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.
Well as expected the Dems are still marching in lock step to block everything and anything Trump. This time it was a vote against Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.
What a cluster. Soooo when the GOP is forced to take the "nuclear option" and appoint Gorsuch will the Dems still fight on to have him removed or will they ignore any decision that he is involved in?
What a bitter mess.
It doesn't matter what they do. We will all be celebrating his appointment on Friday, then in round 2, we'll shove Gowdy down their throats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloforLife
No such rule. You have watched too much FOX News. That's what happens when people are too lazy to use a computer to get accurate information.
Good Gawd! You haven't been watching enough Fox News.
FOX broadcast Donald Trump's election victory on about the wee mornin' hours eastern standard on November 9th, 2016. The rest of the world is still unsure.
Don't believe me? Fire up your computer and YouTube your election from DirecTV channel 360 and see how that went, then do the same for channel 202 and see what a bunch of morose butthurt losers they had reporting our news over there.
But you sure have blindly married yourself to Trump.
Nope. But I did predict, accurately, that he would win the election and why.
And so far, I've seen nothing that he has done that I disagree with, considering that the alternative would be the very corrupt Hillary Clinton and company.
I wasn't making the point that this is a constitutional requirement but if they approve with a simple majority voted this will be the case forever. I do not want either ruling party simply approving any candidate they want by a majority vote. Gorsuch and Garland may seem reasonable but that may not always be the case, once they start down the path they won't be coming back.
Then blame Harry Reid and the Democrats. They broke the rule first. And now that they have, as you put it, it will be that way forever.
Civility? That's funny. Democrats saw that the GOP was not punished by voters in the least for their obstruction. It was a teaching moment. They don't trust the GOP in the least and assume the very worst so there really is nothing the GOP can threaten them with that they don't already expect.
You're right. We can't expect the Dems to act civilly towards anyone not in lockstep with their ideology and agendas. Besides their puppet strings being pulled by their far left extremist handlers, it's not in their nature.
Let's nuke 'em! We've got the power to crush them, let's use it while we have it. This will make it easier to pack the court. At least we will then have a Conservative SCOTUS for the rest of my life. What happens beyond that? I could care less. Maybe at that point the millennials will have an 80 year old Socialist Trotskyite to get behind. Or maybe they will wise up and realize that a system where we steal from some to give to undeserving others is NOT the way to go.
That usually happens when you start producing some value in this life, get paid for it, then realize a million grubby hands are out to take it all away.
I can't wrap my mind around why this is such a big deal. The best argument for going nuclear is that neither party has ever required an opposition president's Supreme Court appointees to achieve a 60-vote threshold until now, provided the Democrats make good on their filibuster threat. (Whether they do so or not is still an open question; insiders say that the Democrat whip is not pressuring fellow Democrats to sustain a filibuster. We shall see.)
The filibuster had been reserved until now as a device for sinking obviously unqualified appointees, but those appointees have been torpedoed by other means anyway (*cough* Harriet Miers *cough*). If they choose to filibuster, the Democrats can bristle and and pout all they want about the integrity of Senate tradition and procedure and process and all that... but the fact is the only reason they want to preserve the filibuster for USSC appointments is so they can use it now and forever while hoping the Republicans will continue to honor the tradition of letting opposition appointees be seated without the need for a cloture vote.
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.
