Democrats: What would the politics be behind a Gorsuch filibuster?

[Onyx]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?
.

I thought it was obvious. The public attacks the government a lot more than they attack the opposition. Nuclear is terrible optics for Republicans.

 

[Mac1958]

Thank you. So is the filibuster truly just for dramatic optics? .

Of course, politics is mostly theater and case in point, the Democrats are staging a grand production without having the essential ingredient of a VILLAIN , there's nothing credible on Gorsuch, no scandal, no controversy, he falls somewhat on the strict constructionist side of the legal spectrum but nobody has made any credible case that he's an extremist. Most Americans have no idea regarding the mechanics of the arcane rules in the Senate but they do know when one party or the other is setting up the stage for high drama and in this one it's a case of "What the heck are they throwing a tantrum for?", it's not like Trump nominated Darth Cheney or anything.

If the Democrats blow their wad on this nomination when the next one comes up they will have absolutely no way to apply any sort checks on who Trump decides to nominate.

The silly thing here - maybe insulting is a better word - is the argument that Gorsuch will be a conservative judge.

Well, duh. Ya think? And were the Democrats this worried about Kagan or Sotomayor being liberal judges?

I don't know how national politicians can look at themselves in the mirror at this point.
.

 

[NightFox]

Thank you. So is the filibuster truly just for dramatic optics? .

Of course, politics is mostly theater and case in point, the Democrats are staging a grand production without having the essential ingredient of a VILLAIN , there's nothing credible on Gorsuch, no scandal, no controversy, he falls somewhat on the strict constructionist side of the legal spectrum but nobody has made any credible case that he's an extremist. Most Americans have no idea regarding the mechanics of the arcane rules in the Senate but they do know when one party or the other is setting up the stage for high drama and in this one it's a case of "What the heck are they throwing a tantrum for?", it's not like Trump nominated Darth Cheney or anything.

If the Democrats blow their wad on this nomination when the next one comes up they will have absolutely no way to apply any sort checks on who Trump decides to nominate.

The silly thing here - maybe insulting is a better word - is the argument that Gorsuch will be a conservative judge.

Well, duh. Ya think? And were the Democrats this worried about Kagan or Sotomayor being liberal judges?

I don't know how national politicians can look at themselves in the mirror at this point.
.

Yep and the Republicans didn't threaten to filibuster Kagan or Sotomayor and in Kagan's case they would have had *some* grounds since she had no judicial experience, heck she hadn't even argued a case before a court, yet she was confirmed 63 to 37 (including 5 Republicans).

Now the Democrats feel justified in using the filibuster (unprecedented for a SCOTUS nominee) for someone as experienced, sober and thoughtful as Gorsuch? one has to wonder if someone has been slipping LSD into their daily dose of partisan kool-aid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's worse than filibustering and I told you, while you keep arguing irrelevancies without any dispute.

Good job. I guess you'll take whatever little crumbs are left of your argument to soothe your ego.

There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history

Has there ever been NOT EVEN A HEARING GIVEN to a clearly qualified nominee?

Yes.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Republicans didn't want Obama nominee and acted on it, refusing to even give him a hearing. The cat is out of the bag and chivalry is out the window. Democrats have no choice but to take this road to the only place it could have led.

Lets say Democrats play nice here, what do they gain? Nothing.

Yep, the filibuster began when the Republicans filibustered the then President's perfectly good nomination.

They didn't filibuster Garland.

Actually, they did.

Actually, they did.

Bet you can't prove that.

He doesn't need to prove it, as it's well beside the point - not even giving a hearing is much worse then simply filibustering.

Elections have consequences.

Obviously enough states didn't think that was worth voting republicans out over.

You'll get used to it.

 

[AntonToo]

Yep, the filibuster began when the Republicans filibustered the then President's perfectly good nomination.

They didn't filibuster Garland.

Actually, they did.

Actually, they did.

Bet you can't prove that.

He doesn't need to prove it, as it's well beside the point - not even giving a hearing is much worse then simply filibustering.

Elections have consequences.

Obviously enough states didn't think that was worth voting republicans out over.

You'll get used to it.

Yes they do, Obama was elected and he nominated Garland.

Get used to it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

They didn't filibuster Garland.

Actually, they did.

Actually, they did.

Bet you can't prove that.

He doesn't need to prove it, as it's well beside the point - not even giving a hearing is much worse then simply filibustering.

