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

[Dale Smith]

personally, I hope they do, as I think it's a strategic mis-step at this point in trump's term.

the pubs go nuclear and take away the only tool the dems have now instead of a year from now and dems have virtually zero power to stop a damn thing they don't like.

go for it.

The term "nuclear option" is indeed a good one.....and like a real nuclear option, the fallout will come back to bite conservatives in their collective asses.

It certainly has come back to bite the leftards in the ass because all presidential appointments need is an "up and down" vote.

 

[easyt65]

In 2010 Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, etc... supported his appointment to a Federal Judge position.....

So WHY are they opposing him now, especially on issues they praised him for in 2010?

 

[easyt65]

It certainly has come back to bite the leftards in the ass because all presidential appointments need is an "up and down" vote.

Liberals are all about 'Instant Gratification' and are incapable of thinking of ramifications down the road...

 

[kwc57]

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

NO, moron......its constitutional to vote down a nominee....Its sheer fucked up-ness to NOT EVEN allow the nominee a hearing for a subsequent vote....based on you morons not liking Obama's tan.

Were you whining and crying when Harry Reid refused to do his job and brought government to a screeching halt for 2 years when he killed over 350 bipartisan bills? I doubt it. You probably praised his obstruction because it was your side doing it. So you'll excuse us if we call BS on your faux outrage.

Harry Reid was a turd and if you object to the obstruction that he did then you shouldn't support it from republicans either... that would make you a hypocrite.

It is a sad fact that both sides do it. Both sides do it because they have a vision for the country that is at odds with the other side. Reid stopped all legislation to protect Obama and his fundamental change that the voters rejected roundly in later elections. McConnell stopped the SCOTUS nomination to protect the nation from a liberal court. It's called politics and both sides engage and you made my point for me. People who ***** about what McConnell did are hypocrites for not calling Reid out for his action. In fact, they and the media still spout the narrative that the Republican House was obstructionist and ground government to a stand still when in fact, Reid was the culprit.

 

[Slade3200]

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..

The Patriots are NOT MY TEAM! More people

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..

Boo hoo! The Patriots are NOT MY TEAM! More people wanted the Falcons to win, so the Patriots are not the legit champs. See how stupid the whole popular vote argument is? Rules exist for a reason and they count.

You can't even paint a proper analogy... if you want to use football to explain the electoral college and popular vote then say something like... The teams that make it to the playoffs and then superbowl are the ones that win the most games, not the teams that collect the most cumulative points throughout the season. Get it? Its not a great analogy though as sporting games are won by points and not by the number of fans that show up, while elections are won by the number of "fans" that show up and vote.

I don't understand why you are even bringing it up though. I don't think many people are saying that he didn't win. The point they are making is that he does not have the support of more than half the country and that should be considered in his policy making, especially if he cares about unification like he said on election night.

 

[nat4900]

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

NO, moron......its constitutional to vote down a nominee....Its sheer fucked up-ness to NOT EVEN allow the nominee a hearing for a subsequent vote....based on you morons not liking Obama's tan.

Were you whining and crying when Harry Reid refused to do his job and brought government to a screeching halt for 2 years when he killed over 350 bipartisan bills? I doubt it. You probably praised his obstruction because it was your side doing it. So you'll excuse us if we call BS on your faux outrage.

Harry Reid was a turd and if you object to the obstruction that he did then you shouldn't support it from republicans either... that would make you a hypocrite.

It is a sad fact that both sides do it. Both sides do it because they have a vision for the country that is at odds with the other side. Reid stopped all legislation to protect Obama and his fundamental change that the voters rejected roundly in later elections. McConnell stopped the SCOTUS nomination to protect the nation from a liberal court. It's called politics and both sides engage and you made my point for me. People who ***** about what McConnell did are hypocrites for not calling Reid out for his action. In fact, they and the media still spout the narrative that the Republican House was obstructionist and ground government to a stand still when in fact, Reid was the culprit.

I mostly agree that Reid fucked up.......HOWEVER, Reid was smart enough to leave out the highest judgeship selection from the nuke option...Now, the turtle-chiined McConnell will be FORCED to double-down on the senate's overreach to get Gorsuch selected.......a decision hat WILL have adverse consequences.

 

[Slade3200]

In 2010 Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, etc... supported his appointment to a Federal Judge position.....

