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

[NYcarbineer]

He voted for Big Corporation, every. single. time. against the small man in all his judgements concerning that sort of judgement.

Hate to break it to you, genius, but judges don't "vote" on things. They determine finding in law and make rulings or dissenting arguments..

Then how do you explain the fact that virtually every split decision on the Court, 5-4, 6-3, falls along liberal/conservative lines?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

And wouldn't that be awesome! I'm sure all the RWnuts here on USMB will heartily support a Dem Senate majority denying Trump nominations a vote, or simply voting them down.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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 fully qualified and a moderate to boot.

 

[easyt65]

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'!

- They are just BEGGING for another 8 years of 1,000 MORE lost political seats / positions and AT LEAST 2 more historic, record-setting election losses by doing this / by 'hanging that sign'

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, you're right. The filibuster wouldn't be a concern given the circumstances and so no need for the nuclear option.

 

[easyt65]

Knock knock! Who is there? FUCKING GARLAND, who was fully qualified and a moderate to boot.

No argument there...but it is hard to believe after praising, supporting, and voting for Gorsuch in the past...after publicly declaring EVERY Judge deserves an up or down vote, and after passing the Reid Rule the Democrats are REALLY now going to demonstrate that they are a bunch of children stuck in a tit-for-tat mentality, that they are going to hang that sign around their necks saying, "We were just kidding - we only believe LIBERAL Judges deserve an up or down vote".


Then again, they aren't called 'snowflakes' for nuthin'...

 

[AntonToo]

Knock knock! Who is there? FUCKING GARLAND, who was fully qualified and a moderate to boot.

No argument there...but it is hard to believe after praising, supporting, and voting for Gorsuch in the past...after publicly declaring EVERY Judge deserves an up or down vote, and after passing the Reid Rule the Democrats are REALLY now going to demonstrate that they are a bunch of children stuck in a tit-for-tat mentality, that they are going to hang that sign around their necks saying, "We were just kidding - we only believe LIBERAL Judges deserve an up or down vote".


Then again, they aren't called 'snowflakes' for nuthin'...

ummm...was it also hard to believe that same Republicans voted for Garland in the past?

Republicans Twist Themselves in Knots to Be Against Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee

Hatch is one of seven Republicans still in the Senate who voted to confirm Garland back in 1997 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

 

[easyt65]

ummm...was it also hard to believe that same Republicans voted for Garland in the past?

Extremely true...but it is not the GOP who publicly declared ALL judges deserve an up or down vote and passed a rule to ensure that happened in the future...only to turn around NOW and partisanly declare / demonstrate their own argument and rule was / is bullshit and attempt to deny a judge an up or down vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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'!

- They are just BEGGING for another 8 years of 1,000 MORE lost political seats / positions and AT LEAST 2 more historic, record-setting election losses by doing this / by 'hanging that sign'

Wrong. Democratic Senators weren't elected to put rightwing judges in the courts. Is that too complicated for you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

ummm...was it also hard to believe that same Republicans voted for Garland in the past?

Extremely true...but it is not the GOP who publicly declared ALL judges deserve an up or down vote and passed a rule to ensure that happened in the future...only to turn around NOW and partisanly declare / demonstrate their own argument and rule was / is bullshit and attempt to deny a judge an up or down vote.

There's a rule to ensure all judges get an up or down vote?

 

[NightFox]

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.

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.

 

[OldLady]

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?
.

I talked to a raving left winger yesterday who told me it is to make a stand about the stolen Garland nomination. If they just roll over and let the Republicans get away with that without making a stand, they are letting the bullies win without a fight. He realizes the bullies are going to win anyway and that it will not actually get them any benefit, but he pointed out that avoiding the "nuclear option" this time is not going to help, since the next nominee will only be more conservative and will be used then, if not now, so they might as well get it over with.
I don't agree with the thinking on this, but that is the posture.

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

 

[easyt65]

Wrong. Democratic Senators weren't elected to put rightwing judges in the courts.

Yeah, no partisanship there...only what is best for the country in mind...




As reported, genius, the snowflakes who want to filibuster Gorsuch are the MINORITY WITHIN THEIR OWN GROUP / PARTY!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You're trying to argue that if the Democrats refrain from the filibuster on Gorsuch that the GOP is going to take the nuclear option off the table for all vacancies that might occur under Trump?

Are you that stupid?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?
.

I talked to a raving left winger yesterday who told me it is to make a stand about the stolen Garland nomination. If they just roll over and let the Republicans get away with that without making a stand, they are letting the bullies win without a fight. He realizes the bullies are going to win anyway and that it will not actually get them any benefit, but he pointed out that avoiding the "nuclear option" this time is not going to help, since the next nominee will only be more conservative and will be used then, if not now, so they might as well get it over with.
I don't agree with the thinking on this, but that is the posture.

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

The filibuster is a vote.

 

[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?
.

I talked to a raving left winger yesterday who told me it is to make a stand about the stolen Garland nomination. If they just roll over and let the Republicans get away with that without making a stand, they are letting the bullies win without a fight. He realizes the bullies are going to win anyway and that it will not actually get them any benefit, but he pointed out that avoiding the "nuclear option" this time is not going to help, since the next nominee will only be more conservative and will be used then, if not now, so they might as well get it over with.
I don't agree with the thinking on this, but that is the posture.

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

Y'know, seriously, hardcore partisan ideologues are just detached from reason and reality at this point.

And worse, they think that the rest of the country is, too.

Only political geeks care about this stuff.
.

 

[easyt65]

There's a rule to ensure all judges get an up or down vote?

Good morning, Rip-Van-Snowflake. Harry Reid and the Democrats' 'Reid Rule' bid you hello...

 

[easyt65]

The filibuster is a vote.

No, it is a hypocritical, partisan butt-hurt snowflake move....NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

 

[OldLady]

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?
.

I talked to a raving left winger yesterday who told me it is to make a stand about the stolen Garland nomination. If they just roll over and let the Republicans get away with that without making a stand, they are letting the bullies win without a fight. He realizes the bullies are going to win anyway and that it will not actually get them any benefit, but he pointed out that avoiding the "nuclear option" this time is not going to help, since the next nominee will only be more conservative and will be used then, if not now, so they might as well get it over with.
I don't agree with the thinking on this, but that is the posture.

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

I'm really hoping to get a serious non partisan answer to this, folks. It would be a hard question to Google.