Political Fairness? Should the Dems. block the senate Gorsuch vote?

[sear]

Political Fairness? Should the Dems. block the senate Gorsuch vote?

Democrats threaten to filibuster Judge Gorsuch's vote for Scalia's (deceased) empty SCOTUS seat.
Scalia died about 7 years into the Obama administration.

In accordance with the U.S. Constitution President Obama chose a nominee to succeed Scalia.

BUT !!

Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) refused even to allow Obama's (D-IL) nominee to be voted on in the senate, leaving SCOTUS a potentially deadlocked 8 person court.
McConnell blocked Obama's nominee, without significant objection from the GOP.

Now the shoe is on the other foot.
It's the Republicans that have a nominee.

BUT !!

Due to current senate rules, approval of the nominee requires a "super-majority", 60 senate votes or more.
And reportedly Majority Leader McConnell doesn't now have them.

On FNS M.L. McConnell said he plans to attend to the Gorsuch nomination this week.

BUT !!

With the legislative resources at his disposal, President Trump's nominee Gorsuch will lose the vote, and not be confirmed.

BUT !!

McConnell retains "the nuclear option", the ability to change senate rules so that instead of a 60 vote approval, only a simple majority would be required.
And McConnell reportedly already has more than enough votes for that.

When McConnell was the minority leader, the Democrats had an opportunity to exercise "the nuclear option". But Minority Leader McConnell talked them out of it.

I just did a character string search of the amended United States Constitution. Neither the word "fairness" nor "fair" appear anywhere in it.

BUT !!

"Politics is the art of compromise."

Is there any rational reason to assume that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" applies in general, but there's an exception for U.S. senate SCOTUS appointee confirmations?

The United States Constitution specifies that it is the U.S. senate that is to confirm presidential appointees.
McConnell refused.
Some Democrats complained McConnell was failing his sworn duty to the Constitution, by blocking the vote.
It's a fair point. According to the Constitution it is the U.S. senate and no other body that has this enumerated duty.

BUT !!

The Constitution does not specify a time-limit.
So with that loop-hole, McConnell was within his legal right. And the Dems. just whiners.

In addition, there's reportedly no Constitutional requirement for a 9 member SCOTUS.
So McConnell could leave the SCOTUS count at 8, or even let its population dwindle further, by attrition *.

TOPIC QUESTION:
The Republicans blocked President Obama's SCOTUS appointment.
Is there any rational reason to assert that if this is the way the Republicans treat the Democrats,
that the Democrats shouldn't do the same to the Republicans, and block the GOP nominee to SCOTUS as well?

If not, why not?

And if the Dems try, should McConnell use the nuclear option?
And if he does, is there any rational reason in ethical equity or law that the Dems. should not use that same strategy against the Republicans when the roles are reversed?

* They are lifetime appointments. So McConnell lacks the authority to fire them; except via the path of impeachment. So attrition would be the obvious means to depopulate SCOTUS.

[Russ]

You realize, of course, that both Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer made speeches in the past about how they consider it extremely unfair and undemocratic for a President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. Of course, both made their speeches during election years when the incumbent President was Republican. They both really waxed poetic over how terrible it would be for the current President (a Bush, in both cases) to have the gall to actually nominate someone in their last year of office. I guess they only consider it unfair when it might involve a conservative SC nominee.

Strange how you brought up about fifty points, but didn't bring this up. :slap:

[sear]

You realize, of course, that both Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer made speeches in the past about how they consider it extremely unfair and undemocratic for a President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during an election year.


Thank god no Republican has ever contradicted himself!!
You know. Like Reagan committing to balancing the budget, and then running up more debt than all the previous presidents combined.
Like Governor Bush forswearing nation-building, before squandering hundreds of $Billions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Like Donald Trump promising the Mexicans would pay for the wall (before the Republicans in congress started allocating funds for it). I'm not Mexican!
And then there's the current immunity controversy. Trump himself said, if you're not guilty, why would you need immunity.

Strange how you brought up about Democrat's duplicity, but didn't bring this up. :slap:



I guess they only consider it unfair when it might involve a conservative SC nominee.




obviously


Strange how you brought up about fifty points, but didn't bring this up. http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/slap.gif




You're right. THAT'S the problem with my posts. They're not long enough, and they lack sufficient detail!

