GOP Dares Call Gorsuch Filibuster Unprecedented—While Ignoring Their Blockade Of Garland

[Hutch Starskey]

And the Democrats who are now threatening a filibuster have forgotten they were the ones demanding the straight up or down vote for Garland. Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

Garland never even had a hearing.

Yes that has been established as has the fact the Democrats were prepared to do the same thing if President Bush got the chance to fill a Supreme Court seat in his final two years in office. Ironically it was Chuck Schumer ready to go down that road in 2007.

There's a difference between rhetoric and actually doing it.

 

[Nosmo King]

An up or down vote. Not the nuclear option which means changing that vote to a majority of one, not ten.

An up-or-down vote is the GOAL . OBJECTIVE the Democrats believe every judge deserves. The 'nuclear option' is a METHOD that can be used - and looks to be necessary - to ensure the Democrat's argument and rule is carried out / adhered to.

Again - 39 Democrats out of the entire list of elected Democrats want to deny Gorsuch such a vote. After making the argument they did and passing the Reid rule to make sure that happens, the actions of those 39 must be (should be) pretty embarrassing for the Democratic Party - it makes them look like a bunch of partisan hypocrites who really don't mean what they say.

If 39 Democrats are refusing an up or down vote, why invoke the nuclear option? Currently the senate can confirm Gorsuch with a 60-40 vote. The nuclear option changes the rules so that a 51-49 vote isd all that's needed.

Sotomayor and Kagen got 60 votes. Fair is fair.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Welcome to politics newbie!

Yep. Both parties will do whatever it takes, and then scream when the other party does the same thing.
.

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

This is a common behavior across all issues and news events, though, not just those. If "my party" does it, it is somehow justified. If "your party" does it, it's not justified. This just happens over and over and over.
.

So you won't answer?
Dems had never blocked presidential nominees the way the Repubs did. There is no equivalence. It was unprecedented just as this next escalation will be.

My macro answer stands.

Sure, the GOP acted like children for eight years. The Dems have a choice. They can choose to act like children too, or they can rise above it.

"He did it first" is fine for a child, but not for the supposed "leaders" of our country. Someone has to be the adult in the room, eventually.

Or, maybe not.
.

Rise above it?
You mean sit there and take it?
Please.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep. Both parties will do whatever it takes, and then scream when the other party does the same thing.
.

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

This is a common behavior across all issues and news events, though, not just those. If "my party" does it, it is somehow justified. If "your party" does it, it's not justified. This just happens over and over and over.
.

So you won't answer?
Dems had never blocked presidential nominees the way the Repubs did. There is no equivalence. It was unprecedented just as this next escalation will be.

My macro answer stands.

Sure, the GOP acted like children for eight years. The Dems have a choice. They can choose to act like children too, or they can rise above it.

"He did it first" is fine for a child, but not for the supposed "leaders" of our country. Someone has to be the adult in the room, eventually.

Or, maybe not.
.

Rise above it?
You mean sit there and take it?
Please.

I'm sorry that you equate the two, I don't.

Rising above it takes far more effort.
.

 

[blackhawk]

And the Democrats who are now threatening a filibuster have forgotten they were the ones demanding the straight up or down vote for Garland. Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

Garland never even had a hearing.

Yes that has been established as has the fact the Democrats were prepared to do the same thing if President Bush got the chance to fill a Supreme Court seat in his final two years in office. Ironically it was Chuck Schumer ready to go down that road in 2007.

There's a difference between rhetoric and actually doing it.

True but if the Democrats were preparing to do it and just never got the chance it's pretty hard to be taken serious when you complain about it actually being done. Given the fact Harry Reid was more than willing to pull the trigger on the nuclear option when he was Senate Majority Leader it's not unreasonable to believe the Democrats would have done whatever it took to stop Bush from getting another Justice on the court. Both parties are going down a slippery slope with this kind of stuff I will give the right the same warning I gave the left when Reid went nuclear you won't be the party in control forever and any changes you make now the Democrats will also be able to use when there the majority something both sides seem to forget.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

This is a common behavior across all issues and news events, though, not just those. If "my party" does it, it is somehow justified. If "your party" does it, it's not justified. This just happens over and over and over.
.

So you won't answer?
Dems had never blocked presidential nominees the way the Repubs did. There is no equivalence. It was unprecedented just as this next escalation will be.

