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

[ptbw forever]

When Obama one you kids screamed that Repubs would NEVER win another election.
2010 you lost the House.
2012 You lost the Senate.
2016 Hildabitch cost you the Presidency.

I'm not real worried about your predictions.

Typically, midterm elections favor the party not in the White House. There have been a few exceptions, but not many. Plus, if Trump's approval rating is under 50% that will also favor the Democrats.

I don't think that approval rating is going to mean much this time around. Just because of where the democrats are up for re-election.

Montana and North Dakota have a long history of electing Democratic Senators. Additionally, Joe Manchin is very well liked in West Virginia. Those are probably the three reddest states with a Dem up for reelection and as of right now I would rate them as holds. Dean Heller, here in Nevada, is in probably more danger than any of them.

All Republicans have to do to win them all is tie the Democrats to California and all the sanctuary cities committing treason.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

When Obama one you kids screamed that Repubs would NEVER win another election.
2010 you lost the House.
2012 You lost the Senate.
2016 Hildabitch cost you the Presidency.

I'm not real worried about your predictions.

Typically, midterm elections favor the party not in the White House. There have been a few exceptions, but not many. Plus, if Trump's approval rating is under 50% that will also favor the Democrats.

I don't think that approval rating is going to mean much this time around. Just because of where the democrats are up for re-election.

Montana and North Dakota have a long history of electing Democratic Senators. Additionally, Joe Manchin is very well liked in West Virginia. Those are probably the three reddest states with a Dem up for reelection and as of right now I would rate them as holds. Dean Heller, here in Nevada, is in probably more danger than any of them.

McCaskill is pretty much screwed here. She would have lost last time but we blew it. This time I think she's gone.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

When Obama one you kids screamed that Repubs would NEVER win another election.
2010 you lost the House.
2012 You lost the Senate.
2016 Hildabitch cost you the Presidency.

I'm not real worried about your predictions.

Typically, midterm elections favor the party not in the White House. There have been a few exceptions, but not many. Plus, if Trump's approval rating is under 50% that will also favor the Democrats.

I don't think that approval rating is going to mean much this time around. Just because of where the democrats are up for re-election.

Montana and North Dakota have a long history of electing Democratic Senators. Additionally, Joe Manchin is very well liked in West Virginia. Those are probably the three reddest states with a Dem up for reelection and as of right now I would rate them as holds. Dean Heller, here in Nevada, is in probably more danger than any of them.

All Republicans have to do to win them all is tie the Democrats to California and all the sanctuary cities committing treason.

Agreed, I don't think the pro-illegal, pro-sanctuary, pro-abortion, stance is going to do well in the states that are up this time around.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

If Dems like Gorsuch so much why do they have to have a kindergarten-style meltdown instead of getting behind his SCOTUS nomination. That would give them the high ground later when both sides of the house reach another politically, party driven impasse?

According to John Dickerson's commentary tonight on the CBS News this is a case of partisan litmus tests for the voters back home, that's all. Everyone is positioning for the midterm elections in 2018.

No doubt. I wonder whether any of these azzwholes do anything other than campaign? What a wonder it would be if they actually did the jobs they were elected to do.

 

[oreo]

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.

If Dems like Gorsuch so much why do they have to have a kindergarten-style meltdown instead of getting behind his SCOTUS nomination. That would give them the high ground later when both sides of the house reach another politically, party driven impasse?

According to John Dickerson's commentary tonight on the CBS News this is a case of partisan litmus tests for the voters back home, that's all. Everyone is positioning for the midterm elections in 2018.

Yep it's to enhance the great divide in this country--and nothing more.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Agreed about partisan politics, but disagreed on you limiting it to SCOTUS picks. Face the facts; the Democrats escalated partisan politics by using the Nuclear Option for picking Judges in lower courts. All the Republicans did was follow their lead by escalating it one step more. That is how tit-for-tat partisan politics works. In the end, it's the American people who lose, but saying that this is all the Republicans fault is bullshit since you're just continuing to play the finger-pointing blame game of partisan politics.

Best, IMHO, to just admit that partisan politics on both sides is one reason so many Americans think our nation is headed in the wrong direction.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When Obama one you kids screamed that Repubs would NEVER win another election.
2010 you lost the House.
2012 You lost the Senate.
2016 Hildabitch cost you the Presidency.

I'm not real worried about your predictions.

Typically, midterm elections favor the party not in the White House. There have been a few exceptions, but not many. Plus, if Trump's approval rating is under 50% that will also favor the Democrats.

I don't think that approval rating is going to mean much this time around. Just because of where the democrats are up for re-election.