Thank you for such a valid and humiliating public embarrassment. I think I'll ask my parole officer if I can get some intensive counseling about it. I think you hurt my feelings!

[Russ]

Thank god no Republican has ever contradicted himself!!
You know. Like Reagan committing to balancing the budget, and then running up more debt than all the previous presidents combined.
Like Governor Bush forswearing nation-building, before squandering hundreds of $Billions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Like Donald Trump promising the Mexicans would pay for the wall (before the Republicans in congress started allocating funds for it). I'm not Mexican!
And then there's the current immunity controversy. Trump himself said, if you're not guilty, why would you need immunity.

Strange how you brought up about Democrat's duplicity, but didn't bring this up.

obviously

You're right. THAT'S the problem with my posts. They're not long enough, and they lack sufficient detail!

Thank you for such a valid and humiliating public embarrassment. I think I'll ask my parole officer if I can get some intensive counseling about it. I think you hurt my feelings!

Thanks, at least through all that prattling and heading off on tangents, I did hear you admit that the Democrats are contradicting themselves and being duplicitous. Now admit it, doesn't it feel better to get that out in the open? ;)

[sear]

"Thanks, at least through all that prattling and heading off on tangents, I did hear you admit that the Democrats are contradicting themselves and being duplicitous. Now admit it, doesn't it feel better to get that out in the open? ;) R #4

"Admit"?

I'd have thought it obvious. What adult posting here didn't know this?

But your insinuation that Democrats are intrinsically, predictably, characteristically more duplicitous compared to Republicans, you may wish to review a statistical analysis on that. And when you find one, please post it.
FactCheck.org might help. But I gather they address issues, rather than parties (don't remember. I don't have it bookmarked).

But your timing is unfortunate, disadvantageous to the point you're arguing.
Donald Trump by self-determination expresses himself in extremes, in superlatives. Didn't he explain this in The Art Of The Deal?

Trump has CLEARLY over-promised here, and has already broken a campaign promise, on how quickly he'd "repeal & replace". Trump has neither repealed nor replaced, and the deadline he set for himself has elapsed.

"Now admit it, doesn't it feel better to get that out in the open? ;) R #4

If I'd had any inkling that it's not universal knowledge I'd have blurted it out in haste decades ago!

[BoogyMan]

Political fairness? How long before the word justice gets surreptitiously tossed into this piffle for good measure?

This is all politics, pure and simple and the folks on the right should simply tell the left to suck it up because elections have consequences just like the left told them.

[darin]

We have a political system and society so fucked up they would even consider "fairness" over law, Justice, and 'doing the right thing."

[sear]

"Political fairness? How long before the word justice gets surreptitiously tossed into this piffle for good measure?

This is all politics, pure and simple and the folks on the right should simply tell the left to suck it up because elections have consequences just like the left told them." B #6

Excellent!

a) Elections that elect Republicans have consequences, but elections that elect Democrats don't? That's Double-Standard #1.

b) Trump was voted on ONCE, and lost the vote, but won the election.
Obama was voted on several times.
- For the Illinois legislature.
- For the U.S. Senate.
- Twice for the U.S. presidency. I don't recall Obama ever losing a vote OR an election.

So by YOUR criterion it would be Obama, not Trump that would have the stronger case, by your "elections have consequences" criterion.

And Obama nominated Merit Garland, and McConnell blocked it even from a vote. Didn't even allow a VOTE!

YOUR position is, those with the political power can wield it as ruthlessly as they wish.

Well.
It's widely reported the Democrats have the political power to block Gorsuch, leaving McConnell to decide:

Shall McConnell leave SCOTUS an 8 member court for now? (That's McConnell's prerogative)

Or shall McConnell opt for "the nuclear option", a legislative two-edged sword he'll surely regret in the future.

Historic reminder:
When Majority Leader Reid threatened to use "the nuclear option", Minority Leader McConnell talked Reid down; talked him out of it.
McConnell effectively prevented this on basis of appeal to logic, to pragmatism.

