'Nuclear option' expected after Democrats filibuster Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

a reply to: Aazadan

I absolutely DO agree with you that both sides are acting like spoiled children.

Still, I don't think its right to say that the seat 'belongs' to a nominee from either Obama OR Trump. The Senate owes the nominee a fair hearing, and maybe Garland didn't get that from the GOP...and I'd say the same for the Dems with regard to Gorsuch, but regardless, the Senate does not owe either the nominee or the president a confirmation.

Although I'm happy to see that Gorsuch will be confirmed, I can understand why Democrats and the left in general are pissed off about it. I would be, too, if the roles were reversed, but I also don't think that any of this was out of bounds.

a reply to: yuppa

sounds like a bunch of excuses, russian agents in our highest offices no big deal, internet laws screw them, and acting like a child and fighting with ALL your critics is something a 3 year old does.

i might agree with the mentally challenged argument but the point is acting like liberalism is the root of evil is just as stupid as thinking conservatism is as well.

This is a strategic blunder for the Democrats, but the Philabuster has always been a literal waste of hot air, I even thought that when Rand was doing it against Obama. And the next supreme court judge can be even more conservative without a fight.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Aazadan

" That's true, but if it didn't go to Garland, it still should have gone to someone Obama appointed. "



Isn't it Obvious ?

Obvious that I believe Obama should have gotten his constitutionally defined Supreme Court pick? What the Republicans did for a year in delaying a nomination was absurd, unconstitutional, and should have been a wake up call to everyone in the US at just how bad things have gotten. I actually give Trump credit here, because he broke party lines and agreed that Obama should have gotten the pick.

I would agree with the same thing for Trump, I fully expect him to get another pick during his remaining term, and there's a 1/3 chance that pick falls during the year before his reelection. I would stand up and say he should get it in that case.

But no, you seem to be labeling me with some partisan agenda, I don't have one. I want the rule of law to prevail, not the law of the jungle.

originally posted by: yuppa
Well 14 minutes ago they just used the option.

It was pretty obvious they would. It's not something I agree with, but it is what it is. It's going to be justified as the Democrats having done it first. Then the Democrats are going to justify what they did by pointing out the abuse of filibusters, and the fact that it was preventing the legislating that people voted for from happening. Then the Republicans are going to justify that by saying they were saving the country from Obama, and then the Democrats are going to say that the Republicans were wrong and it was only justified when they saved the country from Bush.

Repeat forever.

The nuclear option is probably a necessity to enable any legislation to happen these days. I imagine it will be much the same in 2018. That doesn't mean I have to like it though. To me it represents the absolute break down and failure of those in power to govern, that they can only pass bills with a party majority rather than make anything bipartisan. The nuclear option is an unsustainable short term solution to what is really a long term problem. Democracy only exists through compromise, and measures like this remove compromise from the government.

originally posted by: Aazadan
What the Republicans did for a year in delaying a nomination was absurd, unconstitutional, and should have been a wake up call to everyone in the US at just how bad things have gotten.

How was it unconstitutional? The Whig Party held Presidents Tyler* and Polk's picks hostage for over two years, the precedent is there.


*Tyler actually had TWO vacancies of over a year

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It goes against the intent of the Constitution. There's probably an argument that it's fine because it's legal according to the precise letter of the law, but it does very much go against the spirit of the law. Ironic considering the conservative desire to get someone on the bench who considers original intent over how it's written.

originally posted by: Aazadan
It goes against the intent of the Constitution. There's probably an argument that it's fine because it's legal according to the precise letter of the law, but it does very much go against the spirit of the law. Ironic considering the conservative desire to get someone on the bench who considers original intent over how it's written.

You have fun arguing 'spirit' in front of the Supreme Court. I would think someone from either party (and the defunct ones) would have tried to argue the spirit was not kept by now. Maybe the Democrats will try that tactic.

What happened with Obama's choice is nothing new at all.

The obstruction by the Democrats is unlike anything we've ever seen. By comparison Republicans gave Obama carte blanche. Obama got 2 Justices, Democrats are exposing themselves as true hypocrites by not even allowing Trump to get 1.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

I am a democrat and i agree with you. And I agree with the simple majority. The consequences of who you vote for

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This is a strategic blunder for the Democrats, but the Philabuster has always been a literal waste of hot air, I even thought that when Rand was doing it against Obama. And the next supreme court judge can be even more conservative without a fight.

