Why senate Dems. MUST filibuster Gorsuch's consent.....

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah they'd be ignoring their jobs deep inside the buttcrack of the loophole they found.

And?

Amendment coming soon...

Tell me more.

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

You think you'll get an Amendment with a time limit? LOL!

I Think there should be. You don't? This BS is acceptable to you? Waste of time and our dollars

Political actions have political consequences.
It would be a waste of time, you'd never get such an amendment thru.

So are you making excuses for these type of antics or would you support putting rules in place to stop the BS?

Push an Amendment.....it'll go nowhere.

 

[Slade3200]

Where does it grant them that power? If they voted his nominee down (which is what I would have wanted mind you)-fine. But we need to follow the Constitution at ALL times, not just when it helps our political party/principles.

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

In other words: you made a statement and can't back it up. Good job!

I said their action was Constitutional. You said it wasn't.
Post the relevant part and I'll point out your error.

The Constitution restricts the power of the government...if the government does something that's not in the Constitution-it's unconstitutional, this isn't rocket science. The Constitution states what that the government is allowed to do for a reason, because if it stated what government can't do-the document would be millions of pages in length.

Again show me where the Constitution grants them the power to do so.

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing in there that says their action was improper.

Well they didn't give their advice and consent so it appears that an argument can be made. I guess our law makers can better define the law or it can go to the courts for their interpretation. One of the two should happen

 

[nat4900]

This is killing you isn't it?...Ya know if you put up a qualified viable candidate none of this would be necessary...just to be clear, genitalia is not a qualification/credential.

Barking up the wrong tree, I NEVER liked Hillary...

 

[Slade3200]

If the buttholes in congress are going to sit on their thumbs to avoid doing their jobs then leadership should better define the process to prevent them from this kind of obstruction. Put a time limit for nominations and better define the "advise/consent" processes. These Yahoos continue to embarrass themselves by acting like children, I guess we need to start treating them like children.

You think you'll get an Amendment with a time limit? LOL!

I Think there should be. You don't? This BS is acceptable to you? Waste of time and our dollars

Political actions have political consequences.
It would be a waste of time, you'd never get such an amendment thru.

So are you making excuses for these type of antics or would you support putting rules in place to stop the BS?

Push an Amendment.....it'll go nowhere.

Are you unable to answer a question? No wonder you're backing up these garbage political tactics. You appear to be cut from the same cloth as these worthless politicians.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where does it grant them that power?

Quote the relevant part of the Constitution, and I'll show you.

In other words: you made a statement and can't back it up. Good job!

I said their action was Constitutional. You said it wasn't.
Post the relevant part and I'll point out your error.

The Constitution restricts the power of the government...if the government does something that's not in the Constitution-it's unconstitutional, this isn't rocket science. The Constitution states what that the government is allowed to do for a reason, because if it stated what government can't do-the document would be millions of pages in length.

Again show me where the Constitution grants them the power to do so.

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing in there that says their action was improper.

Well they didn't give their advice and consent so it appears that an argument can be made. I guess our law makers can better define the law or it can go to the courts for their interpretation. One of the two should happen

Well they didn't give their advice and consent

Right, without their Advice and Consent there is no appointment. Now you understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think you'll get an Amendment with a time limit? LOL!

I Think there should be. You don't? This BS is acceptable to you? Waste of time and our dollars

Political actions have political consequences.
It would be a waste of time, you'd never get such an amendment thru.

So are you making excuses for these type of antics or would you support putting rules in place to stop the BS?

Push an Amendment.....it'll go nowhere.

Are you unable to answer a question? No wonder you're backing up these garbage political tactics. You appear to be cut from the same cloth as these worthless politicians.

You don't like the fact that there is no time limit to force their action, so add an Amendment.
Or don't. I don't care.

 

[2aguy]

Conservative republicans blatantly abused their 5-4 majority in the SCOTUS under the strong-arm tactics of Scalia (even if Roberts "thought" that he was Chief Justice, Sclaia was really the thug who led the decisions...not in ALL...but most of the conservative decisions.)

Gorsuch, from a variety of sources who reviewed his rulings, have deemed that he is to the EXTREME right of even Scalia.

We all know (both sides) that there will be much "buyers' remorse" after a few years of Trump's tactics led by such ideologues as Bannon and Kelly....However, although we may survive these folks' drastic decisions when they're in power for just a short period, Gorsuch is in FOR LIFE....

