Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure what to say about the filibuster vs the nuclear option, because I don't know who will get 60 votes these days. If you change the nominee to someone the Dems like enough, wouldn't the Republicans vote against them, because that person isn't conservative enough?
I just posted on another thread, as the new book "Ungovernable" by James Bixby demonstrates, 50% of America resents being governed from Washington at any given time (this is a must read for anyone interested in politics post-Obama). And just the same, I fear 50% of America (and senate) will oppose any SCOTUS nominee, no matter what.
This is bad for our government no matter what side you fall on the issue, I wish the democrats would just let it go but I'm sick of McConnell and Grassley's condescending comments since they created the situation. I don't care if they drag out this debate until Friday as long as they pass him with 60.
If they pass him with less than 60 votes politics will be in the supreme court forever, the republicans took a big step with the precedent last year this will be even larger.
If they pass him with less than 60 votes politics will be in the supreme court forever.
The 60 vote requirement is a Senate "rule" voted on by the Senate. It is not a Constitutional requirement. He can certainly be confirmed by a 50+1 vote.
I'm not sure what to say about the filibuster vs the nuclear option, because I don't know who will get 60 votes these days. If you change the nominee to someone the Dems like enough, wouldn't the Republicans vote against them, because that person isn't conservative enough?
I just posted on another thread, as the new book "Ungovernable" by James Bixby demonstrates, 50% of America resents being governed from Washington at any given time (this is a must read for anyone interested in politics post-Obama). And just the same, I fear 50% of America (and senate) will oppose any SCOTUS nominee, no matter what.
It is ungovernable but the only way to make the point is to give it to the GOP as badly as they gave it to us. Just make their lives miserable every single day. They were not punished by voters for doing it so by all means, give it to them in kind. Already we've seen that the executive orders they complained about under Obama are perfectly fine with Trump so we won't be hearing about that anymore. Now it's the Gorsuch vote. Just torture them every day and if by some miracle Dems gain control in Trump's or Pence's last year, don't give any Supreme nomination a vote. McConnell will just have to take it. Just like McConnell will have to take it if the government shuts down. Just keep a tally and give it back double.
So to recap, McConnell will deny a Democratic president his Constitutionally given right to nominate a SC justice, but when there is a Republican in the White House, he will change the rules to ensure that nomination goes through?
Can anyone on the right find a way to justify this?
I'm not sure what to say about the filibuster vs the nuclear option, because I don't know who will get 60 votes these days. If you change the nominee to someone the Dems like enough, wouldn't the Republicans vote against them, because that person isn't conservative enough?
I just posted on another thread, as the new book "Ungovernable" by James Bixby demonstrates, 50% of America resents being governed from Washington at any given time (this is a must read for anyone interested in politics post-Obama). And just the same, I fear 50% of America (and senate) will oppose any SCOTUS nominee, no matter what.
You are correct that it wouldn't matter who Trump nominates. On the night Trump nominated Gorsuch, there were people outside with fill-in-the-blank signs ready to protest whoever got the nomination.
So to recap, McConnell will deny a Democratic president his Constitutionally given right to nominate a SC justice, but when there is a Republican in the White House, he will change the rules to ensure that nomination goes through?
Can anyone on the right find a way to justify this?
I am sure they can because hypocrisy comes naturally.
So to recap, McConnell will deny a Democratic president his Constitutionally given right to nominate a SC justice, but when there is a Republican in the White House, he will change the rules to ensure that nomination goes through?
Can anyone on the right find a way to justify this?
Must note......no one stopped Obama from nominating a justice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