My macro answer stands.

Sure, the GOP acted like children for eight years. The Dems have a choice. They can choose to act like children too, or they can rise above it.

"He did it first" is fine for a child, but not for the supposed "leaders" of our country. Someone has to be the adult in the room, eventually.

Or, maybe not.
.

Rise above it?
You mean sit there and take it?
Please.

I'm sorry that you equate the two, I don't.

Rising above it takes far more effort.
.

No doubt and in that regard the Repubs should have put more thought and effort into the way they choose their opposition to Obama. They took the politically expedient path rather than the tried and true path of of the past. It lead us here. Not adult in any way.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Would you want to see partisanship ruling from the bench at the Supreme Court?

Isn't that what Garland was?

Gorsuch is on the right politically, but judicially he's a "Textual Originalist". But that seems to be the problem. Democrats don't want a Justice that follows the Constitution as written. What they want is one that believe we have a "Living Constitution", one that "changes with the times". Garland would have fulfilled their dreams.

Additionally, Gorsuch said on many occasions during the hearing, (I watched all 3 days of it start to finish), and he said that he would NOT legislate from the bench, he also said that "legislation was the responsibility of 'This Body'. Which, by the way, is exactly what the Left wants. They want a Justice that would rule and make case law/precedent to "modify" the Constitution to meet the "Changing Times".

The Constitution of NOT a Living Document, it is a Static Document. All of the Articles still apply today just as they did 241 years ago without the contortions the Left wants.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

It's well within their rights to filibuster. That would not be upmanship. The Repubs escalating would be.

A filibuster indefinitely prolongs the debate, preventing a final vote on the nominee. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered.

Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Say again what is unprecedented? Go ahead, I dare you.

 

[Avatar4321]

I still see no reason to be upset about Republicans telling the truth

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Welcome to politics newbie!

Yep. Both parties will do whatever it takes, and then scream when the other party does the same thing.
.

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games. Do you propose that the Dems should have just sat there and allowed them to block every single one of Obama's judicial nominees? Reid kept it to the federal bench. If the Repubs take it to SCOTUS then they will be escalating yet again.

This is a common behavior across all issues and news events, though, not just those. If "my party" does it, it is somehow justified. If "your party" does it, it's not justified. This just happens over and over and over.
.

So you won't answer?
Dems had never blocked presidential nominees the way the Repubs did. There is no equivalence. It was unprecedented just as this next escalation will be.

My macro answer stands.

Sure, the GOP acted like children for eight years. The Dems have a choice. They can choose to act like children too, or they can rise above it.

"He did it first" is fine for a child, but not for the supposed "leaders" of our country. Someone has to be the adult in the room, eventually.

Or, maybe not.
.

The Republicans have tried to be the adults in the room since Obama took over, but when the radical leftists took over and started acting like children, with the liberal media covering for them, this is why Trump won and not the crooked vagina candidate. US citizens were tired of the liberal bullies telling them what they needed to do.

 

[Vastator]

I'd rather have the two parties of government clawing at each other's throat; than have the government stepping on the throat of its citizens...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

C'Mon Mac, surely you can agree that the Repubs are constantly the driver in these one upmanship games.

No.

Again, the Democrats drove the nail by declaring 'EVERY Judge deserves an up or down vote' and passing the Reid Rule to ensure it happens....then when the GOP attempts to use THEIR OWN ARGUMENT AND RULE - with the support of EVERY DEMOCRAT EXCEPT 39 RABID PARTISANS - the Democrats hypocritically go back on their own argument and their own rule.

There were an unprecedented number of vacancies and filibusters. Don't try and act like that isn't true. Obama had a record number of vacancies that have carried over to Trump.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And the Democrats who are now threatening a filibuster have forgotten they were the ones demanding the straight up or down vote for Garland. Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

Garland never even had a hearing.

Yes that has been established as has the fact the Democrats were prepared to do the same thing if President Bush got the chance to fill a Supreme Court seat in his final two years in office. Ironically it was Chuck Schumer ready to go down that road in 2007.

There's a difference between rhetoric and actually doing it.

