gorSuch a Great Choice

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

See what I mean? The libtards do not understand who is and has been in the majority. 

The l-tards seem completely unaware that the dems were in the minority when garland was nominated (meaning the pubs were in the majority) and that the pubs remain in the majority for gorsuch's appointment (meaning the dems are still the minority).  No party has ever unilaterally filibustered a scotus appointment. Not confirming an opposing party's nominee who has a majority vote is a completely separate issue.

The dems have zero leverage and the pubs are not going to back down and I suspect most non-psycho dems will fall in step. Because next time Trump is putting a rubber stamp on the bench.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).

So why not give him a hearing and vote him down?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

what i don't understand is how the Pubs leadership is so ineffective that they cant execute any policy change while having the power to do so

This is a great question. Get it together r-tards, you have unrestrained power

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).

So why not give him a hearing and vote him down?

Because huge waste of time, effort and resources. Were you rough ridin' unconscious when Gorsuch was going through his 3 days of 10 hour a day of senate testimony and weeks of written testimony, testimony before the senate committee?

Jesus rough ridin' christ, what a stupid goddamn question.

[catastrophe]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).

So why not give him a hearing and vote him down?

Super dumb move by Republicans IMO, similar to how they are not drawing this nomination out a little longer.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

If obama had appointed a non-lunatic like gorsuch, his nominee would have been confirmed. Obama already nominated two lunatics, and a crap load more to the circuit courts after the dems changed the filibuster rules (in the exact same manner the pubs are threatening to do).

So why not give him a hearing and vote him down?

Because huge waste of time, effort and resources. Were you rough ridin' unconscious when Gorsuch was going through his 3 days of 10 hour a day of senate testimony and weeks of written testimony, testimony before the senate committee?

Jesus rough ridin' christ, what a stupid goddamn question.

Oh, it's because they would have had to work a few more hours?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."

[wetwillie]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."

That wasn't so hard, I don't understand why FSD kept dancing around it.

[catastrophe]

"Risking" Republicans voting with Democrats on something is the most rough ridin' dumb and disgusting (and probably accurate) reason to not hold a vote.

[Emo EMAW]

Sdk the last presidential term differs from the current term in that the party of the president and majority party of the senate were not / are now the same. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."

If you have squishes on your side that are going to break ranks, do you really have a majority?

[Gooch]

The lame duck argument is so damn stupid. The 'Pubs stole a nomination from a sitting President. No appointment of Trump should be considered until after the conclusion of the FBI investigation. He could be getting impeached so I guess he is a lame duck too.

[star seed 7]

Pences idea of a good justice is probably one that believes in the implementation of christian sharia law, so I don't know if we want him picking

[Emo EMAW]

I love how Gooch counters an allegedly stupid argument with a colossally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) argument.   

[Gooch]

I love how Gooch counters an allegedly stupid argument with a colossally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) argument.   

How is it different?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think the absolute best thing that might come out of this is Gorsuch getting confirmed and then ruling against the travel ban.

[Emo EMAW]

I love how Gooch counters an allegedly stupid argument with a colossally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) argument.   

How is it different?

If you can't tell then I doubt you'd understand me explaining it to you.

[Mrs. Gooch]

Pences idea of a good justice is probably one that believes in the implementation of christian sharia law, so I don't know if we want him picking

Eating dinner with anyone other than your wife will be outlawed.

[SdK]

Sdk the last presidential term differs from the current term in that the party of the president and majority party of the senate were not / are now the same.

That makes sense. I didn't really think it through before I posted.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Pences idea of a good justice is probably one that believes in the implementation of christian sharia law, so I don't know if we want him picking

Eating dinner with anyone other than your wife will be outlawed.

That is doubtful. I would expect the court to see bathroom legislation, though.

[AbeFroman]

I think it's funny that Reagan was allowed to nominate a judge in his last year as President but Obama was just a "lame duck". Maybe duck is a euphemism for a racial slur?

[mocat]

I think it's funny that Reagan was allowed to nominate a judge in his last year as President but Obama was just a "lame duck". Maybe duck is a euphemism for a racial slur?

"lame spook"

[Emo EMAW]

Obama nominated one just didn't get confirmed.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Why not give Garland a hearing and then vote him down, then?

Because that would have risked a couple of squishes breaking ranks, and even if they had voted him down, it would have been a waste of time and Obama would have just appointed someone else. Are you suggesting you would have preferred that political theatre? The GOP was completely honest about what they were doing, and they had the power to it. As the majority they said "no thanks lame duck, we'll figure this out with the new president."

If you have squishes on your side that are going to break ranks, do you really have a majority?

Yes. Having a majority in the senate actually means things procedurally even if that majority doesn't always hold together on votes.