Schumer vows to block SCOTUS pick

[Dale Smith]

Charles Schumer is a CFR member and a globalist POS commie so of course he is going to hate any nominee that is pro-constitution. The man is an unmitigated joke.

 

[defcon4]

Chucky has begged Trump for campaign money in the past so Trump owns the clown....he actually called him a "clown" in a tweet earlier today. Chucky is just vying for leverage for something else....he can't do shit about the pick and everybody knows it.

Schumer stand for something, Trump flies with the wind.

Where are Trumps taxes, waiting.......

Trump's taxes are irrelevant at this point, move on.

 

[defcon4]

Oh, we're seating supreme court justices now? What a banana republic.

In case you haven't noticed, there are 8 members on the court. Yes we will seat a justice pretty quickly regardless of how you and chucky schumer feel about it.

The supreme court has obviously become just another diseased part of the partisanshithead political system, and the world sees it all.

Here's your flag.

No homosexual references mikieboi?

You want some? Ask and you shall be given...

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Schumer cant even block a stone from leaving Michael Moores butt tunnel

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you progressives realize that by doing this you've totally undermined your argument for why it was wrong to block garland? And demonstrated your insincerity and hypocrisy.

 

[Ame®icano]

So Chucky has decided to block Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy. Good for him.

I suggest Trump play hardball with him. What I would do is nominate a Constitutionalist with decent Conservative credentials and see what Schumer does. If Democrats filibuster, withdraw the nomination and put up an even more Conservative jurist.
After 3 or 4 tries at this, Trump sits down with Senator Schumer and simply tells him to either play ball or there will be dire consequences.
If Trump knows anything, it's how to negotiate from a position of strength.

Now that Reid is gone, Shmuck Schumer is most despicable politician in US, right before Mitch McConnell.

He's suggesting that he wont work with Trump and threatening to filibuster everything unless Trump abandon Republican party and move towards Democrats. Is he insane?

Republicans will fuck it up if they bend over to Democrats and don't do exactly what Democrats did, and that is, abandon filibuster, use reconciliation and ram everything thru Congress without even considering to ask them for their opinion.

 

[yiostheoy]

So Chucky has decided to block Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy. Good for him.

I suggest Trump play hardball with him. What I would do is nominate a Constitutionalist with decent Conservative credentials and see what Schumer does. If Democrats filibuster, withdraw the nomination and put up an even more Conservative jurist.
After 3 or 4 tries at this, Trump sits down with Senator Schumer and simply tells him to either play ball or there will be dire consequences.
If Trump knows anything, it's how to negotiate from a position of strength.

In the long term the GOP has the advantage in this game.

Ruth "Darth Vader" Ginsberg is due to die anytime.

When she does, this will restore the power of Kennedy as a swing voter.

Note also that Roberts has become a swing voter of sorts as well.

We do not need 9 Justices on the SCOTUS. There is nothing magical about 9 of them. The Constitution does not give a number.

7 is just fine too.

And then there 6. Then 5. Then 4. Etc.

There won't be a constitutional crisis until there are less than 3 of them.

Roberts is only 61. "W" Bush was smart appointing a younger man and putting him in charge.

Kagan is 56.

Sotomayor is 62.

Alito is 66.

These four will be the final four if no one is appointed in the next 20 years.

 

[yiostheoy]

So Chucky has decided to block Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy. Good for him.

I suggest Trump play hardball with him. What I would do is nominate a Constitutionalist with decent Conservative credentials and see what Schumer does. If Democrats filibuster, withdraw the nomination and put up an even more Conservative jurist.
After 3 or 4 tries at this, Trump sits down with Senator Schumer and simply tells him to either play ball or there will be dire consequences.
If Trump knows anything, it's how to negotiate from a position of strength.

Now that Reid is gone, Shmuck Schumer is most despicable politician in US, right before Mitch McConnell.

He's suggesting that he wont work with Trump and threatening to filibuster everything unless Trump abandon Republican party and move towards Democrats. Is he insane?