So WHY are they opposing him now, especially on issues they praised him for in 2010?

I have no problem with Gorsuch... he sounds like a good dude. To your question, there is a bit of politics being played here, which I make NO excuses for... But also, a federal appointment vs. an appointment to the supreme court are very different things. I don't think you make a strong point by bringing up the comparison.

 

[easyt65]

But also, a federal appointment vs. an appointment to the supreme court are very different things. I don't think you make a strong point by bringing up the comparison.

I beg to differ in THIS point....when you argue that he is a great judge based on his beliefs and stance on issue 'X' ... then claim that he must be filibustered / denied based on the exact same issues ... there is no difference except 'you' are being a disingenuous, partisan, butt-hurt asshole....IMO.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well they didn't give their advice and consent

Right, without their Advice and Consent there is no appointment. Now you understand.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent and they failed to do so, thus breaking the law stated in the document.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent

They need to? LOL!

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
And without....shall not.

I understand that both sides have made cases for the constitutionality of not holding a vote. The wording in the constitution is to vague as it can be interpreted both ways. My own personal opinion is that allowing 10 people in a judicial committee to decide whether or not there is going to be a hearing/vote for a presidential nominee to the SCOTUS, instead of having all of the Senate vote, is rather ridiculous. Both sides have tried to exploit this method to make political points and it is BS. The process should be easy. Prez nominates a candidate, senate has a hearing, senate votes, nominee passes or doesn't pass. Simple.

You want to point to specifics in the constitution, however we have decades of traditions and processes, for example the judicial committee and approval process, that aren't written in the constitution but have evolved through time and are part of our system. My suggestion to make hearings and full senate votes with a timetable is not a radical idea. I fail to understand why you defend the inaction and bureaucracy in DC. Why don't you want our elected leaders to simply do their jobs.

Since Bork, the Dems have made SC picks more and more political. The Republicans finally fought back.
Has any damage been done to the country by limiting Obama to his 2 bad appointments to the court?

Yes, the degradation of our political system. I don't care who started it or if you blame dems... The tit for tat games are getting very old and its "lowering our score" as they say. We need leaders who start acting with integrity and running our country in a respectful way.

The republicans could have held a hearing for Garland and voted no. It was a childish, obstructionist, and disrespectful game they were playing that set a horrible precedent and now the Dems are posturing to do the same childish thing with Gorsuch. Again, i have no clue why you defend these actions... you keep dodging my question about that.

and now the Dems are posturing to do the same childish thing with Gorsuch.

They can try. They can fail. They can whine.

Again, i have no clue why you defend these actions...

The Dems need a taste of their own medicine. **** 'em.

 

[Slade3200]

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

NO, moron......its constitutional to vote down a nominee....Its sheer fucked up-ness to NOT EVEN allow the nominee a hearing for a subsequent vote....based on you morons not liking Obama's tan.

Were you whining and crying when Harry Reid refused to do his job and brought government to a screeching halt for 2 years when he killed over 350 bipartisan bills? I doubt it. You probably praised his obstruction because it was your side doing it. So you'll excuse us if we call BS on your faux outrage.

Harry Reid was a turd and if you object to the obstruction that he did then you shouldn't support it from republicans either... that would make you a hypocrite.

It is a sad fact that both sides do it. Both sides do it because they have a vision for the country that is at odds with the other side. Reid stopped all legislation to protect Obama and his fundamental change that the voters rejected roundly in later elections. McConnell stopped the SCOTUS nomination to protect the nation from a liberal court. It's called politics and both sides engage and you made my point for me. People who ***** about what McConnell did are hypocrites for not calling Reid out for his action. In fact, they and the media still spout the narrative that the Republican House was obstructionist and ground government to a stand still when in fact, Reid was the culprit.

I know plenty of liberals who have distain for Reid... But they didn't have outspoken opposition because it progressed causes that they supported. Same reason that Republicans aren't strongly going after McConnell right now. I get it and I don't expect Republicans to rally in opposition of McConnell, but they shouldn't be defending him. If asked, I'd hope that people could at least be honest about the pettiness of these types of actions. There is a better way to do things and at some point I hope our leaders can grow some character and integrity and start aspiring for better things.

 

[Slade3200]

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent and they failed to do so, thus breaking the law stated in the document.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent

They need to? LOL!

