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

[Uncensored2008]

[

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.

You think these violent fascists who are crushing freedom of speech at Berkley are the people who voted for Trump?

You really are fucking stupid, even for a Sorosazi.

 

[Slade3200]

I lean left on many issues, especially social issues... but I'm just not seeing good reason to block Gorsuch. I hear the talking points but they seem like generic anti conservative attacks. What is the biggest threat to having a constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court? I haven't seen any evidence of Gorsuch playing partisan politics, he seems like a good honorable dude. The Dems, unfortunately, are at risk of blowing their load with all the protest and obstruction they are dishing out. It waters down their arguements with oversaturation. Plus, how will they be able to critique Republican obstruction when they do the same thing once the Dems regain power?? It's all very short sighted, hypocritical, and unproductive. Not how our government is intended to work.

The problem is he is a good honorable dude. He is going to obey the law. Doing that prevents progressives from ignoring law

Come on, you don't have to take everything to partisan squabbling. Progressives are out to ignore the law, they are out to progress causes that they are passionate about... Just like conservatives. Both sides have different views and interpretations of the law and role of government. It is a healthy contest of ideas that both progresses our society but also keeps it in check. Its a shame that more people on both sides can't show more respect for each other.

 

[kwc57]

The dimshits are trying to keep the people that will try them for their treason out of the positions that will let them prove what shit the liberals are and hang, or shoot them.

Be "proud" right wingers that you have this type of imbecility within your ilk........LOL

It narrowly offsets your own.

 

[Dschrute3]

All about sabotaging Trump. These same Democrats once praised Gorsuch. But now because Trump nominated him, he's suddenly the 'Devil.' I can only hope all this petty Democrat petulance comes back to bite them in future elections. There is a 'Silent Majority.' And they decide things in the end. I believe they're very unhappy with this Democrat behavior.

 

[kwc57]

Then the Republican led Senate will change the rules so that the Democrats have no say-so. Happy?

I think.....and correct me if I'm wrong.......that you're at least smart enough to realize that eventually, the pendulum will swing the other way and democrats regain both the WH and Congress...So, if repubs. change the rules, they are basically loading the gun for a future suicide pact.

Two words, Harry Reid. Read and learn.

Harry Reid’s gift to the GOP

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

How long will you last after Trump replaces Ginsburg?

 

[Doc1]

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.

How long will you last after Trump replaces Ginsburg?

We should start a pool, who will die first Ginsberg or Hillary?

 

[Dschrute3]

Bottom line is, this stuff is only about sabotaging Trump's Presidency. Gorsuch is very well-respected. Many of the same Democrats conducting this witch hunt against him, have praised him in the past. But now, he's suddenly the 'Devil' So what's changed?

Democrats are actually embarrassing themselves at this point. Most reasonable common sense-thinking Americans don't like their behavior. Their petty hate might just come back to bite em. We'll see i guess.

 

[kwc57]

Don't get mad at us its your fault, you picked Obama and Hillary.

I'd agree that Clinton was a poor choice with all her baggage and her defeat was also a product of Comey's partisanship....virtually ANY other democrat could have beaten trump........
But, Obama's greatest "fault" with conservatives after 8 years may be attributed to his darker skin color.

Trust me on this, the people who had decided not to vote for Clinton had decided long before Comey came into the picture. Comey had little to no influence on the election. Comey is a convenient excuse for a candidate and party who refuse to learn from their experiences and mistakes. All the blame for Clinton's loss is on the shoulders of her and the DNC. You're delusional if you think Sanders would have beaten Trump.

As to your bullshit claim of racism. Do you admit that your problem with Trump is because he is rich? No? Because you disagree with him on policy? Welcome to the conservatives world. The conservative opposition to Obama was his shit policies, not his skin color. But it gives you a lazy way to try and stop any discussion. Falsely calling someone a classist isn't as damning as calling them a racist, but the person being called a classist will laugh to themselves that their opposition things that is why the dislike someone in office. Its the policies stupid.

 

[kwc57]

Not at all. It's Harry Weed who did that. He was the one that changed the stipulations that Senate does have the authority to change the rules to a simple majority to select a SC judge. Republicans are just simply exercising that change.

I'd never defend Reid, he was an idiot.......However, he was "smart" enough" to keep SCOTUS nominee to the 60 vote threshold......So, let McConnell double down and change the rules again, and we will all see the repercussions.

Sorry, but Reid set the precedent. McConnell can follow it and go with the nuclear option and the Dems will look like fools for bitching about the Senate Leader following their own leader's precedent they all wanted and voted for. You'd think the Dems would get tired of painting themselves into corners for convenience sake and to get their way and then cry about the results when someone else uses their rules.

 

[Doc1]

One day very soon these Leftwing kooks are going to get out of bed and find that Ginsberg is dead.He will appoint another Conservative and the court will remain that way for at lest 3 generations. Make book on it.

