Senate Democrats block confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Neil Grosuch

[Gray_Matter]

I do not think it is a good thing with the exception Gorsuch will end up being on the Supreme Court.. It is regrettable it came to this. But I do not blame the GOP for doing it.

Gorsuch's ideology is not in line with a divided country. He is far to conservative. Hardiman would have been a much better choice. The problem for the GOP with Gorsuch and the removal of the filibusterer is that the dems are now likely to nominate very liberal people to counteract people like Gorsuch. There is going to be very little common sense in SCOTUS because it will just be ultra conservatives and ultra liberals writing opposite opinions.

The pendulum will swing back, especially if you consider that the GOP isn't doing very well with minorities and that is the biggest growing group.

[Orlong]

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.

I dont even know why the nuclear option isnt standard for every action. Why should a bill/confirmation/other act in the senate require a vote to be held on whether to vote for a bill or not? Every bill should be immediately be scheduled for a vote, and then vote yes or no on it. Additionally bills should not be able to be held in committee nor should the Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader be able to unilaterally decide whether a bill will get a vote or not.

Lastly voting to keep a bill from getting a vote isnt a filibuster. A filibuster is standing and talking for an inordinate amount of time about the bill to obstruct the legislation

[Flutterguy]

Republicans could have chosen Garland and Democrats would have failed to confirm. It didn't matter who they put up. The nuclear option is good. Get on with the business of the people.

[Orlong]

Even if I don't particularly care for the idea of tit for tat politics, the worst part of this is that it will somehow only be seen as negatively reflecting on the Democrats, despite obviously being comeuppance for the Republicans basically murdering precedent and any sense of country before party in cold blood.

The Republicans arent murdering precedent. Harry Reid is the one that started using the nuclear option to get 100s of judges confirmed for Obama. And the democrats are only trying to block this confirmation because its Trump's nominee, not because he isnt a good judge. Many of the democrats trying to block his nomination voted to confirm him for the Federal circuit court with no objections years ago. Trump could nominate Barack Obama for SCOTUS and the democrats would block it. Hell Trump could renominate Merrick Garland and they would block it. This is the problem with politics these days.

Oh and not revisiting a topic/ruling/process because of precedent is asinine anyway. Often times a second thought is a good idea. Its why people get a diagnosis from a doctor, and then see another doctor for a second opinion

- - - Updated - - -

I think the GoP should have at least voted on Garland. Would have been completely fine if he didn't get the votes. But the GoP set a terrible precedent.

I don't think Gorsuch should be voted on until after the investigations are done. I don't think Trump should get a supreme court nominee when he is under investigation with collision with a foreign power.

If Trump is cleared, go for it. If je isn't and pence / whomever becomes next president, then they can choose to pick Gorsuch again or someone else and that should be voted on.

Unfortunately, the GoP doesn't have much of a reason to not go nuclear. Either they are already doomed in the next cycle thanks to Trump's taint, or they will be rewarded just like they were in the 2016 cycle even though they were actively refusing to do their job.

Last nights actions are proof there is no collusion between Trump and Russia. If they were friends he wouldnt have launched 59 missiles into Syria against the people Russia is supporting

- - - Updated - - -

You know what atleast Democrats filibustered him and went to the hearings. Republicans could have easily not given Garland 60 votes and told Obama to pick someone they wanted. Instead those cowards pretended like Garland never happened.

Republicans effectively have limited a presidents term to 3 years. Revenge is going to be a bitch.

Not true at all. Nearly everyone who voted for Trump wanted Gorsuch confirmed and Garland trashed. And the very same people that elected Trump this time, will likely do so again because even though people like you arent satisfied, most of his voters are

- - - Updated - - -

That is true. You don't know that, he didn't get a hearing.

The seat was STOLEN.

And thanks to the GOP's nuclear option, Garland can be rightfully restore to the SCOTUS with the next Democratic president and senate.

You cant steal something that was never owned.

- - - Updated - - -

It is mitch the bitch that wants to change the rules get your facts straight. it is republicans that refuses to play by the old set of rules and wants new ones everytime they cant get there shit done the old fashion way.

But we will remember this and we will ram thru some ultra left wing judges when we get a chance next time. hopefully we get to push on like 5-6 of those ultra left wing judges with a simple 51-49 vote, it would be AWESOME to see the right wingers cry on that one saying it is so unfair that they dont need 60 votes. But as usual they just think democrats should rubber stamp whatever insanity judge a republican nominates while at the same time stone walling a center right judge from Obama for a year of him being in office.