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
And without....shall not.

I understand that both sides have made cases for the constitutionality of not holding a vote. The wording in the constitution is to vague as it can be interpreted both ways. My own personal opinion is that allowing 10 people in a judicial committee to decide whether or not there is going to be a hearing/vote for a presidential nominee to the SCOTUS, instead of having all of the Senate vote, is rather ridiculous. Both sides have tried to exploit this method to make political points and it is BS. The process should be easy. Prez nominates a candidate, senate has a hearing, senate votes, nominee passes or doesn't pass. Simple.

You want to point to specifics in the constitution, however we have decades of traditions and processes, for example the judicial committee and approval process, that aren't written in the constitution but have evolved through time and are part of our system. My suggestion to make hearings and full senate votes with a timetable is not a radical idea. I fail to understand why you defend the inaction and bureaucracy in DC. Why don't you want our elected leaders to simply do their jobs.

Since Bork, the Dems have made SC picks more and more political. The Republicans finally fought back.
Has any damage been done to the country by limiting Obama to his 2 bad appointments to the court?

Yes, the degradation of our political system. I don't care who started it or if you blame dems... The tit for tat games are getting very old and its "lowering our score" as they say. We need leaders who start acting with integrity and running our country in a respectful way.

The republicans could have held a hearing for Garland and voted no. It was a childish, obstructionist, and disrespectful game they were playing that set a horrible precedent and now the Dems are posturing to do the same childish thing with Gorsuch. Again, i have no clue why you defend these actions... you keep dodging my question about that.

The Dems need a taste of their own medicine. **** 'em.

I think this last sentence of yours says it all and proves my point that you are a dimwit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent and they failed to do so, thus breaking the law stated in the document.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent

They need to? LOL!

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
And without....shall not.

I understand that both sides have made cases for the constitutionality of not holding a vote. The wording in the constitution is to vague as it can be interpreted both ways. My own personal opinion is that allowing 10 people in a judicial committee to decide whether or not there is going to be a hearing/vote for a presidential nominee to the SCOTUS, instead of having all of the Senate vote, is rather ridiculous. Both sides have tried to exploit this method to make political points and it is BS. The process should be easy. Prez nominates a candidate, senate has a hearing, senate votes, nominee passes or doesn't pass. Simple.

You want to point to specifics in the constitution, however we have decades of traditions and processes, for example the judicial committee and approval process, that aren't written in the constitution but have evolved through time and are part of our system. My suggestion to make hearings and full senate votes with a timetable is not a radical idea. I fail to understand why you defend the inaction and bureaucracy in DC. Why don't you want our elected leaders to simply do their jobs.

Since Bork, the Dems have made SC picks more and more political. The Republicans finally fought back.
Has any damage been done to the country by limiting Obama to his 2 bad appointments to the court?

Yes, the degradation of our political system. I don't care who started it or if you blame dems... The tit for tat games are getting very old and its "lowering our score" as they say. We need leaders who start acting with integrity and running our country in a respectful way.

The republicans could have held a hearing for Garland and voted no. It was a childish, obstructionist, and disrespectful game they were playing that set a horrible precedent and now the Dems are posturing to do the same childish thing with Gorsuch. Again, i have no clue why you defend these actions... you keep dodging my question about that.

The Dems need a taste of their own medicine. **** 'em.

I think this last sentence of yours says it all and proves my point that you are a dimwit.

**** the Dems and **** their apologists.

 

[Slade3200]

But also, a federal appointment vs. an appointment to the supreme court are very different things. I don't think you make a strong point by bringing up the comparison.

I beg to differ in THIS point....when you argue that he is a great judge based on his beliefs and stance on issue 'X' ... then claim that he must be filibustered / denied based on the exact same issues ... there is no difference except 'you' are being a disingenuous, partisan, butt-hurt asshole....IMO.

Perhaps, i'm sure there is a lot of that going on... But again, the supreme court is the highest court in the land and it is balanced by 9 judges whose decisions shape the laws of our country. Ideology and balance are much more important issues when electing judges to this court than lower court nominations.

