Neil Gorsuch - Nominee to the Supreme Court

[Bray Wyatt]

Wasn't a simple majority all that was required prior to 2003?

[DC Tom]

Wasn't a simple majority all that was required prior to 2003?

 

It's all that's ever been required, unless somebody filibustered. Alito and Thomas only got 58 and 52 votes, respectively.

[Rob's House]

It's just so glorious that the dems squandered the Garland high ground and exposed themselves for petty partisan hacks who never gave half a **** about the principles they passionately espoused and have absolutely nothing to show for it.

[B-Man]

#SCOTUS

[Bray Wyatt]

 

It's all that's ever been required, unless somebody filibustered. Alito and Thomas only got 58 and 52 votes, respectively.

 

I guess I don't see the big deal then about going "nuclear" like the networks seem to think we should

[Doc Brown]

It's just so glorious that the dems squandered the Garland high ground and exposed themselves for petty partisan hacks who never gave half a **** about the principles they passionately espoused and have absolutely nothing to show for it.

I recall Republicans like McCain and Cruz threatening to not let any Hillary appointee for SCOTUS get through in her first term if she did become president before election. Both sides are hypocrites and childish.

[B-Man]

I recall Republicans like McCain and Cruz threatening to not let any Hillary appointee for SCOTUS get through in her first term if she did become president before election. Both sides are hypocrites and childish.

 

Link?

 

You are listing two senators who are light years apart.

 

I do not "recall" any such statements

Edited April 7, 2017 by B-Man

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

Link?

 

You are listing two senators who are light years apart.

 

I do not "recall" any such statements

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/cruz-supreme-court-blockade-230363

 

More evidence of the failing of the Senate, no matter what party put them in, even your guys.

[DC Tom]

 

I guess I don't see the big deal then about going "nuclear" like the networks seem to think we should

I explained it above. RMPL.

[KD in CA]

I just finished reading a newspaper piece on yesterday's "nuclear option" wherein the writer stated that the Senate's tradition of bipartisan cooperation was forever shattered. In the words of that great 20th Century philosophe, Aretha Franklin, "Who's Zoomin Who?"

Yes of course, everything was peachy before yesterday. 🙄

[KD in CA]

 

I guess I don't see the big deal then about going "nuclear" like the networks seem to think we should

It's unfortunate, but it's just one more step in a deterioration that's been happening for years, just as Reid's was 4 years ago.

 

Naturally the mainstream fake news outlets only get hysterical about it when the GOP is the party pushing further down the road of no return.

[Doc Brown]

 

Link?

 

You are listing two senators who are light years apart.

 

I do not "recall" any such statements

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/01/republican-senators-oppose-clinton-supreme-court-nominee

[Rob's House]

I recall Republicans like McCain and Cruz threatening to not let any Hillary appointee for SCOTUS get through in her first term if she did become president before election. Both sides are hypocrites and childish.

Don't be "both sides" guy. That guy sucks.

[GoBills808]

Nothing happened to Garland. The Senate did it's duty.

I firmly believe the Senate's duty is to put SC nominees through a rigorous committee vetting and, if he's/she's a good pick, confirm the president's choice. Both Gorsuch and Garland were good picks.

 

They lost all credibility with how they handled Garland. Turns out...big surprise, they're just partisan lightweights. We need term limits ASAP.

[row_33]

Hurts to lose power, especially when the Dems and the media were doing a big taunting and dance of joy until Trump whipped them.

 

Now they are powerless and even better just got bit in the behind by a reckless move when they held the most important power

 

Looks so good on them.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

Don't be "both sides" guy. That guy sucks.

I'll always vote Democrat unless they go too far left, but the corruptness and hypocrisy in Washington consumes both sides.

[boyst]

I firmly believe the Senate's duty is to put SC nominees through a rigorous committee vetting and, if he's/she's a good pick, confirm the president's choice. Both Gorsuch and Garland were good picks.

 

They lost all credibility with how they handled Garland. Turns out...big surprise, they're just partisan lightweights. We need term limits ASAP.

they lost credibility with Hagan, you asshat.

 

You can't grill a Scotus nominee. You can't ask them questions about how they may rule. That's not how it works. Instead, you do homework on their past rulings and determine information based off of those facts. They were too lazy and stupid to do that and just showed their ass.

[row_33]

The only question that matters to the Dems and the media is "do you approve of completely unrestricted abortion at any time, place, circumstance, even after the child is born if it is inconvenient."

 

That's the only thing on their minds...

 

Yay...

[B-Man]

[TakeYouToTasker]

I firmly believe the Senate's duty is to put SC nominees through a rigorous committee vetting and, if he's/she's a good pick, confirm the president's choice. Both Gorsuch and Garland were good picks.

 

They lost all credibility with how they handled Garland. Turns out...big surprise, they're just partisan lightweights. We need term limits ASAP.

