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

[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

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

Did you READ your source?

Did you READ my source?

Result Key:
D - Declined (7)
N - No Action (10)
P - Postponed (3)
R - Rejected (12)
W - Withdrawn (12)

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

 

[OldLady]

So is the filibuster on or not? Any updates?

 

[Redfish]

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.

were sotomayer and kagan moderates? Why do we NEED a moderate? Remember the words of the Kenyan messiah "elections have consequences".

 

[Redfish]

So is the filibuster on or not? Any updates?

who cares, Gorsuch will be confirmed. If the dems filibuster, they only make themselves look more stupid than they already do. So go for it, dems.

 

[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"

Did you READ your source?

Did you READ my source?

Result Key:
D - Declined (7)
N - No Action (10)
P - Postponed (3)
R - Rejected (12)
W - Withdrawn (12)

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

you don't know what you are talking about or what you are reading.

First open hearing was held in 1925 and normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland. (Harriet Mayers and Roberts were withdrawn before hearing).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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"

Did you READ your source?

Did you READ my source?

Result Key:
D - Declined (7)
N - No Action (10)
P - Postponed (3)
R - Rejected (12)
W - Withdrawn (12)

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

you don't know what you are talking about or what you are reading.

First open hearing was held in 1925 and normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland. (Harriet Mayers and Roberts were withdrawn before hearing).

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland.

Elections have consequences.

 

[AntonToo]

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"

Did you READ your source?

Did you READ my source?

Result Key:
D - Declined (7)
N - No Action (10)
P - Postponed (3)
R - Rejected (12)
W - Withdrawn (12)

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

you don't know what you are talking about or what you are reading.

First open hearing was held in 1925 and normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland. (Harriet Mayers and Roberts were withdrawn before hearing).

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland.

Elections have consequences.

You got this particular trait of thought where you get stuck on little narrow points where you are trying to extract some sort of tiny victory while loosing the actual meat of the argument.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT NO ACTION MEANS, because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Elections do have consequences - Obama was elected and he nominated Garland

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!

...but that's 'resume enhancement' for the Leftists.

 

[Redfish]

Yes.

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

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

Did you READ your source?

Did you READ my source?

Result Key:
D - Declined (7)
N - No Action (10)
P - Postponed (3)
R - Rejected (12)
W - Withdrawn (12)

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

you don't know what you are talking about or what you are reading.

First open hearing was held in 1925 and normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland. (Harriet Mayers and Roberts were withdrawn before hearing).

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland.

Elections have consequences.

You got this particular trait of thought where you get stuck on little narrow points where you are trying to extract some sort of tiny victory while loosing the actual meat of the argument.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT NO ACTION MEANS, because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Elections do have consequences - Obama was elected and he nominated Garland

yes, elections have consequences. Obozo put Sotomayor and Kagan on the SC. Now, Trump will put the next 2 or 3 on it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes.

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

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

Did you READ your source?

Did you READ my source?

Result Key:
D - Declined (7)
N - No Action (10)
P - Postponed (3)
R - Rejected (12)
W - Withdrawn (12)

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

you don't know what you are talking about or what you are reading.

First open hearing was held in 1925 and normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland. (Harriet Mayers and Roberts were withdrawn before hearing).

What do you suppose No Action could mean?

normal open hearings we have today began in 1955 and since then there has never been a hearing refused to a candidate until Garland.

Elections have consequences.

You got this particular trait of thought where you get stuck on little narrow points where you are trying to extract some sort of tiny victory while loosing the actual meat of the argument.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT NO ACTION MEANS, because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Elections do have consequences - Obama was elected and he nominated Garland

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT NO ACTION MEANS

Right. LOL!

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

In the past, the Senate, at times, has taken no action on Supreme Court nominees.

because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Until last year.

Elections do have consequences - Obama was elected and he nominated Garland

And McConnell was elected as Senate majority leader and he took no action on Garland.

 

[AntonToo]

because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Until last year.

Concession accepted.

It was, in fact, unprecedented.

P.S. Do you think that you can one day perhaps learn how to use QUOTE tags? You are 28,000 posts into this, it's time.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats are going to wave the Garland flag over every democrat failure from now on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Until last year.

Concession accepted.

It was, in fact, unprecedented.

If 1955 was in the original claim, I might not have felt the need to show that the Senate, in the past, has refused to put nominees to a vote.

 

[AntonToo]

because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Until last year.

Concession accepted.

It was, in fact, unprecedented.

If 1955 was in the original claim, I might not have felt the need to show that the Senate, in the past, has refused to put nominees to a vote.

Stop moving goal posts, we are talking about refusal of open hearing, not EVEN vote.

 

[hadit]

In the age of liberalism, all things are political.

lol, you think Trump picked Gorsuch without regard to where Gorsuch falls on the political spectrum? Seriously?

Ds are politicizing the pick not Trump. Dummy.

Are you nuts? Are you claiming Trump did NOT pick a conservative judge, as opposed to a centrist or liberal judge?

By all accounts he is well qualified. He received many D votes for lower court appointments. D pols must politize to keep the dupes like you in line.

Well qualified is not good enough - just ask Republicans when they were refusing to give Garland even a hearing.

Is that kind of obstruction a good thing, a bad thing, or only bad when Republicans do it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Until last year.

Concession accepted.

It was, in fact, unprecedented.

If 1955 was in the original claim, I might not have felt the need to show that the Senate, in the past, has refused to put nominees to a vote.

Stop moving goal posts, we are talking about refusal of open hearing, not EVEN vote.

The Senate doesn't always vote on nominees.
Carry on.

 

[PredFan]

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?
.

Immaturity, ignorance, revenge.

They are only doing it for revenge for 0bamas pick. They are immature spoiled children.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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?
.

All bets are off

Gorsuch is a stolen seat

/---- The seat belongs to the American people not the Democrats

 

[rightwinger]

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?
.

All bets are off

Gorsuch is a stolen seat

/---- The seat belongs to the American people not the Democrats

Very true

And the American People elected Obama to fill vacancies that occur in his term

 

[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?
.

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?
.

Actually, they ALSO said that it was because of Garland as well. Listen better.