True but if the Democrats were preparing to do it and just never got the chance it's pretty hard to be taken serious when you complain about it actually being done. Given the fact Harry Reid was more than willing to pull the trigger on the nuclear option when he was Senate Majority Leader it's not unreasonable to believe the Democrats would have done whatever it took to stop Bush from getting another Justice on the court. Both parties are going down a slippery slope with this kind of stuff I will give the right the same warning I gave the left when Reid went nuclear you won't be the party in control forever and any changes you make now the Democrats will also be able to use when there the majority something both sides seem to forget.

The dems weren't preparing to do anything. It was rhetoric. There wasn't even a vacancy at the time Biden said it.

 

[PredFan]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

Welcome to politics newbie!

Wait until the GOP uses the nuclear option, then the left will be screaming "This is unprecedented!!!"

Impose the nuclear option at your own peril. If the senate GOP invokes the nuclear option, there will be nothing but hard core partisans nominated to the bench. And that would make the SCOTUS another political arm of government.

We've seen how well partisanship works. From creating fiscal crisis's then shutting down the government out of a fit of political pique to dropping the ball on repeal and replace. Would you want to see partisanship ruling from the bench at the Supreme Court?

A hard core politician on the left legislates from the bench, ignoring the Constitution. A hard core politician from the right admires and believes in the Constitution, which is the actual job of the SCOTUS. I'm perfectly fine with putting people on the SCOTUS who will stick to the Constitution.

Really? Does the constitution say that money is speech? The constitution was written when there were no corporations, very few banks and slavery was legal. The nation has changed. The constitution is as elastic as it should be to accommodate such changes.

It isn't the job of the SCOTUS to change the constitution.

 

[PredFan]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

Welcome to politics newbie!

Wait until the GOP uses the nuclear option, then the left will be screaming "This is unprecedented!!!"

It would be unprecedented.

Not even a little bit.

 

[PredFan]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

Welcome to politics newbie!

Wait until the GOP uses the nuclear option, then the left will be screaming "This is unprecedented!!!"

because IT ACTUALLY WOULD BE.

Not even a little bit.

 

[brummelben]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

Welcome to politics newbie!

Wait until the GOP uses the nuclear option, then the left will be screaming "This is unprecedented!!!"

because IT ACTUALLY WOULD BE.

Not even a little bit.

Cocksucker

 

[2aguy]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

So you are saying that "he did it first" is an appropriate way to conduct government.
Yes, there are some who behaved badly in the past. So we should keep this childishness going?

It's a different time, with a different President. Are you not fed up with our leaders behaving as if they were in Junior High school? I'd personally prefer to see them behave like the States people that we elected them to be. To conduct themselves with dignity, respect, and honor. Would you agree?

Nope....justices are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate...nothing in that article in the Constitution states it is an automatic granting of the nominee for the President.....garland would have been another anti-Constitutional justice....so their not appointing him was actually doing their job....

 

[brummelben]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

So you are saying that "he did it first" is an appropriate way to conduct government.
Yes, there are some who behaved badly in the past. So we should keep this childishness going?

It's a different time, with a different President. Are you not fed up with our leaders behaving as if they were in Junior High school? I'd personally prefer to see them behave like the States people that we elected them to be. To conduct themselves with dignity, respect, and honor. Would you agree?

Nope....justices are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate...nothing in that article in the Constitution states it is an automatic granting of the nominee for the President.....garland would have been another anti-Constitutional justice....so their not appointing him was actually doing their job....

WTF asshole is an anti constitutional judge, you piece of shit

 

[hjmick]

A mass amnesia has fallen upon Republican senators.

They seem to have forgotten about that time they refused to give President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court an up-or-down vote – or even a hearing – last year. Now they are claiming that Democrats are the norm-breakers for threatening to filibuster President Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Republicans are in a full-scale pressure campaign to convince 41 Democrats not to vote against invoking “cloture” on the debate over Gorsuch, which would prevent him from moving to a floor vote, where he would need only a simple majority to be confirmed.

So you are saying that "he did it first" is an appropriate way to conduct government.
Yes, there are some who behaved badly in the past. So we should keep this childishness going?

It's a different time, with a different President. Are you not fed up with our leaders behaving as if they were in Junior High school? I'd personally prefer to see them behave like the States people that we elected them to be. To conduct themselves with dignity, respect, and honor. Would you agree?

Why didn't you vote then for a "leader" as opposed to this lying piece of garbage?

The choices were Gary Johnson and two lying pieces of shit. Sadly, not enough people saw this simple truth.