Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option[W:29]

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Conservative said:

great, that is what liberals do. There isn't anything independent about you. Report away but I am going to call it like I see it. Apparently being called a liberal is a personal attack?

Click to expand...

The personal attack is saying I'm not honest but then you know that. No one is fooled by your comments as to the intent of your comments to be anything other than a personal attack.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Gaius46 said:

The problem with things like the nuclear option is that they have a nasty habit of coming back on biting you on the ass.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what's about to happen to the dems with Gorsuch. Schumer and Reid started us down this pathway.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

countryboy said:

Which is exactly what's about to happen to the dems with Gorsuch. Schumer and Reid started us down this pathway.

Click to expand...

True enough. Though next time the dems will do, then the republicans again, then the dems again, and so on, and so on..........

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Moderator's Warning:

The topic is not the other poster's lean. Also, if anyone believes there is a violation in the thread, report it, please do not discuss it. Both of those activities are bating. Stop talking about each other. You all are not the topic. Those who cannot resist the temptation to make it personal will find themselves kicked out of the thread.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Praxas said:

The personal attack is saying I'm not honest but then you know that. No one is fooled by your comments as to the intent of your comments to be anything other than a personal attack.

Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us why Gorsuch isn't a good choice to replace Scalia on the SC and why you don't think the Democrats are picking the wrong battle to fight?

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Praxas said:

The personal attack is saying I'm not honest but then you know that. No one is fooled by your comments as to the intent of your comments to be anything other than a personal attack.

Click to expand...

Just as I thought, you silence to post 30 is deafening. You don't have a reason to keep Gorsuch off the court, this is all about losing the election and your hatred for Trump. Doesn't matter that he nominated an incredibly qualified home run for Scalia's seat this is about partisan politics right out of the leftwing playbook

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Conservative said:

Just as I thought, you silence to post 30 is deafening. You don't have a reason to keep Gorsuch off the court, this is all about losing the election and your hatred for Trump. Doesn't matter that he nominated an incredibly qualified home run for Scalia's seat this is about partisan politics right out of the leftwing playbook

Click to expand...

Sure I do, he is a corporate Shill. Nuff said, you won't agree with me, but then big surprise there. There was no problem with Obama's selection either and he deserved an up or down vote as well. Why do you not think so?

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Praxas said:

Sure I do, he is a corporate Shill. Nuff said, you won't agree with me, but then big surprise there. There was no problem with Obama's selection either and he deserved an up or down vote as well. Why do you not think so?

Click to expand...

So in your world two wrongs make a right? I would have given Obama's nominee a hearing and you would see why he shouldn't have replaced Scalia but you have no reason to not support Gorsuch other than what the left tells you. He isn't a corporate shill and was confirmed by 100%. Most of his decisions have been upheld on a non partisan basis. This simply is all about hating Trump and losing the election.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Conservative said:

So in your world two wrongs make a right?

Click to expand...

They do in your world since you approved of the games Republicans played with Obama's selection.

I would have given Obama's nominee a hearing and you would see why he shouldn't have replaced Scalia but you have no reason to not support Gorsuch other than what the left tells you. He isn't a corporate shill and was confirmed by 100%. Most of his decisions have been upheld on a non partisan basis. This simply is all about hating Trump and losing the election.

Click to expand...

Yes, he is a corporate shill and it's showing. Sorry you don't like the games, but you're going to REALLY hate them when Dems get back into power. Trump is faltering and he can't even get his legislation passed and he lied about the wall being built and mexico paying for it. He can't keep his promises and Republicans can't even get the ACA repealed. Good luck in 2018, people are seeing what a man-child Trump is and how dangerous (what wars isn't he looking to start?).

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Praxas said:

They do in your world since you approved of the games Republicans played with Obama's selection.



Yes, he is a corporate shill and it's showing. Sorry you don't like the games, but you're going to REALLY hate them when Dems get back into power. Trump is faltering and he can't even get his legislation passed and he lied about the wall being built and mexico paying for it. He can't keep his promises and Republicans can't even get the ACA repealed. Good luck in 2018, people are seeing what a man-child Trump is and how dangerous (what wars isn't he looking to start?).

Click to expand...

