gorSuch a Great Choice

[Emo EMAW]

Why don't the R's float the idea of some really crazy right wing nomination as a threat?

[wetwillie]

Why don't the R's float the idea of some really crazy right wing nomination as a threat?

Did you see how the healthcare thing went down?  They have like 52 pubs, it's extremely fragile.

[Emo EMAW]

Why don't the R's float the idea of some really crazy right wing nomination as a threat?

Did you see how the healthcare thing went down?  They have like 52 pubs, it's extremely fragile.

Seems like a good way to get a moderate confirmed with 60 votes tho.  You're only looking to pick up one vote vs lose 8.

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

They can't even articulate a basis to oppose him. He's as good as on the court.

[puniraptor]

They can't even articulate a basis to oppose him. He's as good as on the court.

they are just doing it so the pubs change the rules to ruin the senate, win win for them. the pubs take the heat and look like anti american assbrains for changing the rules, and the dems get to use the new rules to ruin america with ease when the cycle comes around

[catastrophe]

They can't even articulate a basis to oppose him. He's as good as on the court.

they are just doing it so the pubs change the rules to ruin the senate, win win for them. the pubs take the heat and look like anti american assbrains for changing the rules, and the dems get to use the new rules to ruin america with ease when the cycle comes around

No one is going to care about the rule change, just like no one cared about Democrats doing the same thing for cabinet appointments under Obama.

I do agree the filibuster is pretty stupid. You either need 50 votes or you need 60. Make up your minds.

[Emo EMAW]

It seems though like the dems are hell bent on not confirming anyone (no matter who it is) as retribution. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Wow, the party of NO (that's the Dems) is nothing but hate hate hate

Sad

[LickNeckey]

I disagree with the position that Dems are currently taking and wish moderation would win out and talk in substanative terms.

Wow, the party of NO (that's the Dems) is nothing but hate hate hate

Sad

This however, after the last 8 years and the lack of respect given to Garland, is asinine.

[sonofdaxjones]

I disagree with the position that Dems are currently taking and wish moderation would win out and talk in substanative terms.

Wow, the party of NO (that's the Dems) is nothing but hate hate hate

Sad

This however, after the last 8 years and the lack of respect given to Garland, is asinine.

Not really

[LickNeckey]

if the Dems have exclusive ownership of the party of "NO" please explain both the last 8 years and the inability of Pubs themselves to move forward policy outside of E.O.'s and functionally govern

[catastrophe]

Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing Republicans did during Obama's first term, which is fine for me. The more both parties alienate reasonable people, the more likely we can get a true centrist/moderate voting bloc together.

[LickNeckey]

i disagree with the position being taken by Democrats by i understand it

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

[star seed 7]

Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing Republicans did during Obama's first term, which is fine for me. The more both parties alienate reasonable people, the more likely we can get a true centrist/moderate voting bloc together.

Lol

[SdK]

I want a viable 3rd party as well


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

Dems: Party of No

SMDH

[mocat]

seems like such a waste of time imo

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm hearing a lot of talk about how the Dems wouldn't be filibustering if Trump had nominated "a more moderate" judge. Putting aside the fact that nobody except perhaps some partisan liberals really believe this - what exactly does "moderate judge" mean? You either believe laws should be interpreted based upon the text and intent of the drafters without regard to policy outcome, or you believe that judges should be free to and in fact have an obligation to interpret laws based upon policy outcome. Does a moderate judge just sort of go and back and forth on that? Like a M-W-F versus T-Th plus every other weekend arrangement?

[Gooch]

So tell me why Garland never even got a rough ridin' hearing then?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So tell me why Garland never even got a rough ridin' hearing then?

Because the GOP held the Senate Majority. Just as they do now. That's not a filibuster. This really isn't all that complicated. Nothing but a parliamentary rule currently gives the Dems the power to stop Gorsuch, and that rule can be changed. Again - the power of the Senate Majority.

The GOP decided that they were not going to allow a lame duck Obama to replace Scalia with another "Living Constitution" political hack. They decided to let the next president pick the successor, thereby letting the American People decide. At the time, it seemed like an exercise in futility, given that Hillary seemed destined to succeed Obama. But then a funny thing happened on the way to her coronation.

None of this seems particularly hard to understand. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

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

[SdK]

KSU, didn't the American people vote Obama in? How is that different than the American people voting Trump in?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[SdK]

Also what Rage said.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[Gooch]

So tell me why Garland never even got a rough ridin' hearing then?

Because the GOP held the Senate Majority. Just as they do now. That's not a filibuster. This really isn't all that complicated. Nothing but a parliamentary rule currently gives the Dems the power to stop Gorsuch, and that rule can be changed. Again - the power of the Senate Majority.

The GOP decided that they were not going to allow a lame duck Obama to replace Scalia with another "Living Constitution" political hack. They decided to let the next president pick the successor, thereby letting the American People decide. At the time, it seemed like an exercise in futility, given that Hillary seemed destined to succeed Obama. But then a funny thing happened on the way to her coronation.

None of this seems particularly hard to understand. 

So you're "The Ed" of constitutionality? Rules is rules (but only when in your favor).

[AbeFroman]

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

Because it's more fun to throw a tempertantrum.