 

[Slade3200]

**** the Dems and **** their apologists.

Good, you got it out of your system, i hope you feel better now... Now go back to your playpen and let the grown ups talk. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[easyt65]

Perhaps, i'm sure there is a lot of that going on... But again, the supreme court is the highest court in the land and it is balanced by 9 judges whose decisions shape the laws of our country. Ideology and balance are much more important issues when electing judges to this court than lower court nominations.

I understand. That is why I fully believe that the best candidate for the USSC is one like Gorsuch, someone who is a Constitutionalist, who believes in the exact wording of the Constitution, who does not believe in 'reading into' or 'translating' the Constitution - influenced by agenda, someone who dies not believe in legislating from the bench, as well.

 

[hadit]

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

NO, moron......its constitutional to vote down a nominee....Its sheer fucked up-ness to NOT EVEN allow the nominee a hearing for a subsequent vote....based on you morons not liking Obama's tan.

Were you whining and crying when Harry Reid refused to do his job and brought government to a screeching halt for 2 years when he killed over 350 bipartisan bills? I doubt it. You probably praised his obstruction because it was your side doing it. So you'll excuse us if we call BS on your faux outrage.

Harry Reid was a turd and if you object to the obstruction that he did then you shouldn't support it from republicans either... that would make you a hypocrite.

It is a sad fact that both sides do it. Both sides do it because they have a vision for the country that is at odds with the other side. Reid stopped all legislation to protect Obama and his fundamental change that the voters rejected roundly in later elections. McConnell stopped the SCOTUS nomination to protect the nation from a liberal court. It's called politics and both sides engage and you made my point for me. People who ***** about what McConnell did are hypocrites for not calling Reid out for his action. In fact, they and the media still spout the narrative that the Republican House was obstructionist and ground government to a stand still when in fact, Reid was the culprit.

I know plenty of liberals who have distain for Reid... But they didn't have outspoken opposition because it progressed causes that they supported. Same reason that Republicans aren't strongly going after McConnell right now. I get it and I don't expect Republicans to rally in opposition of McConnell, but they shouldn't be defending him. If asked, I'd hope that people could at least be honest about the pettiness of these types of actions. There is a better way to do things and at some point I hope our leaders can grow some character and integrity and start aspiring for better things.

Somebody has to go first, and therein lies the problem.

 

[Slade3200]

Perhaps, i'm sure there is a lot of that going on... But again, the supreme court is the highest court in the land and it is balanced by 9 judges whose decisions shape the laws of our country. Ideology and balance are much more important issues when electing judges to this court than lower court nominations.

I understand. That is why I fully believe that the best candidate for the USSC is one like Gorsuch, someone who is a Constitutionalist, who believes in the exact wording of the Constitution, who does not believe in 'reading into' or 'translating' the Constitution - influenced by agenda, someone who dies not believe in legislating from the bench, as well.

I don't know the guy, but from what i've read, I agree, he seems like a smart, accomplished, honest man. I lean left on most social issues but I respect the constitution and the leadership of our country. I wish both sides could regain some respect for the ones in power and learn how to cooperate in policy making. It seems like we are stuck in an endless cycle of lies, manipulation, and demonizing the otherside, which only makes cooperation that much harder to achieve.

I also thought that Garland was a good guy and a fine nominee and it was absurd to sit on the vote like the Republicans did. Shame on the dems if they do the same to Gorsuch, time to step up, do the right thing, and be the "bigger" person.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

NO, moron......its constitutional to vote down a nominee....Its sheer fucked up-ness to NOT EVEN allow the nominee a hearing for a subsequent vote....based on you morons not liking Obama's tan.

Were you whining and crying when Harry Reid refused to do his job and brought government to a screeching halt for 2 years when he killed over 350 bipartisan bills? I doubt it. You probably praised his obstruction because it was your side doing it. So you'll excuse us if we call BS on your faux outrage.

Harry Reid was a turd and if you object to the obstruction that he did then you shouldn't support it from republicans either... that would make you a hypocrite.

It is a sad fact that both sides do it. Both sides do it because they have a vision for the country that is at odds with the other side. Reid stopped all legislation to protect Obama and his fundamental change that the voters rejected roundly in later elections. McConnell stopped the SCOTUS nomination to protect the nation from a liberal court. It's called politics and both sides engage and you made my point for me. People who ***** about what McConnell did are hypocrites for not calling Reid out for his action. In fact, they and the media still spout the narrative that the Republican House was obstructionist and ground government to a stand still when in fact, Reid was the culprit.

