quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves

Umm NO you twat!
You just want to twist it to fit your agenda.
Things change then change, create, amend the laws ~ legally through legislation.
Dumb ass Liberals.

It is actually intended to be a living document and should evolve as our country evolves. but the only way to legally do that is through Amendments which REQUIRE a 2/3 vote in the house AND senate, or called or by Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the states (which has NEVER happened).

It is in NO way meant to evolve through any judicial process.

quote:

Originally posted by cmr076:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

If it's already a rule, why haven't they used it yet?

Ummm, because it's NOT already a rule? It's not.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...lear-senate/3662445/

so it looks like IS a rule, it just can't currently be applied to the SCOTUS.

If it's a rule that doesn't apply to the SCOTUS, then it isn't a rule that applies. Thus, not a rule.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

Originally posted by cmr076:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

If it's already a rule, why haven't they used it yet?

Ummm, because it's NOT already a rule? It's not.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...lear-senate/3662445/

so it looks like IS a rule, it just can't currently be applied to the SCOTUS.

If it's a rule that doesn't apply to the SCOTUS, then it isn't a rule that applies. Thus, not a rule.

I'm not following you. Are you saying the only thing they vote on is SCOTUS nominations?

No, the rule applies to everything BUT SCOTUS nominations. There is no rule for simple majority for SCOTUS. The nuclear option is to create a new rule or amend the existing.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
No, the rule applies to everything BUT SCOTUS nominations. There is no rule for simple majority for SCOTUS. The nuclear option is to create a new rule or amend the existing.

I think we are saying the same thing haha

quote:

Originally posted by cmr076:

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
No, the rule applies to everything BUT SCOTUS nominations. There is no rule for simple majority for SCOTUS. The nuclear option is to create a new rule or amend the existing.

I think we are saying the same thing haha

The point is that currently 60 votes are needed for SCOTUS. A rule change will need to be made first before the vote if they want it to be a simple majority.

quote:

Originally posted by cmr076:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

If it's already a rule, why haven't they used it yet?

Ummm, because it's NOT already a rule? It's not.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...lear-senate/3662445/

so it looks like IS a rule, it just can't currently be applied to the SCOTUS.

Which is why I said it's NOT.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...-filibuster-gorsuch/

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Thursday that Democrats will attempt to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination, saying he would tilt the Supreme Court too far away from what Democrats want to see.

“After careful deliberation I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Schumer said, announcing his filibuster on the Senate floor.

Careful deliberation my ass.
It wouldn't matter who Trump nominated. This is payback.

I get it, Chuck. That's why we'll go nuclear if necessary.

So fuck off already.

quote:

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Thursday that Democrats will attempt to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination, saying he would tilt the Supreme Court too far away from what Democrats want to see.

If I knew nothing else about Judge Gorsuch, 'that' would be enough to get my vote.

Just get to voting and get this thing done so we can move on to the next Dem freak out.

Anybody else really excited about the potential retirement of one of the liberal justices and the ensuing complete and total meltdown of what's left of the liberals in this country? It should be absolutely epic, and possible pay-per-view quality.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.politico.com/story/...supreme-court-236384

A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term

If Democrats move ahead with the plan — it’s still in the early discussion phase — it would require buy-in from some Republicans, but not necessarily Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) or his top deputies. At least three rank-and-file GOP members would have to pledge not to vote to unilaterally change the Senate rules through a majority-only vote later in Trump’s term — the so-called nuclear option.

Another ambitious possibility: Some Democrats want to confirm Gorsuch only with an agreement that another justice retire and is replaced with Garland.

Now that right there is down right hilarious. If Repubs go for anything as ludicrous as this, they need to be run out of Washington on a rail.

no deal - go nuclear and get it over with

why would any republican ever make a deal with a democrat - you know the democrat will never, ever hold up their end

and they didn't deal when they were in power

the dems still haven't quite figured out that they've lost and are not in control any more and they're still trying to set the rules

the only good dem is a dead dem

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.politico.com/story/...supreme-court-236384

A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term

If Democrats move ahead with the plan — it’s still in the early discussion phase — it would require buy-in from some Republicans, but not necessarily Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) or his top deputies. At least three rank-and-file GOP members would have to pledge not to vote to unilaterally change the Senate rules through a majority-only vote later in Trump’s term — the so-called nuclear option.