This is one reason why they have such a problem as a party. This is a democrat in congress. I have little faith in them as leaders. I do think old Hank would be a hoot at parties though.

Just dropping this here, came across earlier and thought
it was interesting. Apparently, someone has been out
shopping a way to discredit Gorsuch.

www.nationalreview.com...

Could've been someone paid by Soros, or maybe Correct the Record.

On a side note, noticed its been quite devoid of CTR
as of late, apparently the "director" had a heart attack.

Isn't this a surprise... John McCain has harsh words for fellow Republicans invoking the Nuclear option.

""Republicans in the Senate went nuclear on Thursday, and some of their own party members are not happy. Senator John McCain said after the move, Thursday was "a bad day for democracy."

McCain was upset with fellow Republicans who voted to change Senate rules. The nuclear option changes long-standing rules in order to block Democrats from filibustering against Supreme Court nominees.

"I think it's a terrible mistake that we will regret for many, many years to come," McCain said.""

Source: www.aol.com...

You'd think that Senator McCain would be thrilled by anything called "NUCLEAR". Go figure...

originally posted by: carewemust

You'd think that Senator McCain would be thrilled by anything called "NUCLEAR". Go figure...

McCain is a weird bird.

I'd go as far to say he is a wacko bird, since he used
this language on Rand Paul and Ted Cruz during the
congressional hearings on dronings.

McCain is in his last years of public service.
Seems he has always played out his conflicted
inner self upon our country.

a reply to: burntheships

Definitely a weird personality. You do an ATS search on "McCain" and the threads where he's the subject, range from wacko to warrior to weirdo.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: PhuckingWhiteMale

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: DBCowboy

if you do not know the reason behind "Reid breaking the dam", then your simplistic answer makes sense...tell you what, I think the democrats should follow in the footsteps of their fellow republican senators, and frankly state to the public that it is their intention to make trump a one-term president, and to block EVERYTHING the republicans senators, as well as the president, proposes for the next 4 years.....

Have you forgotten the Bush years? Democrats obstructed and acted exactly like they're acting now.

originally posted by: therealfreeworld


Let's move on to the next crisis!

I realy hope usa ready for the nuclear retaliasion[/quot

what supreme court nominee during the bush years was totally banned by the senate because of a open seat on the court?

Umm. Harriet Mears? From what I know, she was not only
never a judge, she didn't even work in the Article III area.
Everybody was (uncluding Y.T.) going, WTFW?
Note: I've got to find out if there's an FM station with those
call letters, and never tune in.

Back to the thread.. be careful what you demand, Harry. It
will invariably outlive you, and maybe grow fangs.

Besides, if I'm right from the MSM news blurbs of all colors--
this is supposedly the FIRST SCOTUS nomination that was
being threatened by a Congressional filibuster. And Chucky
S. said "There's got to be a first time for everything."
I wonder if he's lost a Senatorial seat yet? Nah he's from NY.

To the meat of the Dem's ire, they may NEVER get the idea
that a real Justice is supposed to rule on a disputed law for
its constitutionality and nothing else. It doesn't make me a
conservative or even a Scalia fan... maybe partially sane though.

a reply to: carewemust

McCain is the democrats mole. of course he would be upset. HE is republican in name alone.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: yuppa

sounds like a bunch of excuses, russian agents in our highest offices no big deal, internet laws screw them, and acting like a child and fighting with ALL your critics is something a 3 year old does.

i might agree with the mentally challenged argument but the point is acting like liberalism is the root of evil is just as stupid as thinking conservatism is as well.

Excuses? No they were points against your opinions you made. Opinions? yes. you made opinions based on no actual provable, in court, beyond a reasonable doubt information.

Crap even Obamas former CIA chief said there is no there there there. And if him saying it isnt good enough nothing ever will be because the democrats have become the party of waaaaaaaahhhhhh. To be fair the republicans have been there too.

Gorsuch is confirmed!

Good News!


Gorsuch confirmed to Supreme Court

The Senate confirmed Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Friday, filling the critical ninth seat that has been vacant for over a year and capping a tumultuous debate that saw Republicans overhaul the way the chamber operates in order to overcome what they described as an unprecedented Democratic filibuster.

I am surprised that everyone is ignoring this.
Gorsuch was confirmed!