn respect. Instead, they have 'earned' ridicule and irrelevance.

Progressives gave blacks and women the right to vote did they not?

Progressives, in a perhaps misguided effort, have created systems that have kept blacks poor and women subjugated. Progressives are the worst enemies of both blacks and women.

You glossed right over my statement didn't ya? Did the progressives provide for blacks and women the right to vote? Yes or no?

The answer is yes. Those two things are undeniably respectful.

19th Amendment Vote
May 21, 1919
2/3rds required for passage


On January 10, 1918, in the midst of World War I, the House passed a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote by a count of 274 to 136. On October 1, 1918, after five days of debate, the U.S. Senate, failed to pass the amendment by a vote of 62 to 34 (64.5% of the vote).

Seven months later, the amendment was reintroduced in the House in the 66th Congress (1919–1921), which convened on March 4, 1919. House Suffrage Committee Chairman, James R. Mann, managed to get the Amendment through committee and to the house floor on May 21st and after two hours of debate it was passed by a vote of 304 ayes to 89 nays. With 91% of Republicans voting for the measure, the 2/3 rds was bested by 42 votes.

United States Constitution and Citizenship Day: 19th Amendment

What was your point?

Point is Republicans overwhelmingly voted for women's voting rights. And if you bothered to click on the link (which I know you didn't given the amount of time it took you to respond) you can see who voted for and against the bill.

 

[Rustic]

Conservative republicans blatantly abused their 5-4 majority in the SCOTUS under the strong-arm tactics of Scalia (even if Roberts "thought" that he was Chief Justice, Sclaia was really the thug who led the decisions...not in ALL...but most of the conservative decisions.)

Gorsuch, from a variety of sources who reviewed his rulings, have deemed that he is to the EXTREME right of even Scalia.

We all know (both sides) that there will be much "buyers' remorse" after a few years of Trump's tactics led by such ideologues as Bannon and Kelly....However, although we may survive these folks' drastic decisions when they're in power for just a short period, Gorsuch is in FOR LIFE....

Women and unions and common Americans will soon realize that this danger MUST be repulsed, as the idiot, McConnell, repulsed the moderate Garland. Any senate democrat who, for self-preservation because they will run in 2018 in red states, does NOT deserve reelection. Grow a spine, democrats.

You cant help being a ***** whipped *****...