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

[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....

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

Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kennedy.........they will rule against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights every time they get the chance.....

 

[Rambunctious]

Garland was never a serious selection, Obama knew the GOP was on solid ground in not bringing him up for approval in an election year.

 

[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.

Cocksucker

I win!

 

[Iceweasel]

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?

Wrong. Republicans nominate judges, Democrats nominate left wing activists. It isn't ideological or political to interpret the laws the way they are written by the legislative branch. Liberals do it because they want to shape the country from the bench. That never was the function of the judicial branch.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Corporations have the right to speech, that was the ruling, not that they are persons with all the rights. Liberals constantly confuse the purpose of the Constitution, it's designed to limit government, not grant rights. We are born with rights and unless there's a compelling reason the government should not interfere.

There's no good reason to prevent corporations to have their say. Oddly enough the left doesn't mind unions, confiscating money and funneling it into democrat coffers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

They filibustered Garland, Brundelfly?

Link?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[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.

What an utterly ignorant post.

Bet you think Citizens United made corporations "people," doncha?

 

[Fueri]

the dysfunctional congress is just piling dysfunction on top of dysfunction in an inexorable march to no-longer-concealed blind partisanship and total consolidation of all power in the hands of whatever party has the majority.

I didn't agree with the blockade on Garland and have said so on this board. The Dems are every bit as wrong here and will have nobody but themselves to blame if the Pubs go nuclear after Reid started blowing the last remaining bridges in the Dems naked power grab when they had the votes. Only one bridge left to facilitate any sort of compromise with the minority party and it's likely that one goes soon.

Then it's winner take literally all going forward, which is not a healthy climate at all.....

 

[Defiant1]

From The US Senate website:

6. Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.

EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROCEEDINGS ON NOMINATIONS - Rules of the Senate - United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Looks like Obama could have helped you lefties out with Garland but didn't.

What;s up with that?

If he had sent Garland's nomination to the new Senate in January there wouldn't have been a nomination for Trump to fill.

I bet he was too busy reviewing surveillance...

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Corporations have the right to speech, that was the ruling, not that they are persons with all the rights. Liberals constantly confuse the purpose of the Constitution, it's designed to limit government, not grant rights. We are born with rights and unless there's a compelling reason the government should not interfere.

There's no good reason to prevent corporations to have their say. Oddly enough the left doesn't mind unions, confiscating money and funneling it into democrat coffers.

Really? There is no good reason for corporations to have their say in legislation? And if their say is influenced by more money than God has, could there then be a good reason to limit their say?

 

[Nosmo King]

[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.

What an utterly ignorant post.

Bet you think Citizens United made corporations "people," doncha?

Citizens United didn't make corporations people. it made them omnipotent.