McConnell sure flip-flopped on that one with acrobatic ease!

Candidly, I think "the nuclear option" would be a very dangerous legislative weapon in Democrat hands, an inevitability of McConnell uses it on them.

Is McConnell short-sighted enough to go for it anyway?

"We have a political system and society so fucked up they would even consider "fairness" over law, Justice, and 'doing the right thing."" d #7

?!

"Over" ?!?!

Who here advocated "consider "fairness" over law, Justice, and 'doing the right thing." d #7

Surely not me!!

Do you perceive ethics, law, and justice as incompatible?

I do not, for the most part *, and not in this case.

* There's the juror's exception to the Pledge of Allegiance, but I hope that's a rare exception.

[Gunny]

"Political fairness? How long before the word justice gets surreptitiously tossed into this piffle for good measure?

This is all politics, pure and simple and the folks on the right should simply tell the left to suck it up because elections have consequences just like the left told them." B #6

Excellent!

a) Elections that elect Republicans have consequences, but elections that elect Democrats don't? That's Double-Standard #1.

b) Trump was voted on ONCE, and lost the vote, but won the election.
Obama was voted on several times.
- For the Illinois legislature.
- For the U.S. Senate.
- Twice for the U.S. presidency. I don't recall Obama ever losing a vote OR an election.

So by YOUR criterion it would be Obama, not Trump that would have the stronger case, by your "elections have consequences" criterion.

And Obama nominated Merit Garland, and McConnell blocked it even from a vote. Didn't even allow a VOTE!

YOUR position is, those with the political power can wield it as ruthlessly as they wish.

Well.
It's widely reported the Democrats have the political power to block Gorsuch, leaving McConnell to decide:

Shall McConnell leave SCOTUS an 8 member court for now? (That's McConnell's prerogative)

Or shall McConnell opt for "the nuclear option", a legislative two-edged sword he'll surely regret in the future.

Historic reminder:
When Majority Leader Reid threatened to use "the nuclear option", Minority Leader McConnell talked Reid down; talked him out of it.
McConnell effectively prevented this on basis of appeal to logic, to pragmatism.

McConnell sure flip-flopped on that one with acrobatic ease!

Candidly, I think "the nuclear option" would be a very dangerous legislative weapon in Democrat hands, an inevitability of McConnell uses it on them.

Is McConnell short-sighted enough to go for it anyway?The media elected O-blah-blah. He's the worst President we've ever had. He was a complete idiot holding an office above his lack of skills level. If O-Bully didn't screw it up it's because he didn't think of it.

And you can trust if Trump screws crap up? I'll be harder on him than your little darling because I expect y'all to f*ck sh*t up. That's what you do. "Gee, I can come up with a dumber unAmerican plan than you". I'm surprised O-loser didn't put that on the back of the dollar. The Dem leftwingnut motto.

[sear]

"The media elected O-blah-blah." G #10

I've never seen a newspaper, or a television step proudly into a voting booth and express its preference.
I don't speak for you. But I make up my own mind. Perhaps you do too.

More to the point, I know of no U.S. presidential candidate in history of any party, or no party that got more help in the form of free publicity than Donald Trump.
The press reports I've read of it asserted the free publicity Trump raked from the media was valued at a $Billion $Dollars or $more.

Commenting further on Obama, G posted:

"He's the worst President we've ever had." G

And yet by the Reagan standard we're better off.

"He was a complete idiot holding an office above his lack of skills level." G

"A complete idiot" raised by a single Mom, that rose to the highest office in the land, not on basis of xenophobia & wealth, but on merit.

[NightTrain]

"Political fairness? How long before the word justice gets surreptitiously tossed into this piffle for good measure?

This is all politics, pure and simple and the folks on the right should simply tell the left to suck it up because elections have consequences just like the left told them." B #6

Excellent!

a) Elections that elect Republicans have consequences, but elections that elect Democrats don't? That's Double-Standard #1.

No one said 0bama's election didn't have consequences. On the contrary - democrats lost over 1,000 seats nationwide and today control a whopping 5 States due to 0bama's election, hence the decimation of the party.


b) Trump was voted on ONCE, and lost the vote, but won the election.
Obama was voted on several times.
- For the Illinois legislature.
- For the U.S. Senate.
- Twice for the U.S. presidency. I don't recall Obama ever losing a vote OR an election.

