Senate Democrats block confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Neil Grosuch

[Draco-Onis]

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.

That is political bias there is no rule that says the court has to stay the same forever and has nothing to do with congress doing their jobs and having him come up for a hearing. Did you miss the part where republicans were talking about doing the same thing if Clinton won? republicans were talking about how a smaller court is better, now wake up and smell the partisan BS.

[Bullettime]

Question. Why does the ideologies of judges matter so much in the US? It seems like a very obvious error either with how laws are formulated or the judges liberty to interpret laws. Ideology shouldn't matter much when it comes to interpreting law, no?

Some of the topics they discuss don't have hard set laws for them, so it's up to the Supreme Court to determine if what we have in our constitution protects modern issues.

Left leaning tend to be more progressive and view the constitution as a living document to be reinterpreted to suit the modern age. Right leaning and religious justices tend to be more strict to the exact wording and sometimes the time frame in which the constitution was written.

There's arguably a time and place for both. But it's a tricky subject when a certain political party keeps pushing for a return of white Christian male dominated America, pushing laws and cases up the chain to enforce that, and justices that lean more to strict interpretation end up falling on that side more frequently as well given that's the type of country we had when the constitution was written.

[Citizen T]

You have a nice way of combining fact and fiction. I admire it. Sean Spicer does it better of course . . . .

Reid "and the Dems" had to go nuclear on non-SCOTUS spots because the GOP set a record for filibustering judicial nominations that was actually affecting the court's ability to do it's job.

The GOP did it because they really don't give a shit about anyone but themselves (see healthcare for clarification, or, really, any of their policies).

I'll quote myself from above..

First was the Democrats refusal to act on any of Bush's federal court nominations and topped with the first filibuster ever of an appeals court nominal in the person of Miguel Estrada. The Republicans just took their precedent of judicial nominee obstructionism to heart since they already had experience showing that were the tables turned the Democrats would do the same.

So whining that the Republicans did to Democrats what was done to them is exactly like whining about losing a fight in which you threw the first punch.

[cubby]

I'll quote myself from above..


So whining that the Republicans did to Democrats what was done to them is exactly like whining about losing a fight in which you threw the first punch.

If you continue to not understand the point, just ask, don't embarrass yourself with statements like the above. The Dems did it because they had to, the GOP did because, well, they hate people.

[Kujako]

So whining that the Republicans did to Democrats what was done to them is exactly like whining about losing a fight in which you threw the first punch.

[Citizen T]

And they didn't. They weren't given a chance to vote. You continue to miss that point.

Well, based on your logic, Trump's statement about women is perfectly fine then because it's her duty to say no.

The Constitution requires the President to receive consent for his nominations. It does not require the Senate to act on his nominations. Hence not acting is not consent.

[Xires]

Good thing Democrats gave Republicans the nuclear option.

Yup! They took it too. The best part is that the Democrats loved him in 2006 but in 2017 because Trump picked him they hate him. They couldn't even find an actual reason to block him accept the fact that "they don't think he is liberal" so they don't want him. Basically, Democrats want a judge that thinks just like them....which is exactly how the Democrat mafia works.

[Citizen T]

If you continue to not understand the point, just ask, don't embarrass yourself with statements like the above. The Dems did it because they had to, the GOP did because, well, they hate people.

See now I can to the same thing...

The Dems did it because they hate people, the GOP did it because they had to.

Neither your opinion nor mine makes any difference. In the end both did it because they could and it benefited themselves.

[cubby]

Well, based on your logic, Trump's statement about women is perfectly fine then because it's her duty to say no.

The Constitution requires the President to receive consent for his nominations. It does not require the Senate to act on his nominations. Hence not acting is not consent.

Again, you continue to embarrass yourself with ignorance. The first statement I'm not even going to address, the analogy police will be at your door soon and they will have a short chat with you.

The Senate is required to act on the President's nominations. Not acting is not action, NOT a lack of consent. There is a difference, and it's bolstered by the fact that the Senate had never before simply refused to vote.

I'm not sure how you don't know that. You apologist Trumpers crack me up.

[Orbitus]

Facts? Here's the facts for you: Chuck Schumer started the tradition of filibustering judicial appointments as a political tactic. The Republicans merely returned the favor.

But hey how did Harry Reid nuking the filibuster go for you exactly: Attorney Jeff Sessions. Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt. None of them would have been confirmed had Reid not changed the system.