Montana and North Dakota have a long history of electing Democratic Senators. Additionally, Joe Manchin is very well liked in West Virginia. Those are probably the three reddest states with a Dem up for reelection and as of right now I would rate them as holds. Dean Heller, here in Nevada, is in probably more danger than any of them.

McCaskill is pretty much screwed here. She would have lost last time but we blew it. This time I think she's gone.

I don't think she is going to lose

 

[Darkwind]

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.

So they plan do die on this hill for revenge and fuck the rest of the country, right?

BTW...you do realize that a 60-vote requirement for SCOTUS nominees has only been around for about a hundred years?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

If Dems like Gorsuch so much why do they have to have a kindergarten-style meltdown instead of getting behind his SCOTUS nomination. That would give them the high ground later when both sides of the house reach another politically, party driven impasse?

According to John Dickerson's commentary tonight on the CBS News this is a case of partisan litmus tests for the voters back home, that's all. Everyone is positioning for the midterm elections in 2018.

Yep it's to enhance the great divide in this country--and nothing more.

Good. The sooner we start shooting each other, the sooner we can get back to rational and sane governance.

As it stands right now, neither side trusts the other at all. I mean, zero percent trust.

We are at the brink and I'm all for pushing on.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

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.

If Dems like Gorsuch so much why do they have to have a kindergarten-style meltdown instead of getting behind his SCOTUS nomination. That would give them the high ground later when both sides of the house reach another politically, party driven impasse?

According to John Dickerson's commentary tonight on the CBS News this is a case of partisan litmus tests for the voters back home, that's all. Everyone is positioning for the midterm elections in 2018.

Yep it's to enhance the great divide in this country--and nothing more.

Good. The sooner we start shooting each other, the sooner we can get back to rational and sane governance.

As it stands right now, neither side trusts the other at all. I mean, zero percent trust.

We are at the brink and I'm all for pushing on.

This. Democrats made it clear under Obama that they'd give anyone who isn't a rank and file, card-carrying Democrat no quarter, so it's time to pulverize them and get as much shit done under Trump as possible.

 

[oreo]

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.

So they plan do die on this hill for revenge and fuck the rest of the country, right?

BTW...you do realize that a 60-vote requirement for SCOTUS nominees has only been around for about a hundred years?

Republicans are only screwing themselves. Again--Democrats love Niel Gorsuch--they have confirmed him in the past. Republicans played right into their hands. Democrats take the Senate in 2018, and that stops any more Trump nominees. In 2020 when Democrats take the Presidency they will be able to appoint anyone they want--and Republicans won't be able to stop them much less complain about it. It's a no win situation for either side. This is where you will get your too far left and too far right judges.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

These are the Democrats who confirmed Niel Gorsuch in 2006 under G.W. Bush for a district court judge. This is a time when Democrats could have rejected him, as they owned the Senate. So there's no doubt they like him.

This is just political payback for what Republicans did to Merrick Garland--blocked him because they wanted to be the ones that picked the next nominee. The irony here, is Republicans liked Merrick Garland--LOL They really had no issues with him.
Opinion | Why Republicans might actually put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court

So the Partisan war starts on SCOTUS nominees.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

So they plan do die on this hill for revenge and fuck the rest of the country, right?

BTW...you do realize that a 60-vote requirement for SCOTUS nominees has only been around for about a hundred years?

Republicans are only screwing themselves. Again--Democrats love Niel Gorsuch--they have confirmed him in the past. Republicans played right into their hands. Democrats take the Senate in 2018, and that stops any more Trump nominees. In 2020 when Democrats take the Presidency they will be able to appoint anyone they want--and Republicans won't be able to stop them much less complain about it. It's a no win situation for either side. This is where you will get your too far left and too far right judges.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

These are the Democrats who confirmed Niel Gorsuch in 2006 under G.W. Bush for a district court judge. This is a time when Democrats could have rejected him, as they owned the Senate. So there's no doubt they like him. This is just a payback for what Republicans did to Merrick Garland--blocked him because they wanted to be the ones that picked the nominee. The irony here, is Republicans liked Merrick Garland--LOL
Opinion | Why Republicans might actually put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court

So the Partisan war starts on SCOTUS nominees.

Good luck with that 2018 thing.

I hear that Obama and Rice were saying, "Hey, we won't have to worry about hiding this unmasking thing, Hillary has it in the bag!.

BTW....did you catch that part about the fillibuster for SCOTUS only being about a hundred years old?

 

[oreo]

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.

So they plan do die on this hill for revenge and fuck the rest of the country, right?

BTW...you do realize that a 60-vote requirement for SCOTUS nominees has only been around for about a hundred years?

