Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just because I didn't understand the nuclear option doesn't mean I don't know that the Republicans refusal to consider Garland was historic. Never anything like it before. And I will not forget it, either.I wish they'd get on with it just to have a full Supreme Court and SOMEBODY DOWN THERE START DOING THEIR JOB!! I was pissed as hell at the Republicans for refusing to consider Garland. I will be equally pissed as hell if the Democrats won't consider whoever Trump appoints. And not fiddle around and play games about it, either. Old Lady has spoken. Get the goddamned seat filled. Roe v. Wade was a decision made by a conservative court. The justices are professionals who know their personal opinions are not to influence them. The constitution and the case law does. They're human, but who is conservative and who liberal will not make as much difference as these politicians are making it out to be.
In the last 80 years zero senate SC confirmations in the final year of a term.
No I don't think so. I think some goper senators would be OK with Trump getting only One through unless he gets reelected.I agree they shouldn't filibuster, but I don't agree everything should be a 51 vote. Nothing, in my opinion should be a 51 vote. Make those slobs work together to get things accomplished. Probably too radical, huh?Remove filibuster entirely and make everything a 51 vote with the VP breaking a 50-50 tie.I don't understand what the nuclear option is. Can anyone explain it SIMPLY (Don't you try, TN--you use too many big words).
I don't think the dems should filibuster this pick. What the gop did with Garland was basically say each potus gets two appointments that won't be blocked, and the 5-4 conservative not-conservative split will remain, pending some party getting three consecutive terms, like Reagan-HW. Since the 5-4 split would be retained, I think any further Trump nominees would get the filibuster .... unless there's a compromise candidate like Garland who supported Roe, but also supported Citizens United and was pretty strong on the 2nd Amend too. Even then, if there's an election pending in a year, I'd expect the dems to go full out to block it.
Just because I didn't understand the nuclear option doesn't mean I don't know that the Republicans refusal to consider Garland was historic. Never anything like it before. And I will not forget it, either.I wish they'd get on with it just to have a full Supreme Court and SOMEBODY DOWN THERE START DOING THEIR JOB!! I was pissed as hell at the Republicans for refusing to consider Garland. I will be equally pissed as hell if the Democrats won't consider whoever Trump appoints. And not fiddle around and play games about it, either. Old Lady has spoken. Get the goddamned seat filled. Roe v. Wade was a decision made by a conservative court. The justices are professionals who know their personal opinions are not to influence them. The constitution and the case law does. They're human, but who is conservative and who liberal will not make as much difference as these politicians are making it out to be.
In the last 80 years zero senate SC confirmations in the final year of a term.
... America hates pussyfooters - as November forcibly demonstrated.
No Senate ever refused to even look at a candidate for that long. This is about what the Republicans did and I looked into it back then and I'm right.Nothing historic about it. Read up on FDR's attempt to pack the court,