Most moonbats are still unable to comprehend the difference between the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote. Trump was trying to win the Presidency, and campaigned accordingly - which gained him the White House.

Here are the only numbers that matter : 306 to 232.


So by YOUR criterion it would be Obama, not Trump that would have the stronger case, by your "elections have consequences" criterion.

It would appear that you're confusing a simple statement of fact with 'mandate'.


And Obama nominated Merit Garland, and McConnell blocked it even from a vote. Didn't even allow a VOTE!

You act like this isn't a well established precedent.


YOUR position is, those with the political power can wield it as ruthlessly as they wish.

Well.
It's widely reported the Democrats have the political power to block Gorsuch, leaving McConnell to decide:

Shall McConnell leave SCOTUS an 8 member court for now? (That's McConnell's prerogative)

Or shall McConnell opt for "the nuclear option", a legislative two-edged sword he'll surely regret in the future.

Yes. McConnell will pull the trigger, and Trump will stack the SCOTUS with at least two more Justices in the next 7 years and Democrats can thank themselves for the rule change.


Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is predicting a Democratic-majority Senate next year could break out the "nuclear option" to change the rules on Supreme Court nominations.

The outgoing Democratic leader told Talking Points Memo that he's paved the way for what would be a historic change of the Senate's rules, allowing Supreme Court nominees to bypass a 60-vote procedural requirement and be approved by a simple majority.

"I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority," he said. "It’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told 'em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again."

Reid, who has previously floated changing the rules in 2017, added to TPM that if Republicans "mess with the Supreme Court, it'll be changed just like that in my opinion. So I’ve set that up. I feel very comfortable with that.”

In 2013 Senate Democrats changed the filibuster rules on most of Obama's nominees, allowing them to get approved by a simple majority, but left the 60-vote hurdle intact for Supreme Court nominations.

However, the 2013 shift — the most significant change to Senate floor procedure in decades — has sparked years of backlash from Republicans, who warned that it undercuts a minority party's ability to block a president's nomination.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/302513-reid-dems-could-change-rules-for-supreme-court-nominees


On Thursday afternoon, Schumer voted along with 51 other members of his party to kill the filibuster for federal judges and certain other presidential appointments.


"Things should never have gotten to that point," Schumer said after the vote. "We've gotten here by an extreme group that has waged a successful war on government."


Schumer framed the move as a reaction to the Tea Party's influence on the Republican Party, and the resulting public disapproval of the party's increasingly militant confrontational tactics.


"The public is asking—is begging—us to act," Schumer said. "We're at nine-percent approval because the rules given an advantage to those who want to prevent the Senate from achieving anything."


The concern for Democrats is that Republicans will wield the same power if, or when, they regain control of the Senate. When majority leader Harry Reid was asked about those fears, Schumer interrupted to answer the question.


"We much prefer the risk of up or down votes and majority rule than the risk of continued total obstructionism," he said. "That's the bottom line, no matter who's in power."

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2013/11/how-schumer-turned-against-a-filibuster-he-once-tried-to-save-009838



Historic reminder:
When Majority Leader Reid threatened to use "the nuclear option", Minority Leader McConnell talked Reid down; talked him out of it.
McConnell effectively prevented this on basis of appeal to logic, to pragmatism.

McConnell sure flip-flopped on that one with acrobatic ease!

Um, no. The nuclear option was already invoked with Presidential appointments, excluding SCOTUS - but they were up next, as illustrated by Reid before he left.


Candidly, I think "the nuclear option" would be a very dangerous legislative weapon in Democrat hands, an inevitability of McConnell uses it on them.

Is McConnell short-sighted enough to go for it anyway?

The cat's already out of the bag. Nuking the filibuster completely is already a foregone conclusion and it was democrats entirely that made it so.

[sear]

"No one said 0bama's election didn't have consequences." NT

Correct.
Instead the assertion was that Trump's nominee should go right through because:

"This is all politics, pure and simple and the folks on the right should simply tell the left to suck it up because elections have consequences ..." B #6

thereby indicating that Obama's nominee should not.