Republicans are only screwing themselves. Again--Democrats love Niel Gorsuch--they have confirmed him in the past. Republicans played right into their hands. Democrats take the Senate in 2018, and that stops any more Trump nominees. In 2020 when Democrats take the Presidency they will be able to appoint anyone they want--and Republicans won't be able to stop them much less complain about it. It's a no win situation for either side. This is where you will get your too far left and too far right judges.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

These are the Democrats who confirmed Niel Gorsuch in 2006 under G.W. Bush for a district court judge. This is a time when Democrats could have rejected him, as they owned the Senate. So there's no doubt they like him. This is just a payback for what Republicans did to Merrick Garland--blocked him because they wanted to be the ones that picked the nominee. The irony here, is Republicans liked Merrick Garland--LOL
Opinion | Why Republicans might actually put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court

So the Partisan war starts on SCOTUS nominees.

Good luck with that 2018 thing.

I hear that Obama and Rice were saying, "Hey, we won't have to worry about hiding this unmasking thing, Hillary has it in the bag!.

BTW....did you catch that part about the fillibuster for SCOTUS only being about a hundred years old?

 

[oreo]

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.

So they plan do die on this hill for revenge and fuck the rest of the country, right?

BTW...you do realize that a 60-vote requirement for SCOTUS nominees has only been around for about a hundred years?

Republicans are only screwing themselves. Again--Democrats love Niel Gorsuch--they have confirmed him in the past. Republicans played right into their hands. Democrats take the Senate in 2018, and that stops any more Trump nominees. In 2020 when Democrats take the Presidency they will be able to appoint anyone they want--and Republicans won't be able to stop them much less complain about it. It's a no win situation for either side. This is where you will get your too far left and too far right judges.

Here Are the Democrats Who Voted for Neil Gorsuch as a Circuit Court Judge in 2006

These are the Democrats who confirmed Niel Gorsuch in 2006 under G.W. Bush for a district court judge. This is a time when Democrats could have rejected him, as they owned the Senate. So there's no doubt they like him. This is just a payback for what Republicans did to Merrick Garland--blocked him because they wanted to be the ones that picked the nominee. The irony here, is Republicans liked Merrick Garland--LOL
Opinion | Why Republicans might actually put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court

So the Partisan war starts on SCOTUS nominees.

Good luck with that 2018 thing.

I hear that Obama and Rice were saying, "Hey, we won't have to worry about hiding this unmasking thing, Hillary has it in the bag!.

BTW....did you catch that part about the fillibuster for SCOTUS only being about a hundred years old?

You have elected someone that over half this nation hates. Trump is not going to win them back. He has insulted, offended and even threatened too many in this country. These people are no longer just protestors they are now activists against the Republican party.

This was the woman's march--the day after Trump was inaugurated. This was going on in every state not just Washington D.C. They were in the MILLIONS. For more pictures go to this link.
Woman's march pictures

For more Trump protest pictures go to this link---
trump protest - Yahoo Image Search Results

Never in the history of this nation did a President Elect have to barricade himself inside the Trump tower upon the announcement that he won, and his communications were reduced to a Tweeter account.

Since then the Protests have been non-stop, and these people are not going to forget to vote in 2018.

Here is Deep Red Salt Lake City and what happened during their town hall meeting.
Republican town halls are getting very, very nasty

And here is what happened in deep RED Arkansas


Even Republicans are admitting this is looking like 2010 all over again, only it will be them that are on the chopping block. This is the result of making Donald Trump the poster boy of the Republican party.

These people are NOT paid protesters. Republicans have awoken a sleeping giant and it's pissed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Of course they are paid protesters.

 

[oreo]

Of course they are paid protesters.

I guess you're being sarcastic--because I don't even believe Trump would even have enough money to pay them all.

 

[Chuz Life]

I smell butt hurt. . .

Roasty toastie butt hurting snowflakes.

 

[WillowTree]

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

I wonder if Reid thought about the consequences?

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

If Dems like Gorsuch so much why do they have to have a kindergarten-style meltdown instead of getting behind his SCOTUS nomination. That would give them the high ground later when both sides of the house reach another politically, party driven impasse?

According to John Dickerson's commentary tonight on the CBS News this is a case of partisan litmus tests for the voters back home, that's all. Everyone is positioning for the midterm elections in 2018.

Yep it's to enhance the great divide in this country--and nothing more.

Good. The sooner we start shooting each other, the sooner we can get back to rational and sane governance.

As it stands right now, neither side trusts the other at all. I mean, zero percent trust.

We are at the brink and I'm all for pushing on.

I doubt it will come to shooting, although the Right has guns and the Left throws quiche, so it wouldn't be much of a fight.

 

[basquebromance]

Still doubt that requiring more than a majority vote is moronic & violates the constitution? MCCAIN HYSTERICALLY OPPOSES MAJORITY VOTE

The so-called "nuclear option" in Senate votes means, "following the Constitution."