I say bring it on. we will make sure you pay the price for these changes and obstruction of Obama,

In the next 4 years, Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Breyer will likely be dead or medically unable to serve anymore since they are like 90 years old and will be replaced with 3 good Constitutional originalist judges who are young enough to serve 40 or 50 years. Thats long enough for me, because by the time they are replaced ill be dead and you can have your ultra liberal legislate from the bench and rule based on emotions and social justice judges

- - - Updated - - -

The real irony in the argument that Garland wouldn't have gotten the votes is that, when Scalia's seat first opened up, you had Republicans saying how it's a shame that Obama will appoint a liberal-leaning judge and not a moderate judge that both sides could agree on. Then they specifically named Garland as an example of moderate nomination both parties could agree on.

Except only democrats claimed he was a moderate judge to sway the public opinion of people who know nothing about judges and never even heard his name to try and get one more Obama judge on the bench. He already had 2 and thats enough. Anyone who is familiar with federal judges and their rulings knew he was a liberal judge

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, so the GOP would vote to apply the nuclear option to allow him to have been approved on a simple majority vote?
And FYI, Obama could have nominated a different person at any time.

Every vote only needs a simple majority to pass. The 60 vote thing is when they "filibuster" the vote to hold a vote

- - - Updated - - -

So you didn't know that the GOP didn't need to use the nuclear option to allow Garland through with a simple majority.

And you also didn't know that the GOP promised to block every Obama nominee.

Thanks for outing yourself as being totally clueless.

They let Sotomayor and Kagen through.

[Super Kami Dende]

YOU GO DEMS! Show them Republicans how you are the bigger Men and not the Whiny Children you accuse them of being

[Orlong]

Well, it is the first time a nominee for the Supreme Court has been filibustered.

The GOP should go nuclear. The democrats have forced their hand.

No its not. The democrats refused to let Bork get a vote back in the 80s

[ati87]

The Republicans arent murdering precedent. Harry Reid is the one that started using the nuclear option to get 100s of judges confirmed for Obama. And the democrats are only trying to block this confirmation because its Trump's nominee, not because he isnt a good judge. Many of the democrats trying to block his nomination voted to confirm him for the Federal circuit court with no objections years ago. Trump could nominate Barack Obama for SCOTUS and the democrats would block it. Hell Trump could renominate Merrick Garland and they would block it. This is the problem with politics these days.

Oh and not revisiting a topic/ruling/process because of precedent is asinine anyway. Often times a second thought is a good idea. Its why people get a diagnosis from a doctor, and then see another doctor for a second opinion

Uhm Harry Reid decided to take away the filibuster for normal appointees after Republicans started to filibuster every god dam nominee in the hopes to get something in return.

Democrats have moral objections towards Grosuch outside of what happend with the Obama nominee, just because he is similar to Scalia doesn't mean people used to be fine with him so they should be fine with gf

[stabetha]

The Republicans STOLE the seat from Merrick Garland. Never in the entire history of the US has this happened.

That is how brazenly partisan, hypocritical, and unprecedented their actions are.

Merrick Garland is the rightful SCOTUS nominee, not plagiarist Gorsuch, who is STEALING his seat.

After the Republicans invoke the nuclear option this is what needs to happen: The Democrats must treat Gorsuch as persona non grata for the purposes of SCOTUS nominations. This means the next Dem president will rightfully restore Garland on the SCOTUS as the 10th justice (there is no rule against this). All future non-Gorsuch vacancies will be filled. Gorsuch's vacancy will NOT be filled. Thus, he will be treated as if he doesn't exist, because he STOLE the seat. There will be 10 justices until Gorsuch dies or resigns.

All of this will be made possible by the Republicans using the nuclear option.

It was Bidens Idea for lame ducks to not nominate a supreme court justice, in a 1992 speech Sen. Biden said it was not fair to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision. Of course it was GW bush so since it was a republican it was ok.

[Zoranon]

I would be surprised as well if at least one more didn't open up. I still don't see the Dems starting the "adding more spots on the court" but I think that might be my general political bias slamming up against yours. I mean that only objectively, not criticizing you (this time ).

I don't see any realistic hope of them getting passed, true. Not a lot of happy options for the U.S. at this point. Politics seems to be in a death spiral at this point, both sides contributing.

We will see, or I hope we wont see it, but I wouldn't be surprised if we did sadly.

Yep, things are only gonna get worse in DC. Politics have become a zero sum game now, which is an extremely dangerous state. I fear the only way to keep US together might be to radically weaken the powers of the federal government so that losing stops being felt as such tragedy by the losing side.

[Daelak]

We will see, or I hope we wont see it, but I wouldn't be surprised if we did sadly.

Yep, things are only gonna get worse in DC. Politics have become a zero sum game now, which is an extremely dangerous state. I fear the only way to keep US together might be to radically weaken the powers of the federal government so that losing stops being felt as such tragedy by the losing side.

Lol, this has been the same line confederates have been saying since ratification of the constitution. The modern conservative movement is about exactly that. They want to have a neutered federal government to pursue their neo-confederate goals in their states.