Elections have consequences.

Obviously enough states didn't think that was worth voting republicans out over.

You'll get used to it.

Yes they do, Obama was elected and he nominated Garland.

Get used to it.

And how'd that work out for you ?

 

[MarcATL]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Republicans didn't want Obama nominee and acted on it, refusing to even give him a hearing. The cat is out of the bag and chivalry is out the window. Democrats have no choice but to take this road to the only place it could have led.

Lets say Democrats play nice here, what do they gain? Nothing.

Yep, the filibuster began when the Republicans filibustered the then President's perfectly good nomination.

They didn't filibuster Garland.

Actually, they did.

Actually, they did.

Bet you can't prove that.

Since when did the likes of you needed proof for anything?

 

[MarcATL]

Democrats: What would the politics be behind a Gorsuch filibuster?


Sour grapes, sore loser, butt-hurt snowflake action taken by those who already publicly committed to opposing everything the current administration attempts to accomplish.

Had they not already publicly declared they had committed themselves to obstructionism they might have had a chance to argue they have a legitimate reason to oppose Gorsuch while doing so with a straight face. That is no longer the case.

The problems, besides having already declared they fully intend to be nothing but Obstructionists - therefore having / needing no other reason but a purely political one to oppose / filibuster Gorsuch - are:

When Gorsuch was announced both the Liberal and conservative media praised him. The Liberal media even declared Gorsuch was possibly the best candidate out there...

Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised Gorsuch...

The majority of DEMOCRATS like Gorsuch and do not want to filibuster him...

The majority of Americans want Gorsuch as a USSC Justice...

OBAMA, SCHUMER, and some of the other partisan assholes filibustering Gorsuch NOW praised him and voted for him / supported him as a Federal Justice/Judge in the past...

DEMOCRATS argued that EVERY judge deserves an up or down vote and even passed the Reid Rule to ensure that happened in the future - to filibuster Gorsuch now is THEM to hang a giant f*ing sign around their necks that says, "I am a huge F*ing HYPOCRITE, and when I said I wanted ALL judges to have an up or down vote I really meant ONLY LIBERAL Judges'!

...

And...?

 

[MarcATL]

You are right, Republicans get to do whatever they want, but Democrats need to tuck their knees in and roll over.

LOL, nice attempt at a dodge but again what does what happened with Garland have to do with the Democrats filibustering the Gorsuch confirmation ?

Are you attempting to argue that the Democrats should engage in an "Eye for an Eye" move here even when the Eye that they're about to pluck out is there own? Do you realize the Republicans are probably going to nuke the filibuster and basically give Trump a free hand in any future SCOTUS picks IN ADDITION TO the free hand that Harry Reid already provided him for lower court and executive branch nominees? The Senate Democrats are engaged in cutting their own throats for NO GAIN.

The Democrats are voting against a rightwing judge. That is what they were elected to do.

Ummm.. yeah, your ignorance of history surfaces once again, SCOTUS confirmations have traditionally been about judicial QUALIFICATION not IDEOLOGY, which explains for example why neither Kagan nor Sotomayor were filibustered by the Republicans and received significant numbers of Republican votes even though both are clearly left wing judicial activists.

Your dumb ass Party is turning SCOTUS confirmation into an ideological litmus test and it's going to bite them right in the ass.

Knock knock!

Who is there?

FUCKING GARLAND, who was a fully qualified moderate.

AGAIN.... what does Garland have to do with Gorsuch?

Answer: Nothing .. unless of course you're advocating pursuing an "Eye for an Eye" revenge move by plucking out your own fucking eye.

The fact that Garland was a moderate is immaterial the material point is and should remain JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS not IDEOLOGY I'm not attempting to justify what the Republicans did with Garland only pointing out that you and yours are being incredibly fucking stupid by attempting to use the Garland imbroglio to justify a filibuster that your party is not only going to lose but also giving a free hand to Republicans to fill more SCOTUS vacancies (Hello Ginsburg (84) ? Breyer (79) ? Kennedy (81)? do the math) during the Trump administration without having to worry much about Democrat input.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you!!! They're playing politics up in DC.

 

[MarcATL]

its funny to watch the dems self destruct on the Gorsuch vote. The only people who support this foolishness are their far left lunatic base which is shrinking every day.

Kennedy and Truman are turning over in their graves at what the Clintons and Obama have done to their party.

Keep it up dems,

Dry your tears and stop the crying and bellyaching snowflake. Deal with it.