Wrong, already stated that I would have given him a hearing and an up or down vote. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

A corporate shill? Did that happen while on the bench and if so how did he get most of his decisions upheld? Your definition of corporate Shill is quite convoluted. When Trump delivers on his promises of economic growth, job creation, and national security you are going to be in for a long, long 8 years. instead of focusing on what he says you ought to be focusing on what he is doing, Jobs are coming back, consumer confidence is at a more than decade old high, and all you can do is promote the Democratic soap opera while Trump is delivering on his promises

Stop reading the headlines and get the details. This is right out of the Democratic Playbook against Bush and he won a double term. What you want to do is divert from the actual Obama record to promote the liberal agenda. Gorsuch is more than qualified for the position but because he was nominated by Trump he deserves to be defeated. He is going to be on the Court people like you ought to pick better battles. Ginsberg is next and the nuclear option is going to put another Conservative on the court. Your hope for a Democratic takeover of Congress is misguided at best

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Conservative said:

Wrong, already stated that I would have given him a hearing and an up or down vote. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

A corporate shill? Did that happen while on the bench and if so how did he get most of his decisions upheld? Your definition of corporate Shill is quite convoluted. When Trump delivers on his promises of economic growth, job creation, and national security you are going to be in for a long, long 8 years. instead of focusing on what he says you ought to be focusing on what he is doing, Jobs are coming back, consumer confidence is at a more than decade old high, and all you can do is promote the Democratic soap opera while Trump is delivering on his promises

Stop reading the headlines and get the details. This is right out of the Democratic Playbook against Bush and he won a double term. What you want to do is divert from the actual Obama record to promote the liberal agenda. Gorsuch is more than qualified for the position but because he was nominated by Trump he deserves to be defeated. He is going to be on the Court people like you ought to pick better battles. Ginsberg is next and the nuclear option is going to put another Conservative on the court. Your hope for a Democratic takeover of Congress is misguided at best

Click to expand...

If having your rulings upheld, then I guess the ACA is 100% constitutional since it was upheld. You really want to use that as an example of being valid for a judge?

Yes, he is a corporate shill. I'm more than happy to have the Republicans use the nuclear option and then get their asses handed to them when the Dems are able to get their picks passed through without a care from the wimpering Republicans.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Praxas said:

If having your rulings upheld, then I guess the ACA is 100% constitutional since it was upheld. You really want to use that as an example of being valid for a judge?

Yes, he is a corporate shill. I'm more than happy to have the Republicans use the nuclear option and then get their asses handed to them when the Dems are able to get their picks passed through without a care from the wimpering Republicans.

Click to expand...

You called him a corporate shill but provided no proof of that whereas I pointed out his record on the bench which speak to his qualifications. You don't like Trump so are blinded by your own ideology and hatred that you would deny a very good, very qualified man for the bench. You were wrong about the election and you are going to be wrong about the midterms because results matter and trump rhetoric. Absolutely stunning what poor sports the left is with regards to the election results.

What matters are results, jobs, economic growth, and national security. Your trumped up charges against Trump ignore what he is actually doing so you want to take your anger out against Gorsuch. Doubt seriously that you even know who Garland was or is

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Anagram said:

I partially agree with this. But although I generally think people force equivalency too often, I think the way Republicans handled the Garland appointment and the way the Democrats handled the Gorsuch appointment are roughly equal in their wrongness.

We're heading down a path of losing the legitimacy in the SCOTUS, which is not a good path to be headed down. Some body needs to make decisions, and those decisions need to be not necessarily agreed with, but accepted by the public.

Click to expand...

How so? The Republicans sure didn't like any of Obama's SCOTUS appointments but they did not block them. The Senate has had a long tradition of not approving SCOTUS appointments in the last year of a Presidency.
Five Truths About Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees

Gorsuch is certainly as well qualified as any justices appointed during the Obama Administration and he won't tip the ideological balance of the court to saddle us with a Court that thumbs its nose at Constitution and existing law and rules to fit its own agenda. Most of us who voted for Trump had that as our number one reason for doing so.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

AlbqOwl said:

How so? The Republicans sure didn't like any of Obama's SCOTUS appointments but they did not block them. The Senate has had a long tradition of not approving SCOTUS appointments in the last year of a Presidency.
Five Truths About Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees

Gorsuch is certainly as well qualified as any justices appointed during the Obama Administration and he won't tip the ideological balance of the court to saddle us with a Court that thumbs its nose at Constitution and existing law and rules to fit its own agenda. Most of us who voted for Trump had that as our number one reason for doing so.

Click to expand...

The Senate does not have a long tradition of not confirming SCOTUS appointments in election years. Your link says:

"It is rare for the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court justice when a divided government exists during a president’s final year in office. Not since 1888 has a Supreme Court seat vacated in a presidential election year been filled by an opposition-partycontrolled Senate when the president is in the final year of his term."