No, Republicans started both things you said there. Specifically McConnell. McConnell said he was going to make Obama a 1 term president and make sure that he got nothing done. They used record amounts of filibusters, even filibustering bills that Obama agreed with McConnell on. Since you are from Romania and didn't know about this, you should probably learn before you start siding with a side that started this all.

[Xires]

What do you mean by that? The Republicans have to vote in the nuclear option, it doesn't exist right now. Democrats haven't done anything here. Unless you mean give them the idea I guess, but that would have happened anyway. The "nuclear option" is a rules change that doesn't exist right now. Republicans have to change the rules, Democrats didn't do that for SC judges.

You need to read up, bud....because you are wrong. The Dems created the nuclear option and the Repubs warned them about it; however, the Democrats thought that they has the WH locked up but not guaranteed to have the house/senate. So they created the nuclear option as a way to make the Republicans irrelevant in a Clinton Presidency...and it didn't happen. So now the Democrats are left with something that THEY CREATED. (you seriously need to study up)

[cubby]

See now I can to the same thing...

The Dems did it because they hate people, the GOP did it because they had to.

Neither your opinion nor mine makes any difference. In the end both did it because they could and it benefited themselves.

No, again, the Dems did it to keep the judicial system working (see record number of filibusters by GOP - do you need some paper to keep notes?) while the GOP did it because, well, it's unclear.

[Xires]

The GOP will definitely invoke the nuclear option. If they get any victory out of the Trump presidency, it's that Supreme Court seat. They won't let it slip through their hands.

Invoking it could just blow back in their face horribly after the next election which is what GOP senators are even coming out and admitting. They're just willing to risk it.

They have no choice...the Democrats refuse to work with Trump on anything...no matter what.

[baskev]

Good thing Democrats gave Republicans the nuclear option.

You do know the nuclear option is the worst thing ever.....
It means every time a party gets blocked doing a law because of not having 60 votes. They will use this. It has already become a tug war of lie's, pocket filling decisions ( by both sides) and overturning everything the previous administration has done. This will be the cherry on the coffin for democracy.

[Kujako]

You need to read up, bud....because you are wrong. The Dems created the nuclear option and the Repubs warned them about it; however, the Democrats thought that they has the WH locked up but not guaranteed to have the house/senate. So they created the nuclear option as a way to make the Republicans irrelevant in a Clinton Presidency...and it didn't happen. So now the Democrats are left with something that THEY CREATED. (you seriously need to study up)

Yes... and if only Obama had been white and a Republican, the Republicans wouldn't have had to be obstructionists.

[Zoranon]

If you continue to not understand the point, just ask, don't embarrass yourself with statements like the above. The Dems did it because they had to, the GOP did because, well, they hate people.

Oh please tell me why Miguel Estrada was so evil that Dems had to fillibuster him.

[Bullettime]

They have no choice...the Democrats refuse to work with Trump on anything...no matter what.

And that's fine. No one expected the GOP to not invoke it. It's just a matter of how much they may regret it in 2020 when the pendulum swings and 2-3 seats are open. GOP congressmen that voted to do it are even saying it could blow back on them hard.

[Zoranon]

And that's fine. No one expected the GOP to not invoke it. It's just a matter of how much they may regret it in 2020 when the pendulum swings and 2-3 seats are open. GOP congressmen that voted to do it are even saying it could blow back on them hard.

? This does not make any sense at all, given that several leading Dems already stated that they were going to go nuclear if needed.

[cubby]

Oh please tell me what why Miguel Estrada was so evil that Dems had to fillibuster him.

That is not the issue. But it's adorable that you know you're wrong so the only thing you have left is to obfuscate the bigger issue. That's how we get people like Trump in the first place.

[Citizen T]

Again, you continue to embarrass yourself with ignorance. The first statement I'm not even going to address, the analogy police will be at your door soon and they will have a short chat with you.

The Senate is required to act on the President's nominations. Not acting is not action, NOT a lack of consent. There is a difference, and it's bolstered by the fact that the Senate had never before simply refused to vote.

I'm not sure how you don't know that. You apologist Trumpers crack me up.

I'm not going to stoop to personal insults but you need to educated yourself. Garland was the 10th SCOTUS nominee in the country's history to have no action taken on him in the Senate. This is NOT some new thing that sets some kind of weird precedent.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please tell me why Miguel Estrada was so evil that Dems had to fillibuster him.

Because there is no way they could allow the first Hispanic Justice to be a GOP nomination.