Senate Democrats block confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Neil Grosuch

[Pterodactylus]

Good thing Democrats gave Republicans the nuclear option.

Pretty laughable Mr. "independent" voter. Dems used the "nuclear" option after 82 filibusters for lower courts. Deplorables went nuclear after a single filibuster.

[Zenfoldor]

No, the Supreme Court can't. The judicial branch does not have the authority to create or enforce new legislation, only to interpret existing laws.

No? The supreme court could overturn Heller for example. Effectively diminishing and clouding the 2a as an individual right. They aren't "create or enforce new legislation" they are interpreting it through a political lens to a political end.

They are legislating from the bench, I hate it, but it's a fact in nearly all judiciary.

[Belize]

I can't help but think that Dems will remember this, and shove simple-majority votes up the GOPs ass once they control the Senate.

[Kaleredar]

I can't help but think that Dems will remember this, and shove simple-majority votes up the GOPs ass once they control the Senate.

You must not have heard. Trump is so popular right now, the republicans are probably just going to take every seat in both houses come reelection time.

[nacixems]

annNNnnnd they're nuking.

Good job Dems. You acted like the Republicans of the last 8 years and now you will lose two seats in the SCOTUS and their wont be shit any of you can do about it. . . . . . .

Dem voters better start promoting science in school as their main platform because you guys are going to need to design a new super anti aging pill that will keep Ginsburg alive for 8 more years.

this made me LOL thats great.

[Gestopft]

annNNnnnd they're nuking.

Good job Dems. You acted like the Republicans of the last 8 years and now you will lose two seats in the SCOTUS and their wont be shit any of you can do about it. . . . . . .

Dem voters better start promoting science in school as their main platform because you guys are going to need to design a new super anti aging pill that will keep Ginsburg alive for 8 more years.

They were going to lose the battle anyway, no matter what they did. I'm glad they showed a backbone, and the Democratic base is too.

[Edge-]

No? The supreme court could overturn Heller for example. Effectively diminishing and clouding the 2a as an individual right. They aren't "create or enforce new legislation" they are interpreting it through a political lens to a political end.

There would need to be a challenge to Heller for that to be a possibility, no? And what makes you think the SCOTUS would even hear/rule on such a challenge? Garland wasn't even anti-Second Amendment, despite the NRA's ongoing efforts to spin literally anything as THE MOST SEVERE THREAT TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT EVER AND OH MY GOD EVERYONE GO OUT AND BUY GUNS NOW BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY NEEDS A REVENUE BUMP!

Why should we believe that with Gorsuch that we won't see similarly partisan ruling in favor of conservatives, then?

[araine]

To at least be able to claim they played nice. Now they don't even have that.

Another poster is right though, this is basically a who can beat up who situation. Everyone is gonna ram in when they have control.

Just to bad democrats have never rammed thru ultra liberal judges, wish it would happen but so far it has never happened

[Citizen T]

And he's been actively fundraising since what, January?



...was that supposed to be a "gotcha!"?

You're right, there's not. But there's also no rule that they have to show up to vote on shit, either, at least none that I'm aware of. But it's part of their jobs, and I'd hope that we should all expect our elected representatives show up and do their bloody jobs on a daily basis. Jobs which include talking to, considering, and voting on SCOTUS nominees when there is a vacancy.

But the GOP decided to hold a master-class in obstructionism over the past 8 years, now they're just pitching a fit that Democrats are using the same tactics. Tough cookies, bitches. If you can't handle some obstructionism when you're in charge, don't be obstructionist assholes when you're not.



Talk and action are two very different things. I would think that folks supporting/defending the GOP, whether that includes support for Trump or not, would be well aware of this by now.

Quit acting like this is a first in history. There have been several SCOTUS nominations that have had no action taken on them by the Senate.

Quit acting like the Republicans started the whole obstructionism over judicial nominees. The very first ever appeals court nominee to ever be filibustered was Miguel Estrada nominated by George W Bush. As a side note, the Democrats must have been racist to filibuster the first potential Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Also, the whole obstructionist process of Supreme Court nominees began with the Democrats with the nomination of Robert Bork nominated by Ronald Reagan. These are the original precedents set by the Democrats. You're like the bully in high school that is whining because one of his targets got punched once too often and decided to punch back and kick his butt.

[Beazy]

I'm praying that the spirit of Scalia will keep her alive for the next 4 years. In no small part because I fucking adore that woman on a personal level. Falls asleep during State of the Union addresses because she had drinks beforehand. What a fucking boss.