The Senates Constitutional duty is to "advise and consent". The Constitution does not describe the process by which this is to be done, but rather leaves it to the Senate to define the process per it's own rules. With that said, the Senate absolutely met it's Constitutional obligation in regards to Merrick Garland.

 

And of course there was partisan hackery by Republicans. They weren't left with much choice given the political environment created by Senate Democrats, including the stance of then Senator Joe Biden who spelled out exactly the strategy the Republicans used when it was politically convenient for Senate Democrats.

 

The Republicans were doing nothing more than playing by the rules the Democrats established.

 

As for term limits? Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. If you want to solve the problem of hard line party politics in the Senate, the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.

 

The way Senators are currently elected they need to report to the fringes of their respective bases, just like the House. As long as Senators are required to represent those elements of their party to hold office, term limits won't help as you'll just have more rapid turnover of the same sort of candidate.

 

To solve the problem, you have to change the type of candidate getting elected. To do that, Senators must return to being representatives of the state governments.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Don't be "both sides" guy. That guy sucks.

JMO On the contrary. It's the man who takes the middle ground who stands tallest.

 

About half the country is Republican, half the country is Democrat with a bunch of Independents mixed in. Neither "side" is what is best for all Americans.

 

When some politicians run into some road bumps because of redistricting or whatnot they will switch sides.

[Dorkington]

Congratulations to conservatives for controlling all three branches of federal government.

 

While I disagree with many of your beliefs, I truly hope you lead this country in a positive direction.

[grinreaper]

Congratulations to conservatives for controlling all three branches of federal government.

 

While I disagree with many of your beliefs, I truly hope you lead this country in a positive direction.

Spoken like a patriot.

[DC Tom]

Congratulations to conservatives for controlling all three branches of federal government.

 

While I disagree with many of your beliefs, I truly hope you lead this country in a positive direction.

 

Here's to hoping they attempt to ban the Democratic party.

[Doc Brown]

The only question that matters to the Dems and the media is "do you approve of completely unrestricted abortion at any time, place, circumstance, even after the child is born if it is inconvenient."

 

That's the only thing on their minds...

 

Yay...

I think Citzens United and Voter ID laws mean more to the politicians. As for abortion, Trump needs to put another judge on the Supreme Court and get a case that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. They ruled 5-3 last Summer against Texas's abortion regulations.

[DC Tom]

I think Citzens United and Voter ID laws mean more to the politicians. As for abortion, Trump needs to put another judge on the Supreme Court and get a case that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. They ruled 5-3 last Summer against Texas's abortion regulations.

 

Roe v Wade is not getting overturned. Every case heard by the court since has pretty much upheld it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I think Citzens United and Voter ID laws mean more to the politicians. As for abortion, Trump needs to put another judge on the Supreme Court and get a case that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. They ruled 5-3 last Summer against Texas's abortion regulations.

Even if Trump were to replace Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Breyer with hard line social conservatives, which he won't because Senate Republicans wouldn't support it, and it doesn't fit with his own politics; the Court still wouldn't have enough votes to overturn Roe.

Edited April 10, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

Even if Trump were to replace Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Breyer with hard line social conservatives, which he won't because Senate Republicans wouldn't support it, and it doesn't fit with his own politics; the Court still wouldn't have enough votes to overturn Roe.

 

Hell, you could probably convince Ginsburg to vote against Roe if you really tried. She hated the decision because it enforced the patriarchy by explicitly supporting doctor's rights to perform abortions.

[Bray Wyatt]

It's unfortunate, but it's just one more step in a deterioration that's been happening for years, just as Reid's was 4 years ago.

 

Naturally the mainstream fake news outlets only get hysterical about it when the GOP is the party pushing further down the road of no return.

 

tbh I think it started when Obama pushed the ACA through without working with the republicans, that drew a line in the sand that we have yet to come back from and when there were gripes he said essentially tough **** (elections have consequences)

Edited April 10, 2017 by Bray Wyatt

[Deranged Rhino]

 

tbh I think it started when Obama pushed the ACA through without working with the republicans, that drew a line in the sand that we have yet to come back from and when there were gripes he said essentially tough **** (elections have consequences)

 

It started well before then, with Newt's crusade against 42. That's when (our modern) hyper-partisanship really took root.

[Nanker]

It started well before then, with Newt's crusade against 42. That's when (our modern) hyper-partisanship really took root.

Yep. Pretty much that. Newt made Bill irrelevant for a time and Clinton never forgot that and his cronies have been on a vendetta ever since.

[GoBills808]

The Senates Constitutional duty is to "advise and consent". The Constitution does not describe the process by which this is to be done, but rather leaves it to the Senate to define the process per it's own rules. With that said, the Senate absolutely met it's Constitutional obligation in regards to Merrick Garland.