"a) Elections that elect Republicans have consequences, but elections that elect Democrats don't?" s #8

You see, "elections have consequences" is a principle.
But it is principle B #6 seems to think applies to Republicans, not Democrats.

"You act like this isn't a well established precedent." NT

I invite you to cite 3 historic examples.

[jimnyc]

As Mitch has already stated - Gorsuch will be confirmed on the 7th no matter what. So those that think the Dems are going to somehow stop this, think again. NOW all we have to look forward to is Ginsburg or one of the other old bastards to leave, and really set the court to the right!

[Black Diamond]

Dems should block gorsuch to avenge garland. Republicans should use the nuclear option because Reid did.

[sear]

BD #14

That seems to be where we're headed.

I'm just concerned about when the other shoe drops. The Dems will make a hell of a mess when they control the nuke. Is Gorsuch worth it? Right now Republicans think so. Ask them again when Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) gets a hold of it.

[NightTrain]

"You act like this isn't a well established precedent." NT

I invite you to cite 3 historic examples.

Why, sure! I'll see your 3 and raise you 22 more.


The Congressional Research Service has pointed out that the U.S. Senate has confirmed 124 Supreme Court nominations out of 160 received.


22.5% of total nominations have failed to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.


25 of the 36 failed nominations did not receive an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

https://aclj.org/supreme-court/democrats-and-republicans-agree-senate-should-hold-no-hearings-and-no-votes-on-supreme-court-nominee


Additional reading chock full o' facts straight from the Congressional Research Service :

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf


Don't forget to read all the pertinent quotes from Congressional liberals making the argument for no vote during an election year.



Still convinced the moonbats got a raw deal? Fine, have a look :


Historical precedent supports this deference in an election year under a divided government, in which opposing parties control the White House and the Senate. 1880 was the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was filled in a presidential election year with a divided government, when Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed William Burnham Woods, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. To provide further historical perceptive, less than 50 votes were cast in that vote in the Senate.

It’s been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to fill a vacancy that arose in the presidential election year.


When Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes retired from the bench on January 12, 1932, Benjamin Cardozo was appointed by President Hoover on February 15 and confirmed by the Senate on February 24th. Importantly, even this case is one in which the same party controlled both the Presidency and the Senate.

https://aclj.org/supreme-court/historical-precedent-favors-letting-our-next-president-appoint-justice-scalias-replacement


QED.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why, sure! I'll see your 3 and raise you 22 more.



https://aclj.org/supreme-court/democrats-and-republicans-agree-senate-should-hold-no-hearings-and-no-votes-on-supreme-court-nominee


Additional reading chock full o' facts straight from the Congressional Research Service :

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf


Don't forget to read all the pertinent quotes from Congressional liberals making the argument for no vote during an election year.



Still convinced the moonbats got a raw deal? Fine, have a look :



https://aclj.org/supreme-court/historical-precedent-favors-letting-our-next-president-appoint-justice-scalias-replacement


QED.

THAT IS THE FASTEST, BEST AND MOST COMPLETE REFUTATION AND DEMOLITION OF A DARE THAT I HAVE SEEN IN YEARS NIGHTTRAIN.
Take a bow, enjoy a cold beer and enjoy the spin that is sure to come in reply because of your decisive retort my friend..-Tyr

[Gunny]

BD #14

That seems to be where we're headed.

I'm just concerned about when the other shoe drops. The Dems will make a hell of a mess when they control the nuke. Is Gorsuch worth it? Right now Republicans think so. Ask them again when Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) gets a hold of it.Does it matter? The problem is with the lack of balance of powers. I think Andrew Johnson was President last Congress actually acted on anything. Otherwise, Congress is a bunch of 2nd graders who can't agree on lunch.

The Supreme Court legislates from the bench whenever they get around to it and the President signs orders by decree. I don't think the Founding Fathers had this in mind.

Then we can add people like you in. You're still bashing Bush, Einstein.

[gabosaurus]

Speaking as a liberal dem, I believe trying to block the nominating is a f-ing joke. It is going to go through anyway. And Gorsuch is not as conservative as some Dems believe. It is merely a power trip by a group of Dems who are still butthurt over the election.