It kind of scares me to think of what might happen if there is a republican super majority on the SC. I don't mind there being a split by one, but Two?

[TITAN308]

Dem voters better start promoting science in school as their main platform because you guys are going to need to design a new super anti aging pill that will keep Ginsburg alive for 8 more years.

lol I laughed

She is old as dirt and was already considering retiring before the election if I recall and the left begged her not to? Maybe that was someone else.

[Kellhound]

Right. They can, doesn't mean that the way they handled Garland was good or should be considerrd acceptable.

I'm not saying a seat was stolen or anything like that. I am saying the GoP was acting down right childish. They chose not to do their jobs.

I agree he should have been rejected by the GOP on the floor, but they technically did do their job, just not in the established manner.

[Gestopft]

Why should we believe that with Gorsuch that we won't see similarly partisan ruling in favor of conservatives, then?

We will, but apparently it's only "judicial activism" if it's liberal judges doing it.

[Kujako]

So... shall we start a betting pool for when the Republicans complain about the rule change when they're the minority?

[TITAN308]

So... shall we start a betting pool for when the Republicans complain about the rule change when they're the minority?

Well if things pan out the current base will be super old or dead by the time it comes around. So they won't care. Can't speak for their offspring though.

[Kellhound]

How do you figure? before he was nominated the GOP were lamenting that Obama would never pick a moderate like Garland which would get an easy confirmation. No one would have been acceptable as evidenced by the fact that when they thought Hillary was going to win they were arguing that a smaller supreme court was the best thing for the court.

Garland was still going to change the ideological makeup of the court, he never would have won the support needed during a very divisive election year.

[Belize]

So... shall we start a betting pool for when the Republicans complain about the rule change when they're the minority?

"But guys, be the bigger person!"

- - - Updated - - -

Well if things pan out the current base will be super old or dead by the time it comes around. So they won't care. Can't speak for their offspring though.

I like that that's what the current GOP's plan is: "Well, we'll mostly be dead/retired, so who cares what we fuck up!"

[Kellhound]

If you read that implication, it was surely unintended. My post was simply countering the nonsense "it's too close to an election" argument that keeps getting brought up. It's a meaningless argument.



Literally what the fuck? What does the Second Amendment have to do with anything? And why are you implying that Hillary is "Russia"? This is some next level projection and fantasy.

The 2nd is one of the rights that is on a hairline balance in the SCOTUS.

[Gestopft]

The 2nd is one of the rights that is on a hairline balance in the SCOTUS.

Can you back that assertion up with previous rulings from SCOTUS judges?

[zenkai]

Pretty laughable Mr. "independent" voter. Dems used the "nuclear" option after 82 filibusters for lower courts. Deplorables went nuclear after a single filibuster.

Use of nuclear option during Obama presidency

In 2011, with a Democratic majority in the Senate (but not a supermajority), Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) proposed "a sweeping filibuster reform package" to be implemented via the constitutional option but Majority Leader Harry Reid dissuaded them from pushing it forward.[54] In October 2011, however, Reid triggered the nuclear option to make a more modest change in Senate precedents. In a 51-48 vote, the Senate prohibited any motion to waive the rules after a filibuster is defeated.[55][56][57]

Changing Senate precedents with a majority threshold does not reach the level of an actual change in Senate rules. On several occasions in the past, former Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd used this same procedure to change Senate precedents. On one occasion, he was able to put an end to the post-cloture filibuster by setting a precedent that the Presiding Officer take the initiative to rule dilatory amendments out of order.

The nuclear option was raised again following the congressional elections of 2012.[13] The Hill reported that Democrats will "likely" use the nuclear option in January 2013 to effect filibuster reform,[14] although as of mid-November supporters of filibuster reform did not even have the support of 51 Senators, according to Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading proponent of the nuclear option.[58]

In the end, negotiation between the two parties resulted in two packages of "modest" amendments to the rules on filibusters that were approved by the Senate on January 24, 2013, without triggering the nuclear option.[59] Changes to the standing orders affecting just the 2013-14 Congress were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, eliminating the minority party's right to filibuster a bill as long as each party has been permitted to present at least two amendments to the bill.[59] Changes to the permanent Senate rules were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[59]

In July 2013, the nuclear option was raised as nominations were being blocked by Senate Republicans as Senate Democrats prepared to push through a change to the chamber’s filibuster rule.[60] On July 16, John McCain announced an agreement had been made, avoiding a showdown and allowing a vote on nominations.[61]