Republicans will fuck it up if they bend over to Democrats and don't do exactly what Democrats did, and that is, abandon filibuster, use reconciliation and ram everything thru Congress without even considering to ask them for their opinion.

Actually, Schumer & McConnell & Ryan are the 3 most powerful people in Congress right now. They will represent the true balance of power, not Trump, and not Pelosi.

Whatever the 3 of them can agree on will go forward.

Whatever they cannot will be dead in the water.

Schumer & McConnell both have the power of the filibuster -- equally.

 

[yiostheoy]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

Damm yore dumm FA_Q2 .

You must have gone to publik skool and slept throo Civics and History to.

 

[Ernie S.]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

Damm yore dumm FA_Q2 .

You must have gone to publik skool and slept throo Civics and History to.

Actually, he's quite correct. Democrats changed the rules with a simple majority vote to limit debate on appointments to the lower courts. The GOP is now in the majority and can extent the rules to include SCOTUS. That, of course is a risky move, but even without that, Schumer will be told in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't bring Trump's nominees up for a vote, he will be the ultimate loser; unable to get so much as a dime for his pet programs.

 

[Care4all]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

Damm yore dumm FA_Q2 .

You must have gone to publik skool and slept throo Civics and History to.

Actually, he's quite correct. Democrats changed the rules with a simple majority vote to limit debate on appointments to the lower courts. The GOP is now in the majority and can extent the rules to include SCOTUS. That, of course is a risky move, but even without that, Schumer will be told in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't bring Trump's nominees up for a vote, he will be the ultimate loser; unable to get so much as a dime for his pet programs.

How would bringing them up for a vote, be up to Schumer? He's NOT the majority leader, schumer can't stop Trump's nominee from coming up for a vote unless there are 12 Republicans moving to support Schumer on a filibuster, no???

 

[yiostheoy]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

Damm yore dumm FA_Q2 .

You must have gone to publik skool and slept throo Civics and History to.

Actually, he's quite correct. Democrats changed the rules with a simple majority vote to limit debate on appointments to the lower courts. The GOP is now in the majority and can extent the rules to include SCOTUS. That, of course is a risky move, but even without that, Schumer will be told in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't bring Trump's nominees up for a vote, he will be the ultimate loser; unable to get so much as a dime for his pet programs.

Ideally all of the Scotus justices would be swing voters.

But Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer are all loose cannons.

So we need 4 opposite cannons to offset them.

That is the problem.

With Scalia's untimely death from obesity BHO and the DEM's could taste a 5th loose cannon. But it did not happen.

God intervened and Trump was elected plus the Senate stayed GOP. Or else Putin intervened.

 

[yiostheoy]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

Damm yore dumm FA_Q2 .

You must have gone to publik skool and slept throo Civics and History to.

Actually, he's quite correct. Democrats changed the rules with a simple majority vote to limit debate on appointments to the lower courts. The GOP is now in the majority and can extent the rules to include SCOTUS. That, of course is a risky move, but even without that, Schumer will be told in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't bring Trump's nominees up for a vote, he will be the ultimate loser; unable to get so much as a dime for his pet programs.

How would bringing them up for a vote, be up to Schumer? He's NOT the majority leader, schumer can't stop Trump's nominee from coming up for a vote unless there are 12 Republicans moving to support Schumer on a filibuster, no???

You need to google "filibuster" Care4all .

Google is your friend.

 

[Care4all]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

Damm yore dumm FA_Q2 .

You must have gone to publik skool and slept throo Civics and History to.

Actually, he's quite correct. Democrats changed the rules with a simple majority vote to limit debate on appointments to the lower courts. The GOP is now in the majority and can extent the rules to include SCOTUS. That, of course is a risky move, but even without that, Schumer will be told in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't bring Trump's nominees up for a vote, he will be the ultimate loser; unable to get so much as a dime for his pet programs.

How would bringing them up for a vote, be up to Schumer? He's NOT the majority leader, schumer can't stop Trump's nominee from coming up for a vote unless there are 12 Republicans moving to support Schumer on a filibuster, no???