All the way since 1888? Sounds impressive, at least until you consider the fact that scenario has only happened once since then. In 1956 there was a vacancy under President Eisenhower with a Democratic Senate. The Senate was in recess at the time of the vacancy so it had to be put off until after the election, when the Democrat controlled Senate unanimously confirmed Justice Brennan.

All other election year vacancies have come without divided governments and have been quick and easy confirmations. (Minor exception for Abe Fortas who was opposed in a bipartisan filibuster, for reasons not remotely to do with it being the last year of LBJ's term.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option[W:

Conservative said:

Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch, increasing odds of 'nuclear option' | Fox News

Once again the Democrats show their true colors. This replacement of Scalia is a tried and true jurist that has close to 100% of his opinions supported. If Gorsuch cannot be approved to replace Scalia then there is no hope for non partisanship in any other issue facing the Congress.

This is nothing more than leftwing bs and shooting themselves in the foot one more time with another temper tantrum for losing the election and with Middle America assuring that they have truly alienated the moderates and independents further. Thank you radical Democrats

Click to expand...

You dont think you are being a little narrow? Do you have amnesia regarding the fact that Republics came up with a rule that even though Presidents have four-year terms, they magically lose the power to nominate supreme court justices in the fourth year of their four year term? And obviously Merrick Garland was way more of a centrist then Neil Gorsuch is....

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option[W:

This is the final result of the nastiness Ted Kennedy and others first chose to inject, decades ago, into the process of reviewing nominees to the Supreme Court. They lynched Robert Bork and they tried to lynch Clarence Thomas.

The gloves have finally come all the way off. The pretense of Senate collegiality in these decisions has been cast aside. Collectivists wanted a fight, and they got one. So be it.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

Anagram said:

The Senate does not have a long tradition of not confirming SCOTUS appointments in election years. Your link says:

"It is rare for the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court justice when a divided government exists during a president’s final year in office. Not since 1888 has a Supreme Court seat vacated in a presidential election year been filled by an opposition-partycontrolled Senate when the president is in the final year of his term."

All the way since 1888? Sounds impressive, at least until you consider the fact that scenario has only happened once since then. In 1956 there was a vacancy under President Eisenhower with a Democratic Senate. The Senate was in recess at the time of the vacancy so it had to be put off until after the election, when the Democrat controlled Senate unanimously confirmed Justice Brennan.

All other election year vacancies have come without divided governments and have been quick and easy confirmations. (Minor exception for Abe Fortas who was opposed in a bipartisan filibuster, for reasons not remotely to do with it being the last year of LBJ's term.

Click to expand...

The court has not been as ideologically and politically and partisan divided as it is now. Of the 14 Supreme Court justices confirmed in the final year of a presidential administration, 13 of those were before WWII when the constitution and rule of law was the most common basis for court decisions. (The 14th was nominated by President Reagan in 1987 and was ultimately confirmed in 1988.) In the prewar years, the predictable 5/4 decisions handed down by the Court in recent years, with the same justices voting as a block, was not the case.

You cannot tell me that on a court that predictably votes 5/4 that all the justices are using the Constitution and/or the existing law to inform and guide them.

I know my number one reason to vote Trump over Clinton was because I did not trust her to nominate SCOTUS justices that respected the Constitution and/or the existing law over their personal ideology. I did trust Trump to do that. And he did not disappoint.

It is not a matter of fairness or fair play or anything else to me when it come to the Supreme Court. I want justices who do respect the Constitution and who do respect the existing law. I fear for our country, our liberties, and our future should we have a court given absolute power by Congress and the President to do social engineering any way it chooses to do so. We have four justices now who I believe would do exactly that should they ever enjoy a majority.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

AlbqOwl said:

The court has not been as ideologically and politically and partisan divided as it is now. Of the 14 Supreme Court justices confirmed in the final year of a presidential administration, 13 of those were before WWII when the constitution and rule of law was the most common basis for court decisions. (The 14th was nominated by President Reagan in 1987 and was ultimately confirmed in 1988.) In the prewar years, the predictable 5/4 decisions handed down by the Court in recent years, with the same justices voting as a block, was not the case.

You cannot tell me that on a court that predictably votes 5/4 that all the justices are using the Constitution and/or the existing law to inform and guide them.

I know my number one reason to vote Trump over Clinton was because I did not trust her to nominate SCOTUS justices that respected the Constitution and/or the existing law over their personal ideology. I did trust Trump to do that. And he did not disappoint.

