Senate pulls trigger on nuclear option, clearing way for Gorsuch confirmation

[EvilCat Breath]

Awesome. President Trump has a lot of work to do to make America great again, and obstructionist communists will just slow that down.

I predict that the Republicans will regret crossing that line when the Democrats gain control in 2-8 years. Nothing lasts forever and, as we've often seen in Washington DC, they love to play "tit-for-tat".

Sure, there's the possibility, but Trump has the opportunity to potentially appointed 1-3 SCOTUS Justices during his term and possibly even more. If there was ever a time to pull a move like this, it would be now.

True, but let's not forget the Finicky American voters. By the same logic, the Democrats have the "opportunity to potentially" have a big win in Congress in 2018, the WH in 2020 plus a stronger Democrat Congress.

How many seats are up for reelection in 2018?

There are 23 democratic seats and 8 republican seats. There will be no big Democrat win in 2018. Democrats will undoubtably have catastrophic losses. Any loss at this point will be catastrophic.

The way the Democrats are going, President Trump will have an easy 2020 win.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The GOP has really screwed the pooch with this partisan stupidity. There will be a reckoning some day!

Partisan stupidity? Just what do you call what the D's are doing?

You are one of those binary types, HUH! Perhaps you have a need to 'belong' to something greater than your shabby existence, but some of us can count well beyond 0 or 1 and refuse to limit ourselves only to be used as a fucking cog in a miscellaneous part of the greater machine! It sucks to be you settling for that self imposed limitation. And you have the gall to try and apply a label on others your minders have taught you to affix!

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Awesome. President Trump has a lot of work to do to make America great again, and obstructionist communists will just slow that down.

I predict that the Republicans will regret crossing that line when the Democrats gain control in 2-8 years. Nothing lasts forever and, as we've often seen in Washington DC, they love to play "tit-for-tat".

Sure, there's the possibility, but Trump has the opportunity to potentially appointed 1-3 SCOTUS Justices during his term and possibly even more. If there was ever a time to pull a move like this, it would be now.

True, but let's not forget the Finicky American voters. By the same logic, the Democrats have the "opportunity to potentially" have a big win in Congress in 2018, the WH in 2020 plus a stronger Democrat Congress.

How many seats are up for reelection in 2018?

There are 23 democratic seats and 8 republican seats. There will be no big Democrat win in 2018. Democrats will undoubtably have catastrophic losses. Any loss at this point will be catastrophic.

The way the Democrats are going, President Trump will have an easy 2020 win.

If trends continue, I agree. Trump's victory was shellacking 4.0 for Democrats. 2018 will be shellacking 5.0 if that trend continues. But anything can happen between now and midterm elections, and independent voters can be fickle.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The GOP has really screwed the pooch with this partisan stupidity. There will be a reckoning some day!

Partisan stupidity? Just what do you call what the D's are doing?

What the Democrats did was follow Merrick Garland right down the rabbit hole. What ever possessed them to hang on Garland like this. He was never worth it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The GOP has really screwed the pooch with this partisan stupidity. There will be a reckoning some day!

Partisan stupidity? Just what do you call what the D's are doing?

You are one of those binary types, HUH! Perhaps you have a need to 'belong' to something greater than your shabby existence, but some of us can count well beyond 0 or 1 and refuse to limit ourselves only to be used as a fucking cog in a miscellaneous part of the greater machine! It sucks to be you settling for that self imposed limitation. And you have the gall to try and apply a label on others your minders have taught you to affix!

Wow! Do you ASS-ume this much about all anonymous posters, or have you somehow developed a personal hardon for me especially. I'd love to know what sparked your personal attack rant.

 

[HenryBHough]

Can't help damn near wetting laughing myself when I recall the regular here'bouts who, in early November, 2016 was still using a signature: "The next Republican President hasn't been born yet". Thing is I can't remember his/her/its username. Anybody help?

 

[oreo]

Awesome. President Trump has a lot of work to do to make America great again, and obstructionist communists will just slow that down.

In reality I think they just cleared the way for Democrats to pick nominees without issues in the future.--LOL

Niel Gorsuch is someone they like, and have voted for in the past. It's not that they had any issues with him, it's just that they were upset that Merick Garland didn't get a vote and that is what all the uproar is about.

Democrats know now when they take over-- which they will in 2020--there will be no blocking of any of their nominees in the future. And Democrats can look at Republicans and honestly say--"Well it was them that changed the law."