Women and unions and common Americans will soon realize that this danger MUST be repulsed, as the idiot, McConnell, repulsed the moderate Garland. Any senate democrat who, for self-preservation because they will run in 2018 in red states, does NOT deserve reelection. Grow a spine, democrats.

Please.....please.....try to filibuster Gorsuch..........I ask you to do this for the good of the country......that way the republicans can get rid of the filibuster......that would be great...thank you harry reid for taking out this crap...

 

[Frankeneinstein]

This is killing you isn't it?...Ya know if you put up a qualified viable candidate none of this would be necessary...just to be clear, genitalia is not a qualification/credential.

Barking up the wrong tree, I NEVER liked Hillary...

It doesn't matter who your candidate was, he/she wasn't qualified or viable...and the only ones who believed hillary was what the media claimed she was were the dupes who did like her...do you believe she was qualified to be president? btw, if everyone who says they didn't like hillary didn't vote for her then the election had to be rigged...in fact it is hard to believe she even carried california if everyone who says that now is telling the truth.

 

[Slade3200]

In other words: you made a statement and can't back it up. Good job!

I said their action was Constitutional. You said it wasn't.
Post the relevant part and I'll point out your error.

The Constitution restricts the power of the government...if the government does something that's not in the Constitution-it's unconstitutional, this isn't rocket science. The Constitution states what that the government is allowed to do for a reason, because if it stated what government can't do-the document would be millions of pages in length.

Again show me where the Constitution grants them the power to do so.

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing in there that says their action was improper.

Well they didn't give their advice and consent so it appears that an argument can be made. I guess our law makers can better define the law or it can go to the courts for their interpretation. One of the two should happen

Well they didn't give their advice and consent

Right, without their Advice and Consent there is no appointment. Now you understand.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent and they failed to do so, thus breaking the law stated in the document.

 

[Slade3200]

I Think there should be. You don't? This BS is acceptable to you? Waste of time and our dollars

Political actions have political consequences.
It would be a waste of time, you'd never get such an amendment thru.

So are you making excuses for these type of antics or would you support putting rules in place to stop the BS?

Push an Amendment.....it'll go nowhere.

Are you unable to answer a question? No wonder you're backing up these garbage political tactics. You appear to be cut from the same cloth as these worthless politicians.

You don't like the fact that there is no time limit to force their action, so add an Amendment.
Or don't. I don't care.

another dodge... you sure you're not a politician or pundit?

 

[nat4900]

It doesn't matter who your candidate was, he/she wasn't qualified or viable...and the only ones who believed hillary was what the media claimed she was were the dupes who did like her...do you believe she was qualified to be president? btw, if everyone who says they didn't like hillary didn't vote for her then the election had to be rigged...in fact it is hard to believe she even carried california if everyone who says that now is telling the truth.

I know its "tough: for you to comprehend.....I VERY MUCH disliked Hillary.......BUT, of course I voted for her as a vote against the demagogue........You chose a charlatan, I held my nose and voted for an unsavory but saner candidate.

 

[Kondor3]

Why senate Dems. MUST filibuster Gorsuch's consent

And what happens to that fine sentiment, five minutes after the filibuster begins, when the Pubs use the Nuclear Option?

You have lost all meaningful political power.

You have lost the White House.

You have lost the US Senate.

You have lost the US House of Representatives.

You have lost the US Supreme Court.

You have lost untold State-level governorships and legislatures.

There are good reasons for this.

You fielded a shitty, corrupt, elitist candidate, with more horns on her than a herd of cattle.

You contemptuously swept aside 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching that sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality) is wicked and degenerate.

You spent 8 years allowing American jobs to continue fleeing overseas at the speed of light and did nothing to improve America's stature in a manufacturing context.

You stood alongside a locust's plague of 11-12,000,000 Illegal Aliens who depress wages and take jobs away from your fellow countrymen.

You drew lines in the sand in Syria that the Russians and Syrians laughed at, and crossed with impunity; you made a joke out of our ultimatums.

You called half your fellow countrymen "deplorables" because they opposed your perspective, and then you interrupted opposition political rallies like Brown Shirts.

Your shitty candidate lied her ass off time and again regarding the handling and storage of confidential government communiques on personal technology platforms.

Your shitty candidate's husband was caught visiting the US Attorney General on an airport tarmac the day before a "No Charges Will Be Filed" finding was rendered.

