Senate Democrats block confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Neil Grosuch

[Allybeboba]

>over 10 months
>too close.

What a pathetic excuse. Sorry, we're holding elections again in 43 months with campaings probably starting in less than 36, it's just too close!

What do you mean campaign starting in 36 months? The next presidential campaign starts the day after inauguration. And that is for both the Democrats and Republicans. That is why practically nothing ever gets done. They are too damn busy campaigning.

[Edge-]

What do you mean campaign starting in 36 months? The next presidential campaign starts the day after inauguration. And that is for both the Democrats and Republicans. That is why practically nothing ever gets done. They are too damn busy campaigning.

Who is the Democrat that's currently fundraising with a joint-fundraising committee, and holding campaign rallies?

[Zoranon]

You know what's really funny, you didn't read it. You just counted up the number of "N's" and thought you were being clever. EVERY single one of the "N"s were voted on later. EXCEPT Garland.

You actually proved me right. Thanks.

And yet another lie.

From a very brief skim, John Read, Edward Bradford, William Micou, Henry Stanbery were not voted in later. I guess I get it now, you are functionally illiterate, you don't understand what you read. Oh well, that means I sadly have to stop laughing since picking on uneducated people is not the right thing to do.


[Infracted]

[Belize]

What do you mean campaign starting in 36 months? The next presidential campaign starts the day after inauguration. And that is for both the Democrats and Republicans. That is why practically nothing ever gets done. They are too damn busy campaigning.

Whoa, I wanna know which Democrat is currently campaigning!

[Omega10]

Basically. It's a game of political chicken. It's just going to have severe and possibly hilarious political ramifications in 2020.

Nothing hilarious about watching our country disintegrate before our very eyes. We have to live here.

[Bullettime]

Nothing hilarious about watching our country disintegrate before our very eyes. We have to live here.

The hilarious ramifications are the tears from Republican senators who are going to be whining like babies when the pendulum swings next election and a Dem president gets to put up a possible 3 SC justices.

[Daelak]

This is a really really bad day for the US senate...what's next? Legislation is coming.

Harry Reid's fucking legacy lives on. The son of a bitch should be proud.

The historic filibuster was designed to protect against extreme actions and was only very rarely used in the past, certainly not on regular nominees or budget bills. What is has become is a miserable show. Shame.

The far left and far right are very happy I wager, their extreme crazy tribal partisanship came through. The far right pushed an originalist conservative judge through while the far left pushed the democrats to do something a good number of them didn't want to do...and for what? What was the end result really? Gorsuch was always going to be confirmed, anyone that believed Mitch McConnell was bluffing was an absolute moron.

70 vacant appointments at the beginning of Obama's 2nd term isn't extreme?

[Allybeboba]

You are clear on facts and history? That was the best joke I have heard this month.

You are peddling an extremely partisan, often untrue version of events.

Oh and point out some of the lies I have allegedly written, I could use another laugh.

I have found people love to make accusations on this forum but aren't very fond of backing of their claims said accounts. It is best to not take it personally as it is one of many tactics they use.

[Citizen T]

You know what's really funny, you didn't read it. You just counted up the number of "N's" and thought you were being clever. EVERY single one of the "N"s were voted on later. EXCEPT Garland.

You actually proved me right. Thanks.

That is completely immaterial. The fact that the President that nominated him left office before conditions changed to have him renominated is pretty much the point. Democrats and Republicans (and even other parties that existed before them) have sat on nominations many times in the past. The most recent and egregious that comes to mind is Priscilla Owen. The Democrats sat on her nomination for appeals court for 4 years.

[cubby]

And yet another lie.

From a very brief skim, John Read, Edward Bradford, William Micou, Henry Stanbery were not voted in later. I guess I get it now, you are functionally illiterate, you don't understand what you read. Oh well, that means I sadly have to stop laughing since picking on uneducated people is not the right thing to do.

I stand corrected.

More to back your point: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...nt-get-hearing

- - - Updated - - -

That is completely immaterial. The fact that the President that nominated him left office before conditions changed to have him renominated is pretty much the point. Democrats and Republicans (and even other parties that existed before them) have sat on nominations many times in the past. The most recent and egregious that comes to mind is Priscilla Owen. The Democrats sat on her nomination for appeals court for 4 years.