[jimnyc]

BD #14

That seems to be where we're headed.

I'm just concerned about when the other shoe drops. The Dems will make a hell of a mess when they control the nuke. Is Gorsuch worth it? Right now Republicans think so. Ask them again when Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) gets a hold of it.


Didn't the Dems do so already? And Schumer can't talk of course. And yeah, USE IT NOW... and then hope for a 2nd, and maybe even a 3rd!! Then the Dems will need another 20-40 years before the filibuster will matter, to the SC at least.

[jimnyc]

Speaking as a liberal dem, I believe trying to block the nominating is a f-ing joke. It is going to go through anyway. And Gorsuch is not as conservative as some Dems believe. It is merely a power trip by a group of Dems who are still butthurt over the election.

Putting issues aside - IF they could win this battle, I could understand, the SC is on the line. But I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it - but the Dems, some of them, are going against on principle and nothing to do with the judges record. The very record the Dems loved not long ago.

[KarlMarx]

TOPIC QUESTION:
The Republicans blocked President Obama's SCOTUS appointment.
Is there any rational reason to assert that if this is the way the Republicans treat the Democrats,
that the Democrats shouldn't do the same to the Republicans, and block the GOP nominee to SCOTUS as well?

The Senate has the authority to confirm (or not confirm) the President's nominations to all courts, not just the Supreme Court per Article II Section 2 of the Constitution (the "advise and consent" clause). They are under NO obligation to approve his nominations nor are they obligated to act on the President's nominations. That's part of the separation of powers under the Constitution. And, oh by the way, the Republican Senate did confirm many of Obama's nominations to the lower courts.

All this nonsense about "the Republicans wouldn't nominate Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court" is just nothing more than Democrat posturing and whining.


And if the Dems try, should McConnell use the nuclear option?
And if he does, is there any rational reason in ethical equity or law that the Dems. should not use that same strategy against the Republicans when the roles are reversed?

The Senate (as well as the House of Representatives) have the authority under the Constitution to "... determine the rules of its proceedings..." (Article I Section 5)... so if McConnell can get the votes to get the rules changed, he can. The Democrats would, have, and will treat the Republicans like "back of the bus" Negroes once they get back in power. They treated the Republicans like the minority party that they were.... now it's the Republican's turn to treat the Democrats like the minority party that it is.

The Democrats, when in power, brought the US Government to the verge of shut down many times in order to protect or advance its political agenda. They also, under Harry Reid's leadership, obstructed the budget process, the legislative process (by refusing to vote on bills passed by the House).

By being obstructive, confrontational, and just plain old shall we say, disagreeable, the Democrats have all but guaranteed a Republican victory in the mid-term elections and perhaps the 2020 Presidential elections....

But then they have Chuck Schumer as a leader, so I guess I should not be surprised.

[aboutime]

The Senate has the authority to confirm (or not confirm) the President's nominations to all courts, not just the Supreme Court per Article II Section 2 of the Constitution (the "advise and consent" clause). They are under NO obligation to approve his nominations nor are they obligated to act on the President's nominations. That's part of the separation of powers under the Constitution. And, oh by the way, the Republican Senate did confirm many of Obama's nominations to the lower courts.

All this nonsense about "the Republicans wouldn't nominate Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court" is just nothing more than Democrat posturing and whining.



The Senate (as well as the House of Representatives) have the authority under the Constitution to "... determine the rules of its proceedings..." (Article I Section 5)... so if McConnell can get the votes to get the rules changed, he can. The Democrats would, have, and will treat the Republicans like "back of the bus" Negroes once they get back in power. They treated the Republicans like the minority party that they were.... now it's the Republican's turn to treat the Democrats like the minority party that it is.

The Democrats, when in power, brought the US Government to the verge of shut down many times in order to protect or advance its political agenda. They also, under Harry Reid's leadership, obstructed the budget process, the legislative process (by refusing to vote on bills passed by the House).

By being obstructive, confrontational, and just plain old shall we say, disagreeable, the Democrats have all but guaranteed a Republican victory in the mid-term elections and perhaps the 2020 Presidential elections....