Your party ruling elites contrived to surreptitiously work against the candidacy of a viable candidate who threatened your shitty candidate's prospects in the primaries.

Your party ruling elites arrogantly thought they had the victory in the bag and that they could carry on with business as usual.

On November 8, 2016, vast numbers of your fellow countrymen went into their voting booths and sent you a very clear message... "Fuck you".

You even managed to lose your White Working Class (union blue-collar labor) base, which you've (until now) owned since the 1932 general election.

Look in the mirror for the cause of your recent and extremely humiliating defeat.

Your actions had consquences.

These are yours.

Enjoy your humiliating, lengthy and very well-deserved exile from power.

The rest of us are laughing at you, even as many of us fear for the future, given the knuckle-draggers that your arrogance and stupidity have left us vulnerable to.

Goddamn you-and-yours.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said their action was Constitutional. You said it wasn't.
Post the relevant part and I'll point out your error.

The Constitution restricts the power of the government...if the government does something that's not in the Constitution-it's unconstitutional, this isn't rocket science. The Constitution states what that the government is allowed to do for a reason, because if it stated what government can't do-the document would be millions of pages in length.

Again show me where the Constitution grants them the power to do so.

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing in there that says their action was improper.

Well they didn't give their advice and consent so it appears that an argument can be made. I guess our law makers can better define the law or it can go to the courts for their interpretation. One of the two should happen

Well they didn't give their advice and consent

Right, without their Advice and Consent there is no appointment. Now you understand.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent and they failed to do so, thus breaking the law stated in the document.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent

They need to? LOL!

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
And without....shall not.

 

[Slade3200]

The Constitution restricts the power of the government...if the government does something that's not in the Constitution-it's unconstitutional, this isn't rocket science. The Constitution states what that the government is allowed to do for a reason, because if it stated what government can't do-the document would be millions of pages in length.

Again show me where the Constitution grants them the power to do so.

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing in there that says their action was improper.

Well they didn't give their advice and consent so it appears that an argument can be made. I guess our law makers can better define the law or it can go to the courts for their interpretation. One of the two should happen

Well they didn't give their advice and consent

Right, without their Advice and Consent there is no appointment. Now you understand.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent and they failed to do so, thus breaking the law stated in the document.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent

They need to? LOL!

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
And without....shall not.

I understand that both sides have made cases for the constitutionality of not holding a vote. The wording in the constitution is to vague as it can be interpreted both ways. My own personal opinion is that allowing 10 people in a judicial committee to decide whether or not there is going to be a hearing/vote for a presidential nominee to the SCOTUS, instead of having all of the Senate vote, is rather ridiculous. Both sides have tried to exploit this method to make political points and it is BS. The process should be easy. Prez nominates a candidate, senate has a hearing, senate votes, nominee passes or doesn't pass. Simple.

You want to point to specifics in the constitution, however we have decades of traditions and processes, for example the judicial committee and approval process, that aren't written in the constitution but have evolved through time and are part of our system. My suggestion to make hearings and full senate votes with a timetable is not a radical idea. I fail to understand why you defend the inaction and bureaucracy in DC. Why don't you want our elected leaders to simply do their jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing in there that says their action was improper.

Well they didn't give their advice and consent so it appears that an argument can be made. I guess our law makers can better define the law or it can go to the courts for their interpretation. One of the two should happen

Well they didn't give their advice and consent

Right, without their Advice and Consent there is no appointment. Now you understand.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent and they failed to do so, thus breaking the law stated in the document.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent

They need to? LOL!

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
And without....shall not.

I understand that both sides have made cases for the constitutionality of not holding a vote. The wording in the constitution is to vague as it can be interpreted both ways. My own personal opinion is that allowing 10 people in a judicial committee to decide whether or not there is going to be a hearing/vote for a presidential nominee to the SCOTUS, instead of having all of the Senate vote, is rather ridiculous. Both sides have tried to exploit this method to make political points and it is BS. The process should be easy. Prez nominates a candidate, senate has a hearing, senate votes, nominee passes or doesn't pass. Simple.

You want to point to specifics in the constitution, however we have decades of traditions and processes, for example the judicial committee and approval process, that aren't written in the constitution but have evolved through time and are part of our system. My suggestion to make hearings and full senate votes with a timetable is not a radical idea. I fail to understand why you defend the inaction and bureaucracy in DC. Why don't you want our elected leaders to simply do their jobs.