[Ghostpanther]

No its not. The democrats refused to let Bork get a vote back in the 80s

Different situation than the filibuster the democrats did this time. Bork actually lost even the committee vote. But decide to still go for the final vote on confirmation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...urt_nomination Which he lost handily.

But no matter, Grosuch will be the next Supreme Justice and the odds are looking good for Trump to name one or two more before he is done.

[TITAN308]

I'll give Merrick Garland this, he has a pretty cool name.

Certainly better than Neil Gorsuch. =/

[Ghostpanther]

I'll give Merrick Garland this, he has a pretty cool name.

Certainly better than Neil Gorsuch. =/

Lol! I can hear it now from the left, Gorsucks!!

[Ghostpanther]

What? They blocked the vote on Garland because most republicans actually thought he was a very good pick and did NOT want to vote no on him. They would have rather not voted at all. Which is what they did.

Well, now the Democrats can do the same thing. All they need to do is win back control of the Senate.

[Kellhound]

And you know that because...?

- - - Updated - - -



Based on feels and no actual argument at all it seems.

He had a lot of support from Republicans. Maybe do some research?

https://thinkprogress.org/6-quotes-f...w-2d75f357a25e

- - - Updated - - -



Pretty sure that won't be a problem.

Politics, it was all politics. The damage to the GOP for doing nothing was less than voting no and FAR less than voting yes.

[Kellhound]

Hypothetical hypocrisy is a shitty argument.

Especially this one. You should really just delete this post. Even I'm embarrassed for you.

- - - Updated - - -



They have legit reasons not to support the nominee. Obviously you don't believe that matters though.

- - - Updated - - -



He would have probably been confirmed, otherwise a lot of those republicans would look foolish as fuck. I'm not sure how your comment about "it's politics" matters. Obviously it's fucking politics. What the fuck do you think we're talking about?

I don't really give a shit if you think he was good for the SC or not. I'm just saying you're wrong to think he would have definitely not been confirmed. Even I can't be for sure but there's a lot more evidence to support that he would have been confirmed than your "feels before reals" argument that you think he wouldn't have had a chance.

When all is said and done, the GOP would not alienate its core during an election year by voting to change the make-up of the court in a direction opposed by said core. That is why no vote was taken, Garland was chosen only to hurt the GOP, not to actually be confirmed.

[Kellhound]

Again, you know this because...?

Its the nature of modern American politics.

[Gestopft]

The Republicans arent murdering precedent. Harry Reid is the one that started using the nuclear option to get 100s of judges confirmed for Obama.

100s of nominations that were being stalled with no reason other than "screw Obama." It's gotten worse and on both sides, but McConnell took obstruction and filibusters to a record level.

Republicans could have chosen Garland and Democrats would have failed to confirm. It didn't matter who they put up. The nuclear option is good. Get on with the business of the people.

Trump could nominate Barack Obama for SCOTUS and the democrats would block it. Hell Trump could renominate Merrick Garland and they would block it. This is the problem with politics these days.

Ridiculous. For many Democrats and Democratic voters, this is ABOUT Garland. Never even giving him a hearing was the cherry on top of the big bowl of obstructionism that the GOP served Obama for the last six years. I despise Trump, and I don't care for Gorsuch's positions- but Trump won, and his nominee is qualified. What still roils my blood is the way Republicans handled the Garland nomination.

Nearly everyone who voted for Trump wanted Gorsuch confirmed and Garland trashed. And the very same people that elected Trump this time, will likely do so again because even though people like you arent satisfied, most of his voters are

I hope these people are still satisfied when Justice Garland defends the Koch brothers et al owning politics in this country. Every indication is that he (and likely others that will be suggested for Trump by Heritage Foundation etc) will act to preserve the swamp in all of its swampiness.

One of the biggest, if not THE biggest issue on which voters in both parties agree on is that money has too much influence in politics. 3/4 of the electorate has a negative view of Citizens United, and the same supermajority want to see changes to our politics and campaigns in this regard. If Citizens United is any indication, a liberal court is FAR more likely to uphold such reforms.

In the next 4 years, Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Breyer will likely be dead or medically unable to serve anymore since they are like 90 years old and will be replaced with 3 good Constitutional originalist judges who are young enough to serve 40 or 50 years. Thats long enough for me, because by the time they are replaced ill be dead and you can have your ultra liberal legislate from the bench and rule based on emotions and social justice judges

Liberal judges don't even read the constitution, right? And obviously it's only judicial activism when it's liberal judges- that just goes with out saying.

[Kellhound]

So, no actual argument or evidence then. Gotcha.

Its based on the study of American politics and being rational about it.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -







- - - Updated - - -



Pretty sure that won't be a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

The same way Obama felt Trump would not be elected?