You need to google "filibuster" Care4all .

Google is your friend.

I know a little bit about it, without googling, (though I will google later to refresh my memory, thx for the advice! )

And the Dems only have 48 senators, they would need 60 in order to filibuster if memory serves...? And that would mean, not only would schumer need the 48 in the Dem coalition, but they would need another 12 republicans to get to the 60 needed to hold the filibuster, wouldn't they?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Schumer is convinced that democrats can block every nominee even if there is more than one. He believes that in 2018 democrats will again be in the majority.

That is a monumental gamble almost guaranteed to fail. What will really happen is some of these democrats up for reelection will panic and jump.

 

[Ernie S.]

Where are Trumps taxes, waiting.......

What possible use would you have for Trump's tax-return other than window-peeking?

The FACT that he promised to reveal them. But Drumplethinskin lying doesn't seem to bother you.

my god, oman/man! Trump WON! Get over it already.

 

[oreo]

So Chucky has decided to block Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy. Good for him.

I suggest Trump play hardball with him. What I would do is nominate a Constitutionalist with decent Conservative credentials and see what Schumer does. If Democrats filibuster, withdraw the nomination and put up an even more Conservative jurist.
After 3 or 4 tries at this, Trump sits down with Senator Schumer and simply tells him to either play ball or there will be dire consequences.
If Trump knows anything, it's how to negotiate from a position of strength.

You're not going to get another Justice Scalia, if that's what you're looking for. Obama's pick was actually someone Republicans approved of, but they wanted to wait until the election was over so they could put on the typical dog & pony show.
GOP leaders praised SCOTUS pick Merrick Garland -- a lot - CNNPolitics.com

Now they're actually in a position to where Trump picks someone more liberal, and democrats would approve of that one and they wouldn't. There are many Republicans that believe Trump is going to choose a New York liberal Judge for the court.
I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

 

[Ernie S.]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

My strategy would be to nominate my first choice and if Schumer filibusters, withdraw the nomination and put up an even more Conservative jurist. Eventually, the first nominee will start to look like a Socialist.
I want Trump to play hardball and make Schumer as irrelevant as Pelosi has been since the GOP took over in the House.

 

[oreo]

Where are Trumps taxes, waiting.......

What possible use would you have for Trump's tax-return other than window-peeking?

Well an income tax return would show conflicts of interest. Like you know those hotels he owns in China, and the banking ties he has with Russia.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia

 

[oreo]

He can try and bluster all he wants. The reality is that Trump is going to seat a SCOTUS member and there is noting that the dems can do to stop that from happening.

If they do not want to play ball they are going to get no say in the seat at all. That is unlikely.

They'd might as well. It would be no different than the reps refusing to vet appointments.

Yes, it will be very different.

The key difference here is that the dems do not actually have the power to stonewall seating a justice for the next 2 years. The republicans did have the power to stonewall Obama until the election. The key difference here is that Trump is going to get his pick either way. The dems can either fight this appointment to get the best judge they can or stonewall the appointment and end up without any input whatsoever. That is their choice and I highly doubt they are idiotic enough to lose all input on something as vital as a SCOTUS seat.

My strategy would be to nominate my first choice and if Schumer filibusters, withdraw the nomination and put up an even more Conservative jurist. Eventually, the first nominee will start to look like a Socialist.
I want Trump to play hardball and make Schumer as irrelevant as Pelosi has been since the GOP took over in the House.

You're forgetting something. Trump and his supporters have made a lot of Republican enemies especially in the Senate. They aren't going to bend over and kiss Trump's ass on anything and everything he wants.
So while you think you've got a 51 majority, it's probably 51 minus at least 6 or 7 Republican votes, who may side with Democrats if Trump picks someone that is too extreme to the right.

A lot of people seem not to know that it was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade, and it's been a right leaning court ever since. A right leaning court also gave us gay marriage.

So really what is it, that you think you're going to get?