Since Bork, the Dems have made SC picks more and more political. The Republicans finally fought back.
Has any damage been done to the country by limiting Obama to his 2 bad appointments to the court?

 

[Slade3200]

Well they didn't give their advice and consent so it appears that an argument can be made. I guess our law makers can better define the law or it can go to the courts for their interpretation. One of the two should happen

Well they didn't give their advice and consent

Right, without their Advice and Consent there is no appointment. Now you understand.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent and they failed to do so, thus breaking the law stated in the document.

It can also be interpreted as the constitution saying that they need to give their advice and consent

They need to? LOL!

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
And without....shall not.

I understand that both sides have made cases for the constitutionality of not holding a vote. The wording in the constitution is to vague as it can be interpreted both ways. My own personal opinion is that allowing 10 people in a judicial committee to decide whether or not there is going to be a hearing/vote for a presidential nominee to the SCOTUS, instead of having all of the Senate vote, is rather ridiculous. Both sides have tried to exploit this method to make political points and it is BS. The process should be easy. Prez nominates a candidate, senate has a hearing, senate votes, nominee passes or doesn't pass. Simple.

You want to point to specifics in the constitution, however we have decades of traditions and processes, for example the judicial committee and approval process, that aren't written in the constitution but have evolved through time and are part of our system. My suggestion to make hearings and full senate votes with a timetable is not a radical idea. I fail to understand why you defend the inaction and bureaucracy in DC. Why don't you want our elected leaders to simply do their jobs.

Since Bork, the Dems have made SC picks more and more political. The Republicans finally fought back.
Has any damage been done to the country by limiting Obama to his 2 bad appointments to the court?

Yes, the degradation of our political system. I don't care who started it or if you blame dems... The tit for tat games are getting very old and its "lowering our score" as they say. We need leaders who start acting with integrity and running our country in a respectful way.

The republicans could have held a hearing for Garland and voted no. It was a childish, obstructionist, and disrespectful game they were playing that set a horrible precedent and now the Dems are posturing to do the same childish thing with Gorsuch. Again, i have no clue why you defend these actions... you keep dodging my question about that.

 

[kwc57]

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

NO, moron......its constitutional to vote down a nominee....Its sheer fucked up-ness to NOT EVEN allow the nominee a hearing for a subsequent vote....based on you morons not liking Obama's tan.

Were you whining and crying when Harry Reid refused to do his job and brought government to a screeching halt for 2 years when he killed over 350 bipartisan bills? I doubt it. You probably praised his obstruction because it was your side doing it. So you'll excuse us if we call BS on your faux outrage.

 

[hadit]

Don't care. I never claimed garland was extreme. He probably is but i never claimed it.

Our argument has always been we should let the people have a say in who is appointed. They decided trump if the people wanted garland, Hillary would have been elected

Since the HUGE demonstrations clearly point out that there is "buyers' remorse" and that democrats have finally awakened, sure, let the majority of people (always remember WHO won the popular vote) decide.......

It is NOT a wild guess that were the election held today.....after only a couple of weeks of Trump, that the orange clown may indeed not win.

Cling to that. I hear it helps when the voices get too loud.

 

[Slade3200]

Just as it was Constitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on his nomination.

NO, moron......its constitutional to vote down a nominee....Its sheer fucked up-ness to NOT EVEN allow the nominee a hearing for a subsequent vote....based on you morons not liking Obama's tan.

Were you whining and crying when Harry Reid refused to do his job and brought government to a screeching halt for 2 years when he killed over 350 bipartisan bills? I doubt it. You probably praised his obstruction because it was your side doing it. So you'll excuse us if we call BS on your faux outrage.

Harry Reid was a turd and if you object to the obstruction that he did then you shouldn't support it from republicans either... that would make you a hypocrite.

 

[kwc57]

Respect the will of the people. Otherwise the people will reject you more

Who got MORE popular votes this past election????...

STOP being a moron and call yourself "the people"......You're just a loud and obnoxious minority..

The Patriots are NOT MY TEAM! More people

Respect the will of the people. Otherwise the people will reject you more

Who got MORE popular votes this past election????...

STOP being a moron and call yourself "the people"......You're just a loud and obnoxious minority..

Boo hoo! The Patriots are NOT MY TEAM! More people wanted the Falcons to win, so the Patriots are not the legit champs. See how stupid the whole popular vote argument is? Rules exist for a reason and they count.