gorSuch a Great Choice

[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."

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

Anything else patently obvious you'd like me to admit? That might be a fun thread if its own.

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

Comparing garland to gorsuch is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Comparing obama to reagan might be more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Filibustering a scotus nominee is absurd.

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

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.

Anything else patently obvious you'd like me to admit? That might be a fun thread if its own.

Considering the pubs had something like 56 senators and some 30+ were up for reelection, there was zero rough ridin' risk of breaking ranks, but I suppose they could have filibustered anyways....

It would have been a pointless waste of time to have a hearing on garland, and it's absurd to think he would have been confirmed at that stage in the toilet hole b.o. presidentancy.  The demtards need to accept the fact that they didn't have the votes and move on. It's called democracy, no matter how much they yearn for police state neo-fascism. Win more senate seats if you want to confirm your lunatic judges. You rammed two through in two years through convenient retirement.

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

And McConnel doesn't get enough props for the stones it took to pull off the political gamble of the decade, if not our lifetime.

He obviously knew what a loser b.o. was, was well aware that b.o. scorched all of his political capital in like 18 mos., and was basically an unprecedented theocrat without purpose or objective, but still nobody saw Don throwing hilltard over his knee and spanking her ass.

[sonofdaxjones]

Tremendous lib butthurt in this thread

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

GOP has initiated the rule change - Gorsuch to be confirmed Friday. Gorsuch seems like a promising addition to Team Rule of Law and a setback for Team The Law Is What I Want It To Be.

[star seed 7]

Grats

[wetwillie]

Congrats FSD you earned this one.

[sonofdaxjones]

Living breathers/we'll take into account what they said as a private citizen/let's look at foreign law'ers may have taken a hit on this one.

[cfbandyman]

GOP has initiated the rule change - Gorsuch to be confirmed Friday. Gorsuch seems like a promising addition to Team Rule of Law and a setback for Team The Law Is What I Want It To Be.

Which is funny cause you had to change the rules to get it to work, but hey, what happens when you get to be the ones to write the rules.

[catastrophe]

[SdK]

Is it not strange that a law had to be changed to get a "by the books as they are written judge" in? Or have I missed something.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.

[Phil Titola]

I don't think the 60 vote limit should have been changed...but the dems breached that line first.  Nobody to blame but themselves.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Is it not strange that a law had to be changed to get a "by the books as they are written judge" in? Or have I missed something.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

It wasn't a law that was changed. Just a standard operational procedure. I think it is better this way, really. The filibuster is a ridiculous practice.

We probably should make it law that congress has to have a hearing and vote on all presidential appointments within a realistic timeframe, though. The Garland thing was ridiculous.

[cfbandyman]

I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.

Oh I understand the difference, just pointing out that you had to change it to get what you wanted. I find some (a lot) of irony in it/ your statement. It was perfectly legal, and allowed. Just funny to trumpet following rules, and instead changing them how you best see fit.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.

Oh I understand the difference, just pointing out that you had to change it to get what you wanted. I find some (a lot) of irony in it/ your statement. It was perfectly legal, and allowed. Just funny to trumpet following rules, and instead changing them how you best see fit.

Well, it's sort of Congress's job to change rules/laws.

[cfbandyman]

I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.

Oh I understand the difference, just pointing out that you had to change it to get what you wanted. I find some (a lot) of irony in it/ your statement. It was perfectly legal, and allowed. Just funny to trumpet following rules, and instead changing them how you best see fit.

Well, it's sort of Congress's job to change rules/laws.

Agreed, hence the irony, not like the constitution ever evolves or cant change overtime, it was written by freaking demigods from on high who know better than you or I on how to properly run anything. Not like we changed it 27 times, or want to change it again, but no, got to be exactly what the framers said, no changes, no taksie backsies, unless you know, you see fit.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.

Oh I understand the difference, just pointing out that you had to change it to get what you wanted. I find some (a lot) of irony in it/ your statement. It was perfectly legal, and allowed. Just funny to trumpet following rules, and instead changing them how you best see fit.

Well, it's sort of Congress's job to change rules/laws.

Agreed, hence the irony, not like the constitution ever evolves or cant change overtime, it was written by freaking demigods from on high who know better than you or I on how to properly run anything. Not like we changed it 27 times, or want to change it again, but no, got to be exactly what the framers said, no changes, no taksie backsies, unless you know, you see fit.

You really need to sit this out bub. You're making a fool of yourself. Amendments are the constitutional way of changing the constitution. Not a handful of judges just making crap up to reach the result they want.

[SdK]

I'm gonna chalk this up to poor trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not understand the difference bw a legislature changing a rule/law they don't like and a judge doing that. Or maybe that's exactly the problem: liberals don't understand the difference.

Relax Broham. I wasn't being super serial. When I make posts like this they usually get ignored. I'll stick to serious only posts in the pit moving forward.

[catastrophe]

Some people ITT don't understand irony. SAD!

[Yard Dog]

Is it not strange that a law had to be changed to get a "by the books as they are written judge" in? Or have I missed something.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

It wasn't a law that was changed. Just a standard operational procedure. I think it is better this way, really. The filibuster is a ridiculous practice.

We probably should make it law that congress has to have a hearing and vote on all presidential appointments within a realistic timeframe, though. The Garland thing was ridiculous.

I agree with all of that. 

[catastrophe]

Not sure how that kind of a law would work. If they don't approve the nomination in time, what's the penalty: automatically approved or automatically denied? Either way incentivizes one party to obstruct the process and make sure a vote is not held.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Not sure how that kind of a law would work. If they don't approve the nomination in time, what's the penalty: automatically approved or automatically denied? Either way incentivizes one party to obstruct the process and make sure a vote is not held.

Automatic approval. They wouldn't have to approve the nomination in time. They would have to have a vote and either approve or disapprove.

[cfbandyman]

Not sure how that kind of a law would work. If they don't approve the nomination in time, what's the penalty: automatically approved or automatically denied? Either way incentivizes one party to obstruct the process and make sure a vote is not held.

Automatic approval. They wouldn't have to approve the nomination in time. They would have to have a vote and either approve or disapprove.

Gives a little more power to the prez if auto approve, little more power to the senate if auto denied. Prolly a wash.