 

[MarcATL]

There was a senator last night speaking on CSPAN--it seems he spoke all night--about why he does not support the Gorscuch nomination. I am not familiar with SC law and don't pretend to be a constitutional lawyer, but I think some of his objections to Gorsuch were questionable. The part I heard, he was saying Gorsuch put in a minority opinion (the sole objection) in a case which showed he had no EMPATHY for an autistic child. Like I said, I know nothing about case law, but I don't think empathy is what the judges are supposed to be reviewing when they make their decisions. Is it?

They need to give that man a medal!

 

[MarcATL]

Thank you. So is the filibuster truly just for dramatic optics? .

Of course, politics is mostly theater and case in point, the Democrats are staging a grand production without having the essential ingredient of a VILLAIN , there's nothing credible on Gorsuch, no scandal, no controversy, he falls somewhat on the strict constructionist side of the legal spectrum but nobody has made any credible case that he's an extremist. Most Americans have no idea regarding the mechanics of the arcane rules in the Senate but they do know when one party or the other is setting up the stage for high drama and in this one it's a case of "What the heck are they throwing a tantrum for?", it's not like Trump nominated Darth Cheney or anything.

If the Democrats blow their wad on this nomination when the next one comes up they will have absolutely no way to apply any sort checks on who Trump decides to nominate.

If you weren't a self-proclaimed conservative and/or Republican, you'd be familiar with the word "PRINCIPLE."

Look it up some time. It'll do you good.

 

[Penelope]

Senators Ted Cruz and Richard Burr and some conservative legal scholars are arguing that if a Democrat wins the election, the Senate should refuse to confirm anyone.
(Snip)
Now the debate has shifted, as several Republican senators have suggested simply not allowing any Democratic selections to the Supreme Court at all. Late on Monday, CNN reported on private remarks made by Senator Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican up for reelection. He said that there will be no lame-duck confirmation, and then added, “And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.”

What Happens If Republicans Refuse to Replace Justice Scalia?

We need a moderate, and Gorsuch is not it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gee! It's all so complicated! If only the Dems would not use the filibuster. Be like Republicans. They never do shit like this.

 

[CowboyTed]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Simple as this...

Why is Garland not appointed?

Trump is getting Obama's pick... It is that simple.. Dems are blocking it out of principle, If a new seat came tomorrow the grand but this was not theres to pick and rewarding bad behaviour is not on...

 

[Mac1958]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Simple as this...

Why is Garland not appointed?

Trump is getting Obama's pick... It is that simple.. Dems are blocking it out of principle, If a new seat came tomorrow the grand but this was not theres to pick and rewarding bad behaviour is not on...

That isn't what they're saying. They're saying it's because Gorsuch is too conservative. They're saying it's because he wasn't forthcoming enough during his hearings. They didn't complain about Kagan or Sotomayor being too liberal or not spilling the beans on everything they had done or would do.

They're playing tit-for-tat; you did it, so we're gonna get you back.

So they just playing politics, party over country, just like the other guys.

Are we not better than this?
.

 

[AntonToo]

It's worse than filibustering and I told you, while you keep arguing irrelevancies without any dispute.

Good job. I guess you'll take whatever little crumbs are left of your argument to soothe your ego.

There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history

Has there ever been NOT EVEN A HEARING GIVEN to a clearly qualified nominee?

Yes.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789

Did you READ your source? It's doesn't break down by "hearing given"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans didn't want Obama nominee and acted on it, refusing to even give him a hearing. The cat is out of the bag and chivalry is out the window. Democrats have no choice but to take this road to the only place it could have led.

Lets say Democrats play nice here, what do they gain? Nothing.

Yep, the filibuster began when the Republicans filibustered the then President's perfectly good nomination.

They didn't filibuster Garland.

Actually, they did.

Actually, they did.

Bet you can't prove that.

Since when did the likes of you needed proof for anything?

Caught you in a lie, didn't I? LOL!

 

[Redfish]

its funny to watch the dems self destruct on the Gorsuch vote. The only people who support this foolishness are their far left lunatic base which is shrinking every day.

Kennedy and Truman are turning over in their graves at what the Clintons and Obama have done to their party.

Keep it up dems,

Dry your tears and stop the crying and bellyaching snowflake. Deal with it.

deal with what? the self destruction of the democrat party? I am dealing with it and enjoying every minute.