 

[Spare_change]

You realize the reason originalists favor religious liberty is because it's protected by the constitution, right?

Bullshit, religious "liberty" must NOT interfere with individual rights of women and minorities.

Oh? Just where is that written?

I would suggest that you are dangerously uninformed.

 

[Spare_change]

Oh whoa is them. LOL

"whoa" is used to stop a horse......you want to use "woe" maybe???........

Expected stupidity should at least use better grammar.

Petty and childish, don't you think?

The goal is to communicate, not ensure compliance with a set of rules.

 

[Doc1]

Oh whoa is them. LOL

"whoa" is used to stop a horse......you want to use "woe" maybe???........

Expected stupidity should at least use better grammar.

Petty and childish, don't you think?

The goal is to communicate, not ensure compliance with a set of rules.

You obviously don't know Nat.

 

[Spare_change]

I lean left on many issues, especially social issues... but I'm just not seeing good reason to block Gorsuch. I hear the talking points but they seem like generic anti conservative attacks. What is the biggest threat to having a constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court? I haven't seen any evidence of Gorsuch playing partisan politics, he seems like a good honorable dude. The Dems, unfortunately, are at risk of blowing their load with all the protest and obstruction they are dishing out. It waters down their arguements with oversaturation. Plus, how will they be able to critique Republican obstruction when they do the same thing once the Dems regain power?? It's all very short sighted, hypocritical, and unproductive. Not how our government is intended to work.

The problem is he is a good honorable dude. He is going to obey the law. Doing that prevents progressives from ignoring law

Come on, you don't have to take everything to partisan squabbling. Progressives are out to ignore the law, they are out to progress causes that they are passionate about... Just like conservatives. Both sides have different views and interpretations of the law and role of government. It is a healthy contest of ideas that both progresses our society but also keeps it in check. Its a shame that more people on both sides can't show more respect for each other.

Respect is earned ... not awarded. This ain't a 'participation trophy' league.

Progressives have done nothing to earn respect. Instead, they have 'earned' ridicule and irrelevance.

 

[Spare_change]

Oh whoa is them. LOL

"whoa" is used to stop a horse......you want to use "woe" maybe???........

Expected stupidity should at least use better grammar.

Petty and childish, don't you think?

The goal is to communicate, not ensure compliance with a set of rules.

You obviously don't know Nat.

Nor do I have any desire to.

(Don't tell Nat, but I ended that sentence with a preposition)

 

[Redfish]

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.

Gorsuch will be seated on the SC, no matter how much you dems and libs whine, cry, and obstruct. Your idiot, Reid, changed the rules, now those same rules are being shoved up your collective asses. Just once again proves that you are morons.

 

[mgh80]

So in your mind a person who actually want to follow the constitution and do his Job correctly is unfit for the job of Chief Justice.... Never dawns on you idiot progressives that this is why you are losing elections does it?

In all fairness Obama/dems were blasted for following the Constitution when he nominated a replacement for Scalia. The Constitution clearly granted Obama that power and obligation.

I'm no Obama fan, and I don't mind Trump's pick...but if we're going to pull the "follow the Constitution" card-we need to be consistent when we do. Obama's nomination should have went to a vote...why? Because that's what the Constitution says.

The Constitution gives no timeline either.

Scalia passed away in Obama's last year of Presidency. Based on the previous midterm elections, people were not happy with Democrat policies. Because we can't use midterms to determine the mood of the citizens, it was only right to allow us to make the decision of the next SC justice based on the presidential election.

This is different in that we as a country did decide on which way we want our country to go; particularly when it comes to the SC nomination.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So in your mind a person who actually want to follow the constitution and do his Job correctly is unfit for the job of Chief Justice.... Never dawns on you idiot progressives that this is why you are losing elections does it?

In all fairness Obama/dems were blasted for following the Constitution when he nominated a replacement for Scalia. The Constitution clearly granted Obama that power and obligation.

I'm no Obama fan, and I don't mind Trump's pick...but if we're going to pull the "follow the Constitution" card-we need to be consistent when we do. Obama's nomination should have went to a vote...why? Because that's what the Constitution says.

The Constitution gives no timeline either.

Scalia passed away in Obama's last year of Presidency. Based on the previous midterm elections, people were not happy with Democrat policies. Because we can't use midterms to determine the mood of the citizens, it was only right to allow us to make the decision of the next SC justice based on the presidential election.

This is different in that we as a country did decide on which way we want our country to go; particularly when it comes to the SC nomination.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency. Obama has done plenty of unconstitutional things...this however wasn't one of them.

The lack of a time table makes it Constitutional for Obama to have made a nomination during any time of his presidency.

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

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

He'd probably win by a larger margin after seeing how Democrats feel about fair elections and democracy.