But then they have Chuck Schumer as a leader, so I guess I should not be surprised.



Right you are. The dems put up that candidate, knowing it wouldn't pass, and the Republicans wouldn't do it in an election year. But, that's how the DumbDems play.
I do believe, the NUCLEAR option will be used, and Gorsuch will become the next Justice. Harry Reid and Chucky Cheeze Schumer
thought they were so smart. Just watch, and see how they SCREAM on Friday afternoon. Their WORLD WILL COME TO AN END, and they can personally thank HARRY for his tricks.
By the way. What's to stop the Repubs in the Senate from REVERSING the NUKE option...after Gorsuch wins???

Answer....NOTHING.

[sear]

"25 of the 36 failed nominations did not receive an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate." NT #16

I forget the details of the protocol.
But isn't it standard practice to hold two votes?

First the committee hears the nominee, and then they vote whether it goes to the floor for the final vote?

The above quote addresses the floor vote. But it doesn't mention the committee vote.

Again. I don't know everything about such history. But I know of no other precedent for a majority leader even blocking a hearing and a committee vote, for a year?

"Does it matter?" G #18

It does to me, and the country.

"You're still bashing Bush" G

http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/c5725774c467b13b9b8771277ae74b7774e6098.JPG

How much time must pass before 4,487 innocent dead among my countrymen becomes no so bad.
I'll bash Bush for this atrocity as severely the day I die as I did when the last corpse was still warm.

[Kathianne]

First for the practical, Garland's hearing or not is moot.

Then:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

[tailfins]

Speaking as a liberal dem, I believe trying to block the nominating is a f-ing joke. It is going to go through anyway. And Gorsuch is not as conservative as some Dems believe. It is merely a power trip by a group of Dems who are still butthurt over the election.


Exactly. Gorsuch voting like Anthony Kennedy might be the hidden nigger in the wood pile.

[aboutime]

http://youtu.be/oVvxGa0zhWo

[hjmick]

Would someone please teach the fucking newb to use the quote function?

[aboutime]

Would someone please teach the fucking newb to use the quote function?



hjmick. The FNG in question must think he is the second coming of Obama. Not paying attention to what is most comfortable for members; but rather...so full of BS, he must take the extra time to answer the age old question "WHAT TIME IS IT?"

His problem is. We don't need to know how the clock works. Just the TIME.

Ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity seem to be his most prolific aptitude.

[sear]

at #29

And I enjoy water-skiing.

[Russ]

But your insinuation that Democrats are intrinsically, predictably, characteristically more duplicitous compared to Republicans, you may wish to review a statistical analysis on that.


I just did a statistical analysis, and found that Democrats, CNN and the Washington Post are duplicitous, pandering, and hypocritical 96% of the time, with Chuck Schumer having an incredible 99.44% rating in all three.

The same study found that Republicans are also guilty of all three, but only around 50% of the time.

[Russ]

Well.
It's widely reported the Democrats have the political power to block Gorsuch, leaving McConnell to decide:

Shall McConnell leave SCOTUS an 8 member court for now? (That's McConnell's prerogative)

Or shall McConnell opt for "the nuclear option", a legislative two-edged sword he'll surely regret in the future.

Historic reminder:
When Majority Leader Reid threatened to use "the nuclear option", Minority Leader McConnell talked Reid down; talked him out of it.
McConnell effectively prevented this on basis of appeal to logic, to pragmatism.

McConnell sure flip-flopped on that one with acrobatic ease!

Candidly, I think "the nuclear option" would be a very dangerous legislative weapon in Democrat hands, an inevitability of McConnell uses it on them.

Is McConnell short-sighted enough to go for it anyway?



This argument, that Republicans shouldn't use the nuclear option because it would be dangerous whenever the Dems control the Senate again, is ricidulous. I don't think even you believe it, Sear. There is no reason for Republicans not to use the nuclear option now, because the Dems will definitely invoke it themselves as soon as they get the chance. They will do that regardless of what McConnell does now.

Who invented the nuclear option? Harry Reid and the Dems. Who will use it for SC nominees as soon as they can? Chuck Schumer and the Dems.