Yep, see above.

[Kellhound]

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

You are missing the fine point that the COnstitution leaves it up to the Senate on how to consent. The Senate chose to not act upon it as the means to not provide consent.

[cubby]

I have found people love to make accusations on this forum but aren't very fond of backing of their claims said accounts. It is best to not take it personally as it is one of many tactics they use.

The irony of this coming from you, even given my most recent set-back, is exceedingly ironic.

[Allybeboba]

Whoa, I wanna know which Democrat is currently campaigning!

The DNC machine is currently campaigning just as the RNC machine is currently campaigning.

[Kellhound]

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.

Well no shit. Of course the GOP does not want to see the court turn liberal, just as the Dems squirm because it isnt liberal.

[Orbitus]

It is so hilarious to see the Dems and their media propagandist buddies trying to spin this against the Republicans.

We all know that the nuclear option was invented by Harry Reid. It only happened during the last presidency- we haven't forgotten about it yet. Maybe try peddling these lies ten years down the road, when everyone's memory has faded a little.

And what was the reason that Harry Reid had to use the nuclear option? Oh yeah, it wouldn't be because of the RECORD NUMBER OF FUCKING FILIBUSTERS by the Republicans would it?

[Paranoid Android]

Clueless as usual regarding politics. No one "gave" anyone anything. It was always there, the Dems used it first when the GOP was literally holding up the entire judicial system with more than 200 nominees waiting to be confirmed. The Dems did it to keep the judiciary running, the GOP did it to stuff a nominee down our throats immediately after they refused to allow a similarly qualified nominee to be voted on.

The GOP, always keepin' it classy.

But just so we're clear, you're wrong (yet again).

Yeah but he is INDEPENDENT, so you can't hold that against him. I love his comment to the thread when again the Trumpsters ignore all the previous transgressions that happened in the past 8 years.

Just keeping to Supreme Court nominees. They didn't even let Garland get to a nomination committee and hold a vote. I know they will pull some bullshit excuse out, such as the ridiculous it was last year of Obama.

I would stress more that this President is looking more and more that he went to a foreign country to try to influence this election. That is enough for me.

[Nathreim]

This is well staged political theater.

The Dems WANT the nuclear option to be extended but if they moved to do it they would face backlash just like they did when they extended it for lower Judges. So they got the Republicans to do it for them by blocking their pick which the Republicans were more than happy to do because they too want the Nuclear option extended.

[Allybeboba]

The irony of this coming from you, even given my most recent set-back, is exceedingly ironic.

Are you stating I have accused someone on this forum of something and it was a falsehood?
I don't call people names, I don't use vulgarities in public, and I don't accuse people of being something or someone they are not. Especially not to make myself look better. It simply isn't my style.

[Alydael]

The nuclear option was only conceived of as a response to the childish antics of Republican politicians, so no, no spin required. It's the Republicans through and through.

Actually there is a lot of spin going on. Dems and the media are claiming that Trump has made an unprecedented move that had undone 200 years of Democracy. They are making sure that they don't mention that Harry Reid and the Dems created the nuclear option......

That's "spin" for you.

As for childish antics, I would claim that both the dems and Republicans are equally very childish.

They were elected to lead, they are supposed to be intelligent and mature but all they do is basically call each other names and fight all day...

The Pubs blame the Dems, the Dems blame the Pubs (no Mommy! He did it first!). I have to agree, it is extremely childish and we deserve better as a nation. That's why I am independent. Who could support that petty bickering between adults?

[Halicia]

Yes, the GOP refusing to vote on Garland was political, just as voting against Gorsuch is political.

No, the GOP didn't refuse to vote for Garland. They refused to vote for ANYONE.

If Obama had nominated Gorsuch, the GOP said they would have denied him too.

That's 100% purely political.... there's absolutely no reason to flatly deny to have supreme court justices.

Now voting for/against individual nominees, that's political too... but not nearly in the same ballpark as "we don't want a supreme court while a democrat is president"