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

[ColonelAngus]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?
.

The more vocal elements of the Democrat Party "base" are demanding that their congress critters do everything they can to block anything coming out of the halls of Trumpdom otherwise they're likely to drag their Senators-D out in front of the Capital Building and tar & feather 'em.

Of course things are really going to get "interesting" if/when Trump gets to make a 2nd SCOTUS pick; apparently nobody on the "D" side of the Aisle has recognized that the Scorched Earth Policy they're pursuing is setting the ground beneath their own feet on fire.

Idiot Dems didn't think they would lose the White House, so they abused their power.

Fuck them.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

As a community organizer once said, elections have consequences.

 

[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.

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.

He doesn't need to prove it,

Convenient, because he can't.

not even giving a hearing

Is not filibustering. Tell your idiot buddy.

 

[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.

As a community organizer once said, elections have consequences.

Yes they do - Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.

You can disagree that he should be on the court, but you can't say he should not be on the court AND that elections have consequences. You are just going to have to pick one.

 

[NightFox]

Ok for Harry Reid to change senate rules for a SCOTUS confirmation...so it's ok for McConnell.

.

Point of order: Dirty Harry didn't change the rules for SCOTUS confirmation, he was responsible for changing them for lower court and executive branch nominees; if the GOP Senate Critters go nuclear with Gorsuch's confirmation it'll be an expansion of the so called "Reid Rule".

 

[Rustic]

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.

As a community organizer once said, elections have consequences.

Yes they do - Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.

You can disagree that he should be on the court, but you can't say he should not be on the court AND that elections have consequences.

You suck too much Obama dick, Garland was an extremist.

 

[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.

He doesn't need to prove it,

Convenient, because he can't.

not even giving a hearing

Is not filibustering. Tell your idiot buddy.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

He doesn't need to prove it,

Convenient, because he can't.

not even giving a hearing

Is not filibustering. Tell your idiot buddy.

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

Good job.

It's worse then filibustering

It wasn't filibustering. Or unprecedented.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Seawytch]

They didn't filibuster Garland.

Actually, they did.

When was Garland put up to vote so the GOP might filibuster him?

Oh, that is right, they never put him up for a vote so no he was never filibustered you stupid jack ass.

That is the point, dipstick.

The point is, they didn't filibuster Garland, moron.

They never even let him have a vote. That's actually worse, douche nozzle.

But we get it....black guys in the oval only get 3/5ths of their presidency.

 

[NightFox]

Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.
.

Possibly but what does that have to do with the Senate Democrats filibustering Gorsuch's confirmation?

 

[AntonToo]

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.

As a community organizer once said, elections have consequences.

Yes they do - Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.

You can disagree that he should be on the court, but you can't say he should not be on the court AND that elections have consequences.

You suck too much Obama dick, Garland was an extremist.

Because you say so? We've been over that.

He was quite moderate and conservation around the time of his nomination in conservatives circles was not "Hell noooo ,he too liberhul!", but rather "Careful guys! if we don't nominate this moderate now, Hillary is going to nominate a true lefty extremist"

 

[AntonToo]

Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.
.

Possibly but what does that have to do with the Senate Democrats filibustering Gorsuch's confirmation?

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They didn't filibuster Garland.

Actually, they did.

When was Garland put up to vote so the GOP might filibuster him?

Oh, that is right, they never put him up for a vote so no he was never filibustered you stupid jack ass.

That is the point, dipstick.

The point is, they didn't filibuster Garland, moron.

They never even let him have a vote. That's actually worse, douche nozzle.

But we get it....black guys in the oval only get 3/5ths of their presidency.

They never even let him have a vote.

Exactly. No vote.....no filibuster.
Tell your moron friend.

 

[my2¢]

I suppose the Democrats are setting the table with hopes of winning the Senate next year. And if so then they'll invoke their own nuclear option for any Supreme Court opening during the final years of Trump's term.

 

[NightFox]

Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.
.

Possibly but what does that have to do with the Senate Democrats filibustering Gorsuch's confirmation?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.
.

Possibly but what does that have to do with the Senate Democrats filibustering Gorsuch's confirmation?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.
.

Possibly but what does that have to do with the Senate Democrats filibustering Gorsuch's confirmation?

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.

McConnell would have played the nuclear option even if Harry Reid had never changed the rules.

 

[NightFox]

I suppose the Democrats are setting the table with hopes of winning the Senate next year. And if so then they'll invoke their own nuclear option for any Supreme Court opening during the final years of Trump's term.

If the Democrats gain control of the Senate in 2018 (not very likely given the 2018 electoral map) they wouldn't need any "nuclear option" to stop any future Trump SCOTUS picks, they could stop them with a straight up or down partisan floor vote, or just refuse to let them move to a floor vote like the Republicans did with Garland.

 

[AntonToo]

Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.
.

Possibly but what does that have to do with the Senate Democrats filibustering Gorsuch's confirmation?

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.

It's not about "payback". It is about Republicans electing to simply ignore Obama's nomination. If Republicans can elect to not nominate whoever they politically don't happen to like, then it is only fair that Democrats do too.

Let them go ahead and nuke, they can do that on ANY nomination anyway.