Republicans played right into their hands.

These are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006. They could have easily rejected Gorsuch because in 2006 they owned the Senate. Gosuch was a G.W. Bush appointee to the Federal District court.
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Furthermore--Trump promised another Scalia--which they didn't get. Niel Gorsuch is the first nominee to my memory that has stated Roe V Wade is set in stone, and is precedent in the Constitution.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many people voted for Trump, because they were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated--and you'll note that she voted for Gorsuch, along with Obama who went to law school with Gorsuch and bunch of other Democrats--LOL In fact, Gorsuch could have easily been Hillary Clinton's pick.

What's done is done.

Media praised the ‘nuclear option’ when Democrats did it
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow assured her viewers at the time that “judges can be blocked on an up or down vote, a majority vote, like always.”

“But they cannot be blocked anymore by just a minority of votes,” Ms. Maddow said, reported the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters. “Republicans cannot force that anymore.”

MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes similarly hailed the 2013 development as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while his colleague Al Sharpton said “Democrats took the bold step of changing Senate rules, scaling back the filibuster that Republicans have unfairly used to block the president’s nominees.”

It's always been nice to get approval from both sides of the isle when it comes to SCOTUS nominees, but Republicans blew it--and they'll be the whiners when Democrats take over. Republicans set the precedent here, and Democrats will have no problems at all following that precedent.

 

[oreo]

Can't help damn near wetting laughing myself when I recall the regular here'bouts who, in early November, 2016 was still using a signature: "The next Republican President hasn't been born yet". Thing is I can't remember his/her/its username. Anybody help?

Well after this Russian investigation is over--the next Republican President may not be born yet--LOL

If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not to hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll get to learn what that Emoluments Clause is all about in the Constitution also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Awesome. President Trump has a lot of work to do to make America great again, and obstructionist communists will just slow that down.

In reality I think they just cleared the way for Democrats to pick nominees without issues in the future.--LOL

Niel Gorsuch is someone they like, and have voted for in the past. It's not that they had any issues with him, it's just that they were upset that Merick Garland didn't get a vote and that is what all the uproar is about.

Democrats know now when they take over-- which they will in 2020--there will be no blocking of any of their nominees in the future. And Democrats can look at Republicans and honestly say--"Well it was them that changed the law."

Republicans played right into their hands.

These are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006. They could have easily rejected Gorsuch because in 2006 they owned the Senate. Gosuch was a G.W. Bush appointee to the Federal District court.
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Furthermore--Trump promised another Scalia--which they didn't get. Niel Gorsuch is the first nominee to my memory that has stated Roe V Wade is set in stone, and is precedent in the Constitution.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many people voted for Trump, because they were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated--and you'll note that she voted for Gorsuch, along with Obama who went to law school with Gorsuch and bunch of other Democrats--LOL In fact, Gorsuch could have easily been Hillary Clinton's pick.

What's done is done.

Media praised the ‘nuclear option’ when Democrats did it
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow assured her viewers at the time that “judges can be blocked on an up or down vote, a majority vote, like always.”

“But they cannot be blocked anymore by just a minority of votes,” Ms. Maddow said, reported the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters. “Republicans cannot force that anymore.”

MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes similarly hailed the 2013 development as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while his colleague Al Sharpton said “Democrats took the bold step of changing Senate rules, scaling back the filibuster that Republicans have unfairly used to block the president’s nominees.”

It's always been nice to get approval from both sides of the isle when it comes to SCOTUS nominees, but Republicans blew it--and they'll be the whiners when Democrats take over. Republicans set the precedent here, and Democrats will have no problems at all following that precedent.

I don't see the DNC taking over any time soon. They went with Tom Perez (an establishment Democrat) to head the DNC. Many Bernie Bros will never forget how the DNC establishment sabotaged and treated Bernie Sanders.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Awesome. President Trump has a lot of work to do to make America great again, and obstructionist communists will just slow that down.

In reality I think they just cleared the way for Democrats to pick nominees without issues in the future.--LOL

Niel Gorsuch is someone they like, and have voted for in the past. It's not that they had any issues with him, it's just that they were upset that Merick Garland didn't get a vote and that is what all the uproar is about.

Democrats know now when they take over-- which they will in 2020--there will be no blocking of any of their nominees in the future. And Democrats can look at Republicans and honestly say--"Well it was them that changed the law."