Btw, in regard to Merrick Garland not being brought up for a vote by McConnell, what is the difference between that and Dems filibustering to prevent a vote on a court nominee? I say there is no difference. And Chuck Schumer invented the strategy of filibustering all of Bush's district court nominees.

[sear]

"I don't think even you believe it" R #32

You're right.
Leaving the bank vault unlocked overnight doesn't GUARANTEE the bank will be robbed.
It just makes things a little easier for the robbers if it is.

I have no specific on it, like: - Oh! The Democrats are gunna force everyone to eat a quart of ice cream each day! -
Or whatever.

It's just that it is political power.
And if the Republicans wield it ethically, and then the Democrats get a hold of it; there's no guarantee the Democrats will adhere to the same ethical standards.

Never hand the opposition a loaded gun.

[jimnyc]

"I don't think even you believe it" R #32

You're right.
Leaving the bank vault unlocked overnight doesn't GUARANTEE the bank will be robbed.
It just makes things a little easier for the robbers if it is.

I have no specific on it, like: - Oh! The Democrats are gunna force everyone to eat a quart of ice cream each day! -
Or whatever.

It's just that it is political power.
And if the Republicans wield it ethically, and then the Democrats get a hold of it; there's no guarantee the Democrats will adhere to the same ethical standards.

Never hand the opposition a loaded gun.

I think what Russ means is - the Democrats will be robbing the bank at first chance no matter what the republicans decide to do at this point.

[Gunny]

"I don't think even you believe it" R #32

You're right.
Leaving the bank vault unlocked overnight doesn't GUARANTEE the bank will be robbed.
It just makes things a little easier for the robbers if it is.

I have no specific on it, like: - Oh! The Democrats are gunna force everyone to eat a quart of ice cream each day! -
Or whatever.

It's just that it is political power.
And if the Republicans wield it ethically, and then the Democrats get a hold of it; there's no guarantee the Democrats will adhere to the same ethical standards.

Never hand the opposition a loaded gun.My point would be that it shouldn't be about "opposition". It should be "what's best for We, the People of the United States". The Dems have turned every issue into a nutroll at every turn since the 80s. All y'all think is "Vote Dem" regardless the right or wrong or in the best interest of EVERYONE.

And before you say it, I'm NOT a Republican't. The only party I've belonged to was the democratic Party. Jimmy Carter cured THAT. But y'all have gone even left of him. That's a hard act to follow. The partisan sh*t don't sell with me.

I think it's a scam. Keep the people distracted with BS and collect a nice check and a bunch of perks. If they didn't contrive contests, they wouldn't need jobs.

[aboutime]

It will only be the results of a Demanded..RULE CHANGE by Harry...the D-Head Reid.

If the Repubs use it...as they say. Changing the RULES. Nothing can stop them from
REVERSING it later on, since they are the Majority...another reason to thank HARRY!

[sear]

"I think what Russ means is - the Democrats will be robbing the bank at first chance no matter what the republicans decide to do at this point." jc

Perhaps.
But I don't think the solution to that is to leave the vault open.

"My point would be that it shouldn't be about "opposition". It should be "what's best for We, the People of the United States"." G #35

I consider that a noble principle of highest order.

BUT !!

There's a pop-psychologist that said:
"Should"?!
"Should"?!
"Should this, should that ..."
You keep that up and you'll be "should"ing all over yourself.

I'm NOT disagreeing with you. But it is our 3rd Millennium political reality that politics in DC is strategic.
Majority Leader McConnell Blocked Merit Garland from SCOTUS, strategically.
That's fine.
So who are the Democrats going to block on us?

Please do not infer more than I imply.
I'm NOT saying the nuke option shouldn't be used.
I'm simply observing it's a two-edged sword, and that we should look before we leap.
Me having the satisfaction of saying: "I told you so" after the fact is not adequate recompense.
I'd rather be wrong than hand the Dems. a political plum like this.
Looks like I won't have the luxury of being wrong in that case here. Me being right about it is cold comfort.

"Changing the RULES. Nothing can stop them from
REVERSING it later on" at #36

Clearly.
But so can the Dems. That's the problem.