Another ambitious possibility: Some Democrats want to confirm Gorsuch only with an agreement that another justice retire and is replaced with Garland.

Now that right there is down right hilarious. If Repubs go for anything as ludicrous as this, they need to be run out of Washington on a rail.

The Republicans should take the deal...And then laugh in their stupid liberal faces when they renege on it. Then pull a Joe Pesci..."You were serious about that?"

Is it the only hand the Dems have to play? Put yourself in their shoes. You are perpetually pissed off insufferable little cuntly asshole and you just lost the presidency. They have to do something to energize their base of criminally insane fools.

Nuke em.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.politico.com/story/...supreme-court-236384

A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term

If Democrats move ahead with the plan — it’s still in the early discussion phase — it would require buy-in from some Republicans, but not necessarily Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) or his top deputies. At least three rank-and-file GOP members would have to pledge not to vote to unilaterally change the Senate rules through a majority-only vote later in Trump’s term — the so-called nuclear option.

Another ambitious possibility: Some Democrats want to confirm Gorsuch only with an agreement that another justice retire and is replaced with Garland.

Now that right there is down right hilarious. If Repubs go for anything as ludicrous as this, they need to be run out of Washington on a rail.

I wish we could concede a high limb and a rope to many of the dems, dishonorable schumer first.

https://youtu.be/MoI8LmrBQxM

above video from 1993 Ginsburg hearing

I've never seen a party behaving so "thug like" as the 2017 Democrats. The DEMs have adopted the worst characteristics of their base.

The truth is meaningless to the DEMs. They deserve no respect and no consideration. They should only be defeated.

Given there will most likely be another future SC spot for President Trump to fill, the nuclear option is almost inevitable. The DEMs are terribly over playing their hand.

quote:

Originally posted by Pilken:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves

Umm NO you twat!
You just want to twist it to fit your agenda.
Things change then change, create, amend the laws ~ legally through legislation.
Dumb ass Liberals.

It is actually intended to be a living document and should evolve as our country evolves. but the only way to legally do that is through Amendments which REQUIRE a 2/3 vote in the house AND senate, or called or by Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the states (which has NEVER happened).

It is in NO way meant to evolve through any judicial process.

It also requires that 3/4 of the state legislatures vote to ratify the Amendment. That is a bigger hurdle than the 2/3 requirement in the Congress.

flashguy

No deals. Blow it up and confirm him. The dems wouldn't hesitate in same position. Even better that it's done now when it doesn't change the balance of the court (which a Garland confirmation would have). One less thing for the left to whine about when the Notorious RBG gets replaced with someone to the right of Gorsuch.

Senator Franken, Feinstein, never try to educate someone smarter than yourself.

Hello, McFly,

Go, ahead... Filibuster!

Neil Gorsuch Should Be Filibustered
By Erick Erickson | March 24, 2017

Given his testimony over the course of this week, I am increasingly convinced that Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court should be filibustered and Americans should encourage Democrats to do that. Chuck Schumer should carry out his threat.

During this past week we have learned that Neil Gorsuch is entirely qualified for the Supreme Court. We have learned he is personable, likable, and highly qualified. We have also learned he is smarter than most of the Senators who interviewed him.

Consequently he should be filibustered. Filibustering Neil Gorsuch will show just how unreasonable Democrats are and provide Republicans an opportunity to once and for all scrap the filibuster of all nominees. Democrats selectively scrapped the filibuster when they were in charge. Now they are daring Republicans to finish it off.

Neither side wants an end to the legislative filibuster and I would hate to see that go too. But to leave the remaining filibuster relating to nominations is to set a rule that Democrats can change rules at will and Republicans cannot.

Neil Gorsuch is eminently qualified and no one has laid a glove on him. He should be filibustered so the world can see just how obvious it is the Democrats are playing politics. Then the GOP should end the filibuster.

The Supreme Court will see another vacancy before this year is out. If the GOP ends the filibuster now, they will not have to go through this song and dance again. Likewise, filibustering Gorsuch will demonstrate that the Democrats refuse to treat even the most qualified and competent judges with any respect.

They should filibuster Neil Gorsuch so we can kill off that delaying mechanism once and for all.

http://theresurgent.com/neil-g...uld-be-filibustered/