I mostly agree that Reid fucked up.......HOWEVER, Reid was smart enough to leave out the highest judgeship selection from the nuke option...Now, the turtle-chiined McConnell will be FORCED to double-down on the senate's overreach to get Gorsuch selected.......a decision hat WILL have adverse consequences.

Reid also made it clear laid the groundwork for the nuclear option when democrats were expecting to win the white house and senate just a few months ago.

I've opposed fillibusters on judicial nominees since I learned about it. Why does your support depend on who is in power?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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..

The Patriots are NOT MY TEAM! More people

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..

Boo hoo! The Patriots are NOT MY TEAM! More people wanted the Falcons to win, so the Patriots are not the legit champs. See how stupid the whole popular vote argument is? Rules exist for a reason and they count.

You can't even paint a proper analogy... if you want to use football to explain the electoral college and popular vote then say something like... The teams that make it to the playoffs and then superbowl are the ones that win the most games, not the teams that collect the most cumulative points throughout the season. Get it? Its not a great analogy though as sporting games are won by points and not by the number of fans that show up, while elections are won by the number of "fans" that show up and vote.

I don't understand why you are even bringing it up though. I don't think many people are saying that he didn't win. The point they are making is that he does not have the support of more than half the country and that should be considered in his policy making, especially if he cares about unification like he said on election night.

Then maybe you'll like my analogy better:

You and I are arguing who is the better pool player. To settle the debate, we agree to a game of 8 ball to decide.

I break and get two solid balls in and one stripe in the pockets. I choose the striped balls because I like their positions on the table better. So I start to pocket my stripped balls and accidentally hit another solid ball in. After I miss, it's your turn and you put the rest of the solid balls in and then the 8 ball.

After the game, I still claim I'm a better pool player because I got more balls in the pockets than you did.

We were not playing to see who could get the most balls in, we were playing to see who could get the most of their selected balls in. If we were playing to see who could get the most balls in, we would have played the game much differently.

If the election were about getting the most votes, Trump would have spent much, much more time campaigning in the most populated areas. More Trump supporters would have voted if every single vote counted, but I'm sure many stayed home because there was no way California or New York could be won by Trump. Therefore, we have no idea who would have won the popular vote.

 

[Slade3200]

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..

The Patriots are NOT MY TEAM! More people

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..

Boo hoo! The Patriots are NOT MY TEAM! More people wanted the Falcons to win, so the Patriots are not the legit champs. See how stupid the whole popular vote argument is? Rules exist for a reason and they count.

You can't even paint a proper analogy... if you want to use football to explain the electoral college and popular vote then say something like... The teams that make it to the playoffs and then superbowl are the ones that win the most games, not the teams that collect the most cumulative points throughout the season. Get it? Its not a great analogy though as sporting games are won by points and not by the number of fans that show up, while elections are won by the number of "fans" that show up and vote.

I don't understand why you are even bringing it up though. I don't think many people are saying that he didn't win. The point they are making is that he does not have the support of more than half the country and that should be considered in his policy making, especially if he cares about unification like he said on election night.

Then maybe you'll like my analogy better:

You and I are arguing who is the better pool player. To settle the debate, we agree to a game of 8 ball to decide.

I break and get two solid balls in and one stripe in the pockets. I choose the striped balls because I like their positions on the table better. So I start to pocket my stripped balls and accidentally hit another solid ball in. After I miss, it's your turn and you put the rest of the solid balls in and then the 8 ball.

After the game, I still claim I'm a better pool player because I got more balls in the pockets than you did.

We were not playing to see who could get the most balls in, we were playing to see who could get the most of their selected balls in. If we were playing to see who could get the most balls in, we would have played the game much differently.

If the election were about getting the most votes, Trump would have spent much, much more time campaigning in the most populated areas. More Trump supporters would have voted if every single vote counted, but I'm sure many stayed home because there was no way California or New York could be won by Trump. Therefore, we have no idea who would have won the popular vote.

Sure, you can use the pool analogy, but again, I don't think the focus of many has anything to do with whether Trump won the election or not. He won, he is the leader. My point and I think the point of many is that the numbers show that he didn't win the support of over half the country so if he is going to unify he needs to listen to more people than just his base. You can't deny that so far he is one of the most contentious presidents in US history.