Nuclear Showdown: Dems Have The Votes To Filibuster Gorsuch

[Lakhota]

Republicans will have to blow up Senate rules to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. It’s getting ugly.

WASHINGTON ― Democrats have locked in the votes to block Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, meaning Republicans will have to take the extreme step of using the so-called “nuclear option” to blow up Senate rules to confirm him.

More: Democrats Have The Votes To Filibuster Neil Gorsuch

Great news! Remember Merrick Garland.

 

[Avatar4321]

I agree. Great news. Lets get this over with and go nuclear

 

[Lakhota]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Remember who?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

 

[Lakhota]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

 

[OldLady]

Republicans will have to blow up Senate rules to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. It’s getting ugly.

WASHINGTON ― Democrats have locked in the votes to block Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, meaning Republicans will have to take the extreme step of using the so-called “nuclear option” to blow up Senate rules to confirm him.

More: Democrats Have The Votes To Filibuster Neil Gorsuch

Great news! Remember Merrick Garland.

Shit. I told my senator NOT to filibuster this one. Did he listen? NO!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

It was magnificent. Smartest move McConnell ever made.

 

[Lakhota]

Republicans will have to blow up Senate rules to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. It’s getting ugly.

WASHINGTON ― Democrats have locked in the votes to block Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, meaning Republicans will have to take the extreme step of using the so-called “nuclear option” to blow up Senate rules to confirm him.

More: Democrats Have The Votes To Filibuster Neil Gorsuch

Great news! Remember Merrick Garland.

Shit. I told my senator NOT to filibuster this one. Did he listen? NO!

Why?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

Approved him as a federal judge.

How evil of them

 

[OldLady]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

Sorry, Lakhota, but that whole goddamned Senate should be sent home fired, with a special election in 30 days. They are playing partisan politics and keeping this government from functioning for the benefit of the people. Fire every one of them if they won't do their job. This is game playing on both sides.

 

[Crixus]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

Never was a half black president either until there was.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

What, followed the Biden Rule?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

What, followed the Biden Rule?

Apparently following 200 years of precedent is bad unless its to use the fillibuster against a supreme court nominee, then its awesome

 

[Lakhota]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

What, followed the Biden Rule?

Biden Rule? Don't you ever get tired of lying and trolling? Seriously?

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

What, followed the Biden Rule?

Biden Rule? Don't you ever get tired of lying and trolling? Seriously?

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

You should read the article you link to

 

[Lakhota]

I don't believe the so-called "nuclear option" has ever been used to confirm a SCOTUS nominee.

That's because no douchebags have ever used a filibuster on a supreme court nominee

Just remember what NaziCons did to Merrick Garland.

What, followed the Biden Rule?

Biden Rule? Don't you ever get tired of lying and trolling? Seriously?

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

You should read the article you link to

Duh, I did. Those were just words said by Biden in a floor speech. They carried no legal weight then or now.

 

[The Original Tree]

The Filibuster is going to be awesome!

I want The Dems To Filibuster.

Add This To Them Phucking Themselves with The False Russian Narrative and finding out Obama was spying on President Trump for a year, sharing Illegally Intel with Clinton, and Illegally Unmasking so Called Incidental Targets of Surveillance, and it is going to be an Ass Stomping in 2018.

Bye Bye DemNazis!

You Morons are on your 3rd Party Head of The DNC in not even a year.

What a bunch of JACKASSES!

Literally!

LMFAO!

 

[Richard-H]

It's interesting to think that according to the Constitution, if taken exactly word for word, the Senate has the power to obliterate SCOTUS. At least according the the Republican's interpretation of the Constitution.

“The President....shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...judges of the Supreme Court"

If partisan bickering continues, it's very possible that SCOTUS could be depleted entirely. Doubtful, but possible.

On the other hand, it's extremely doubtful that the framers of the Constitution intended to give one branch of government the ability to obliterate another branch of government. It seems that the intention was for it to be a responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent (or dissent), but not to do simply nothing. If the senate dissents, it gives the President the opportunity to make another nomination. If they do nothing, then the seat remains vacant permanently.

It seems to me that if the Senate does nothing within a reasonable amount of time, by default, it should be taken as consent. "Silence is golden".

This would mean that Merrick Garland is the rightful Supreme Court Judge.

I'm sure that many would disagree, but if this was presented to SCOTUS, I have a feeling that they would rule that the Senate does have an obligation to either consent or dissent in a reasonable amount of time, and that the senate does not have the power to obliterate SCOTUS.

 

[Lakhota]

It's interesting to think that according to the Constitution, if taken exactly word for word, the Senate has the power to obliterate SCOTUS. At least according the the Republican's interpretation of the Constitution.

“The President....shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...judges of the Supreme Court"

If partisan bickering continues, it's very possible that SCOTUS could be depleted entirely. Doubtful, but possible.

On the other hand, it's extremely doubtful that the framers of the Constitution intended to give one branch of government the ability to obliterate another branch of government. It seems that the intention was for it to be a responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent (or dissent), but not to do simply nothing. If the senate dissents, it gives the President the opportunity to make another nomination. If they do nothing, then the seat remains vacant permanently.

It seems to me that if the Senate does nothing within a reasonable amount of time, by default, it should be taken as consent. "Silence is golden".

This would mean that Merrick Garland is the rightful Supreme Court Judge.

I'm sure that many would disagree, but if this was presented to SCOTUS, I have a feeling that they would rule that the Senate does have an obligation to either consent or dissent in a reasonable amount of time, and that the senate does not have the power to obliterate SCOTUS.

Good food for thought. Thank you.