Republicans played right into their hands.

These are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006. They could have easily rejected Gorsuch because in 2006 they owned the Senate. Gosuch was a G.W. Bush appointee to the Federal District court.
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Furthermore--Trump promised another Scalia--which they didn't get. Niel Gorsuch is the first nominee to my memory that has stated Roe V Wade is set in stone, and is precedent in the Constitution.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many people voted for Trump, because they were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated--and you'll note that she voted for Gorsuch, along with Obama who went to law school with Gorsuch and bunch of other Democrats--LOL In fact, Gorsuch could have easily been Hillary Clinton's pick.

What's done is done.

Media praised the ‘nuclear option’ when Democrats did it
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow assured her viewers at the time that “judges can be blocked on an up or down vote, a majority vote, like always.”

“But they cannot be blocked anymore by just a minority of votes,” Ms. Maddow said, reported the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters. “Republicans cannot force that anymore.”

MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes similarly hailed the 2013 development as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while his colleague Al Sharpton said “Democrats took the bold step of changing Senate rules, scaling back the filibuster that Republicans have unfairly used to block the president’s nominees.”

It's always been nice to get approval from both sides of the isle when it comes to SCOTUS nominees, but Republicans blew it--and they'll be the whiners when Democrats take over. Republicans set the precedent here, and Democrats will have no problems at all following that precedent.

No, Padawan, Dems have already set the precedent. Now they're sore because they've been hoist on their own petard.

 

[oreo]

Awesome. President Trump has a lot of work to do to make America great again, and obstructionist communists will just slow that down.

In reality I think they just cleared the way for Democrats to pick nominees without issues in the future.--LOL

Niel Gorsuch is someone they like, and have voted for in the past. It's not that they had any issues with him, it's just that they were upset that Merick Garland didn't get a vote and that is what all the uproar is about.

Democrats know now when they take over-- which they will in 2020--there will be no blocking of any of their nominees in the future. And Democrats can look at Republicans and honestly say--"Well it was them that changed the law."

Republicans played right into their hands.

These are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006. They could have easily rejected Gorsuch because in 2006 they owned the Senate. Gosuch was a G.W. Bush appointee to the Federal District court.
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

Furthermore--Trump promised another Scalia--which they didn't get. Niel Gorsuch is the first nominee to my memory that has stated Roe V Wade is set in stone, and is precedent in the Constitution.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Many people voted for Trump, because they were scared to death who Hillary Clinton would have nominated--and you'll note that she voted for Gorsuch, along with Obama who went to law school with Gorsuch and bunch of other Democrats--LOL In fact, Gorsuch could have easily been Hillary Clinton's pick.

What's done is done.

Media praised the ‘nuclear option’ when Democrats did it
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow assured her viewers at the time that “judges can be blocked on an up or down vote, a majority vote, like always.”

“But they cannot be blocked anymore by just a minority of votes,” Ms. Maddow said, reported the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters. “Republicans cannot force that anymore.”

MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes similarly hailed the 2013 development as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while his colleague Al Sharpton said “Democrats took the bold step of changing Senate rules, scaling back the filibuster that Republicans have unfairly used to block the president’s nominees.”

It's always been nice to get approval from both sides of the isle when it comes to SCOTUS nominees, but Republicans blew it--and they'll be the whiners when Democrats take over. Republicans set the precedent here, and Democrats will have no problems at all following that precedent.

No, Padawan, Dems have already set the precedent. Now they're sore because they've been hoist on their own petard.

No Democrats have not set precedent--they're pissed that Republicans didn't give Merrick Garland and up or down vote--and blocked him.

It's not like Democrats had an issue with Niel Goruch, he's their dream nominee.
Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

This is going to work out in favor of Democrats, not Republicans.

John McCain's comments reflect it all--we're on a slippery slope here, we have just broke 200 years of SCOTUS nominee tradition.

 

[Doc1]

The senate just fired the fatal shot that will end any semblance of sanity in Washington. Let the games begin.

How so? What is sane about filibustering a perfectly qualified Supreme Court nominee? Furthermore, where is it written that they need to have 60 votes in order to move forward on voting for a judge? The Democrats changed the rules for all other federal court nominees in 2013 and I don't recall their supporters saying they were ending any semblance of sanity in the Senate.