It is not a matter of fairness or fair play or anything else to me when it come to the Supreme Court. I want justices who do respect the Constitution and who do respect the existing law. I fear for our country, our liberties, and our future should we have a court given absolute power by Congress and the President to do social engineering any way it chooses to do so. We have four justices now who I believe would do exactly that should they ever enjoy a majority.

Click to expand...

Only because the Supremes have more to do because of the expansion of government. The bigger it gets, and the more it regulates, the more it is challenged.

60 votes is a quaint custom started some years ago and merely helped to keep the senate collegial, and somewhat above the fray, where they could seek the best compromises. Well, that went out the window some time ago.

The republic will stand.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

AlbqOwl said:

The court has not been as ideologically and politically and partisan divided as it is now. Of the 14 Supreme Court justices confirmed in the final year of a presidential administration, 13 of those were before WWII when the constitution and rule of law was the most common basis for court decisions. (The 14th was nominated by President Reagan in 1987 and was ultimately confirmed in 1988.) In the prewar years, the predictable 5/4 decisions handed down by the Court in recent years, with the same justices voting as a block, was not the case.

You cannot tell me that on a court that predictably votes 5/4 that all the justices are using the Constitution and/or the existing law to inform and guide them.

I know my number one reason to vote Trump over Clinton was because I did not trust her to nominate SCOTUS justices that respected the Constitution and/or the existing law over their personal ideology. I did trust Trump to do that. And he did not disappoint.

It is not a matter of fairness or fair play or anything else to me when it come to the Supreme Court. I want justices who do respect the Constitution and who do respect the existing law. I fear for our country, our liberties, and our future should we have a court given absolute power by Congress and the President to do social engineering any way it chooses to do so. We have four justices now who I believe would do exactly that should they ever enjoy a majority.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I would just add that if we get a Congress and a President willing to give the Court that sort of power, it is entirely our own fault. The Court has been able to arrogate much of the power it now has to itself, partly because of many years of clever self-promotion and partly because this country contains too many drones who do not understand--or even much care--how their own government is supposed to work. The Constitution gives Congress and the President several means for clipping the wings of federal courts--including the Supreme Court. If we are too dull or careless to insist that they use those means if necessary, we have no right to complain about the result.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option

I look forward to Judge Gorsuch taking his seat on the Supreme Court. But it will take more than just Gorsuch--or even one more originalist appointment--to solve what ails the Court. We all have to insist that the people we elect to Congress be willing to assert its power to keep the federal courts in check. There are several means available, but their power has been allowed to wither away for lack of use. The arbitrary, outrageous decisions we see too often from the Supreme Court are the consequence.

When I read lawless garbage that has been foisted upon this country by an unprincipled Court--Anthony Kennedy's diktat in the homosexual marriage case, Obergefell, is a good example--there is an old Civil War-era case I can count on to console me. It's very short, has a fascinating backstory, and everyone who is concerned about overreaching by federal courts should read it.

It had to do with an 1867 law Congress had passed to help Northerners who were being detained in Southern states. The law gave federal courts jurisdiction to review habeas petitions challenging the lawfulness of detentions by state and local authorities. And in case a federal court should hold against the petitioner, the law authorized appealing the decision right to the Supreme Court.

McCardle, a Southern editor and agitator, had been arrested by Union forces for subversive acts and was awaiting court martial. He cleverly turned the new law on its head by using it to get his habeas petition before a federal court, and he then appealed its decision to the Supreme Court. It infuriated the powerful abolitionists in Congress to see a damned Reb turn their law back on them, and fearing that the Court might end up turning him loose, they acted.

After the Court had already heard oral arguments in Ex Parte McCardle, Congress enacted, over the President's veto, a law specifically aimed at that case. The law repealed the earlier law, then barely a year old. It removed the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in these habeas cases, snatching McCardle's case right from under its nose. The decision is so short because the thoroughly humbled Court did not have much to say. It briefly recounted the history; noted what the new law said; and meekly said it had no choice but to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Re: Dems have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch-increasing odds of nuclear option[W:

International10 said:

You dont think you are being a little narrow? Do you have amnesia regarding the fact that Republics came up with a rule that even though Presidents have four-year terms, they magically lose the power to nominate supreme court justices in the fourth year of their four year term? And obviously Merrick Garland was way more of a centrist then Neil Gorsuch is....

Click to expand...

Hmmm, interesting, I didn't realize that Biden was a Republican? Suggest you research the Biden Rule