 

And of course there was partisan hackery by Republicans. They weren't left with much choice given the political environment created by Senate Democrats, including the stance of then Senator Joe Biden who spelled out exactly the strategy the Republicans used when it was politically convenient for Senate Democrats.

 

The Republicans were doing nothing more than playing by the rules the Democrats established.

 

As for term limits? Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. If you want to solve the problem of hard line party politics in the Senate, the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.

 

The way Senators are currently elected they need to report to the fringes of their respective bases, just like the House. As long as Senators are required to represent those elements of their party to hold office, term limits won't help as you'll just have more rapid turnover of the same sort of candidate.

 

To solve the problem, you have to change the type of candidate getting elected. To do that, Senators must return to being representatives of the state governments.

Absolutely. I think advise and consent is generally understood to be fairly narrowly defined by convention, but you're right. And certainly political convenience and hypocrisy are the defaults of both parties, recently.

 

I agree term limits don't solve partisanship, but they might be an incentive to actually get work done instead of worrying about being reelected (and who's paying for the campaign), which would require a measure of bipartisanship.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

I agree term limits don't solve partisanship, but they might be an incentive to actually get work done instead of worrying about being reelected (and who's paying for the campaign), which would require a measure of bipartisanship.

The problem is getting elected in the first place, and then the stewardship of the seat.

 

There is no incentive to "get things done", which is far to broad of a term to be meaningful anyway. You'll still be electing Senators representative of their party's base, which means they will be hyper partisan.

 

This will be the case as long as Senators are elected directly by the people, which is the reason why the Senate wasn't designed to be elected by individual citizens. It was designed to be a check and balance on the House, which was designed to be closest to the people, and as such would carve out alliances all across the political spectrum, which would have to be cobbled together in coalitions to advance legislation.

 

As long as the Senate is acting as a "Super House of Representatives" itself, it will be unable to be a check on the actual House.

 

Repeal the 17th.

[GoBills808]

 

 

The problem is getting elected in the first place, and then the stewardship of the seat.

 

There is no incentive to "get things done", which is far to broad of a term to be meaningful anyway. You'll still be electing Senators representative of their party's base, which means they will be hyper partisan.

 

This will be the case as long as Senators are elected directly by the people, which is the reason why the Senate wasn't designed to be elected by individual citizens. It was designed to be a check and balance on the House, which was designed to be closest to the people, and as such would carve out alliances all across the political spectrum, which would have to be cobbled together in coalitions to advance legislation.

 

As long as the Senate is acting as a "Super House of Representatives" itself, it will be unable to be a check on the actual House.

 

Repeal the 17th.

 

Fair. I'd be in favor of both.

Edited April 10, 2017 by GoBills808

[Bray Wyatt]

Yep. Pretty much that. Newt made Bill irrelevant for a time and Clinton never forgot that and his cronies have been on a vendetta ever since.

 

What happened in the 8 years between Clinton and Obama? I don't recall this during W's term. You think that some fences would have been mended.

 

It is starting to feel like the Hatfields and McCoys

[DC Tom]

 

What happened in the 8 years between Clinton and Obama? I don't recall this during W's term. You think that some fences would have been mended.

 

Iraq, mostly. Congressional Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion had to make up a ridiculous song-and-dance about "We're not responsible for our own actions because Howdy Doody lied to us!" to save face.

[boyst]

Congratulations to conservatives for controlling all three branches of federal government.

 

While I disagree with many of your beliefs, I truly hope you lead this country in a positive direction.

can i mail you a MAGA blouse?

[Bray Wyatt]

 

Iraq, mostly. Congressional Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion had to make up a ridiculous song-and-dance about "We're not responsible for our own actions because Howdy Doody lied to us!" to save face.

 

Lol of course, they don't want to accept responsibility for their actions, I thought that was a staple of their party

[grinreaper]

 

What happened in the 8 years between Clinton and Obama? I don't recall this during W's term. You think that some fences would have been mended.

 

It is starting to feel like the Hatfields and McCoys

You don't remember General Betrayus? The 2000 presidential election got a lot of partisans on the left up in arms. They calmed down after 9/11 through " Mission Accomplished" but started up again during the ill prepared occupation.

[Nanker]

 

What happened in the 8 years between Clinton and Obama? I don't recall this during W's term. You think that some fences would have been mended.

 

It is starting to feel like the Hatfields and McCoys

Well, I'd say the Republicans - for what they're worth - did at least try at times to have comity with the Democratic majority. Look at the votes for Sotomayor 68 - 31, and Kagan 61 - 31. A lot more Republicans voted to confirm those two liberals than the three Democrats that voted to confirm Gorsuch. But the Dems are so galvanized and petrified by the hysterical prog leftists that they're afraid to do anything that seems even remotely going along with the Republicans. They're scared schitless of losing their seat. It's like the wack-o lefties are playing the Great White to their representatives' Captain Quint.