Ironically Schumer started this latest round of partisan bullshit when he filibustered Miguel Estrada. These bitches are being bitten in the ass by their own tactics and listen to them howl. Hey Lefty's.....we're in fuck you mode now.

 

[Polishprince]

Now that this is over, or just about, what will our liberal friends do in the Senate next month, after Justice Ginzberg moves to Australia as she promised and President Trump nominate Ann Coulter to replace her? They've wasted all of their outrage on a very mild mannered judge and won't have any left when someone a tad more controversial is nominated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember when Republicans Filibustered that Democrat SCOTUS pick?

 

[Doc1]

Now that this is over, or just about, what will our liberal friends do in the Senate next month, after Justice Ginzberg moves to Australia as she promised and President Trump nominate Ann Coulter to replace her? They've wasted all of their outrage on a very mild mannered judge and won't have any left when someone a tad more controversial is nominated.

She is ready to die and Kennedy will retire, the Left is fooked.

 

[oreo]

The senate just fired the fatal shot that will end any semblance of sanity in Washington. Let the games begin.

How so? What is sane about filibustering a perfectly qualified Supreme Court nominee? Furthermore, where is it written that they need to have 60 votes in order to move forward on voting for a judge? The Democrats changed the rules for all other federal court nominees in 2013 and I don't recall their supporters saying they were ending any semblance of sanity in the Senate.

Ironically Schumer started this latest round of partisan bullshit when he filibustered Miguel Estrada. These bitches are being bitten in the ass by their own tactics and listen to them howl. Hey Lefty's.....we're in fuck you mode now.

I don't care who they are or what side of the isle they come from they're always filibustered. It's called Partisan politics and maybe it doesn't belong during picks of US Scotus nominees, and they'll just get an up or down vote. It only requires a simply majority to confirm a judge but tradition dictates that we have 60 votes in the Senate to confirm. Without this tradition being followed is where you'll really get far left or far right judges.

 

[BluesLegend]

Ha Ha Dem's lose again I love it.

As soon as Gorsuch is confirmed my vote for Trump pays off.

You voted for the pussy grabber? What am I asking that for? Of course you did. If he was alive and running for president, you would have voted for Ted Bundy, just because he was a Republican --- a Republican party worker and delegate to be precise --- you partisan hack.

We Trump supporters whooped your ass, we whooped Hillary, we whooped Obama, we whooped your liberal media, it was embarrassing how bad we spanked you.

 

[Doc1]

The senate just fired the fatal shot that will end any semblance of sanity in Washington. Let the games begin.

How so? What is sane about filibustering a perfectly qualified Supreme Court nominee? Furthermore, where is it written that they need to have 60 votes in order to move forward on voting for a judge? The Democrats changed the rules for all other federal court nominees in 2013 and I don't recall their supporters saying they were ending any semblance of sanity in the Senate.

Ironically Schumer started this latest round of partisan bullshit when he filibustered Miguel Estrada. These bitches are being bitten in the ass by their own tactics and listen to them howl. Hey Lefty's.....we're in fuck you mode now.

I don't care who they are or what side of the isle they come from they're always filibustered. It's called Partisan politics and maybe it doesn't belong during picks of US Scotus nominees, and they'll just get an up or down vote. It only requires a simply majority to confirm a judge but tradition dictates that we have 60 votes in the Senate to confirm. Without this tradition being followed is where you'll really get far left or far right judges.

Not true, the history of it that it started with Bork. This latest round was started by Schumer filibustering Estrada back in the day. It should be straight up and down.

 

[BluesLegend]

How does that knife in your back feel libs, here let us twist it for you

 

[Polishprince]

It's called Partisan politics and maybe it doesn't belong during picks of US Scotus nominees, and they'll just get an up or down vote. It only requires a simply majority to confirm a judge but tradition dictates that we have 60 votes in the Senate to confirm. Without this tradition being followed is where you'll really get far left or far right judges.

The "Tradition" in question is only 25 years old or so. Like I had pointed out earlier, Justice Thomas was confirmed with just 52 votes- far less than 60. And Thomas, BTW, was demonized during his confirmation process a lot more than Gorsuch was. People considered the treatment that Thomas received at the hands of hardcore liberal extremists a "high tech lynching".

Some unfair shots were taken at Gorsuch, but not nearly as much as Thomas, mostly because Gorsuch is a white guy.