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.
The POTUS only nominates a person while the Senate essentially hires them.
Democrats can choose to not hire him if they want. If so, the Republicans should go nuclear.
well many dems are hoping they do. Many us of feel it would end the lie and prove that the Republicans are willing to go to any lengths to steal seats.
Of course it undermines the validity of SCOTUS, and frankly you might find that one or two of your beloved conservative judges flip because they know damn well the seat is a stolen one and they understand the harm the republicans continue to do to our 3 branches.
all the gerrymandering in the world wont keep you guys in power.
The POTUS only nominates a person while the Senate essentially hires them.
Democrats can choose to not hire him if they want. If so, the Republicans should go nuclear.
As a Democrat, I would have no problem with the GOP going nuclear. They may come to regret the move and McConnell knows it which is why they haven't done it yet. But Trump is desperate for a win so they will likely do it. So far, all the things Republicans are doing is just setting precedent for Democrats to do later, including not confirming Republican nominees a year before the term ends and going nuclear to get them confirmed.
As a Democrat, I would have no problem with the GOP going nuclear. They may come to regret the move and McConnell knows it which is why they haven't done it yet. But Trump is desperate for a win so they will likely do it. So far, all the things Republicans are doing is just setting precedent for Democrats to do later, including not confirming Republican nominees a year before the term ends and going nuclear to get them confirmed.
Many Senate members don't want to lose the option to pontificate, it is a huge career booster to any member who successfully filibusters. There will be some extremely angry GOP members should they opt to change the rules, they may even have real trouble getting the votes.
To listen to the LWNJs on this thread, you'd think the Republicans blocked and filibustered Kagan and Sotomayor. They are the appropriate comps to Gorsuch, not Garland.
To listen to the LWNJs on this thread, you'd think the Republicans blocked and filibustered Kagan and Sotomayor. They are the appropriate comps to Gorsuch, not Garland.
Garland never even got a hearing. A year before Obama's term ended, he never even got a hearing. Democrats owe the GOP nothing and whatever happens with Gorsuch, the GOP did worse.
Garland never even got a hearing. A year before Obama's term ended, he never even got a hearing. Democrats owe the GOP nothing and whatever happens with Gorsuch, the GOP did worse.
Save your whining for someone who cares, like Joe Biden-the person who blocked Garland from getting a hearing.
As I said, the appropriate comps are Kagan and Sotomayor. You can't deny it, you just continue to blather and bluster.
The appropriate comparisons? That's not the way the process works and makes no sense.
The Democrats poisoned the process with Bork. You made this bed now lie in it.
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.
