Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Shadows]

The GOP is fighting among itself with Trumpcare, Trump's approval ratings are at 34/37%, there is no way Trump is going to be able to bring most jobs back. And when Trumpcare hurts people & people see massive tax cuts for uber wealthy while gutting most programs for ordinary people, there will be backlash.

And Sherrod Brown is going to win. Republicans should think about Flake who is in serious trouble & Heller who is very likely to lose & should 1st target WV, ND etc rather than going all in for Ohio. GOP has a very favorable map for 2018 & shouldn't blow it !

This is ofcourse assuming that Dems don't screw which is very much possible given they that they are massively inept & incompetent !

[Shadows]

i would the trustworthiness of turtleneck every day if compared to the likes of cruz, rubio or trump.

Lyin' Ted is absolutely evil but Rubio is a lot better than that turtle without a shell !

[Shadows]

Schumer a no and Democrats will filibuster

well, the base wouldn't accept it i guess...

OR

democrats just don't trust mcconnell.

Nailed it. McConnell is the slimiest, least trustworthy individual in Washington

are you sure? there's a lot of competition

I am positive. There are a lot of other slimy, untrustworthy figures, but McConnell is easily the worst. He is willing to break institutions just to suit his political agenda, and then claims the moral high ground when the institutions he broke aren't immediately fixed in time for him to benefit from them not being broken. He is pure evil.

How is he the worse when you have Lyin' Ted who shuts down the government & filibusters all the time & was reading Green Eggs & a ham to his daughter during the filibuster but now wants to manipulate obscure old rules to eliminate the filibuster by letting the VP rule everything is budget reconciliation.

This guy has like no morals & can do anything & everything. The same guy who lied to Carson voters in Iowa that he dropped out to get their votes & made phony robo calls to Trump supporters. Remember when he announced Fiorina as his VP? He practises hugs & kisses for his Presidential video. He lies about everything. He is Lyinnnnn' Ted !

You can't do worse than that ! I shudder to think what will happen to the GOP if Lyinn' Ted is the POTUS or even the Senate Majority leader !

[Shadows]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

[Shadows]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

If that was the case, it would have costed many moderate Republicans their seats in swing states in 2016 when Republicans didn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing. You are living in your own world if you believe that Swing voters in the rust belt have a Conservative Supreme Court as their top priority - Remember many of these voters are 2 time Obama voters. Citizens United for one is deeply unpopular among even Republican/Conservative voters. The people for whom the Supreme Court is absolutely key will 100% anyways vote Republican always & are not Swing voters.

Poll after Poll, including the Fox one, shows even among Trump voters, Supreme Court is a very VERY low priority

2018 will be fought on Trump's performance & the economy under a Republican Congress !

[Shadows]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

Absolutely - Even if Scalia was there, he would say he respects the precedent. There is considerable chance that Gorsuch may vote to over-turn Roe vs Wade but is it really possible. I can't see even Roberts going against Roe v Wade (Kennedy will be with the 4 Liberal judges). Full over-turn is very hard, maybe they will put some restrictions - Will even Alito vote against Roe vs Wade full overturn?

While Rode vs Wade looks very hard, gay marriage isn't. It was 5-4 right? If Kennedy goes & Trump appoints a conservative judge or it something bad happens to 84 year old RBG, then surely it is possible that gay marriage is over-turned. But then Trump is privately possibly for gay marriage - So would he appoint when he is in the company of Pence, Cruz & crazy Republicans?

There will be an open war for the next Supreme Court seat !

[Shadows]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

If that was the case, it would have costed many moderate Republicans their seats in swing states in 2016 when Republicans didn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing. You are living in your own world if you believe that Swing voters in the rust belt have a Conservative Supreme Court as their top priority - Remember many of these voters are 2 time Obama voters. Citizens United for one is deeply unpopular among even Republican/Conservative voters. The people for whom the Supreme Court is absolutely key will 100% anyways vote Republican always & are not Swing voters.

Poll after Poll, including the Fox one, shows even among Trump voters, Supreme Court is a very VERY low priority

2018 will be fought on Trump's performance & the economy under a Republican Congress !

I'm curious... what in your mind is causing these voters to vote Republican then?

a) you think it's not the Supreme Court... so it must not be social policy...

b) you think they generally support progressive fiscal policies... i.e., socialism...  so it must not be fiscal policy...

then WHY are they voting for Trump? 

I am not capable on perfectly saying this. But elections are not fought on 2 way course with Social & Economic issues.They are fought on the legacy of the incumbent president, the success or failures of him & the opposition party, the anti-incumbent mood, the state of the economy & a variety of factors.

It has a lot to do with the candidates - There are people who vote for Bernie who don't agree with many of his economic policies but because they belief he is a good man who will look out for the common man. Not everyone liked Trump who voted for him (some hated Hillary more). A candidates personal charm affects too - Bill Clinton & Obama were charismatic fabulous speakers. Certainly, turnout was not upto the mark among strong progressives & some even voted green - But that is not the only reason.

Similarly, they are people who are tired of the establishment & want changed in a Broken-Washington - You agree that there is tremendous anti-establishment yearning of change right? Hillary had a lot of flaws - She is a VERY poor campaigner & speaker, very dull & inspiring, a perceived lack of "honesty" & "authenticity" in most polls. Plus the FBI & Clinton Foundation didn't help. The economy is not great, it has stagnated & most of the workers below the median are struggling. They certainly have no obligation to put social issues about their own lives.

Look if Bernie ran, he would have his own set of issues etc - I am not saying he wouldn't but elections are more than What if your Economic & Social score or policies & how close I am to that.

Can we stick to the topic now which is about Gorsuch & not the 2016 election ?

[Shadows]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

Absolutely - Even if Scalia was there, he would say he respects the precedent. There is considerable chance that Gorsuch may vote to over-turn Roe vs Wade but is it really possible. I can't see even Roberts going against Roe v Wade (Kennedy will be with the 4 Liberal judges). Full over-turn is very hard, maybe they will put some restrictions - Will even Alito vote against Roe vs Wade full overturn?

While Rode vs Wade looks very hard, gay marriage isn't. It was 5-4 right? If Kennedy goes & Trump appoints a conservative judge or it something bad happens to 84 year old RBG, then surely it is possible that gay marriage is over-turned. But then Trump is privately possibly for gay marriage - So would he appoint when he is in the company of Pence, Cruz & crazy Republicans?

There will be an open war for the next Supreme Court seat !

Except that Obergefell has that reliance interest that Gorsuch talked about. Overturn it and you have people's established relationships put in a precarious position.  I don't see it overturned in any way that would allow banning of gay marriage, though the language of the decision might be scaled back for the sake of its implications on other issues related to sexuality.

Roe v Wade is more likely to be chipped away through a series of decisions than overturned all at once, though I wouldn't put anything out of the question on the issue.

I agree, Rode Vs Wage will likely be chipped away but due to the long precedence, I see it very hard to be repealed. With gay marriage, they can reason they support civil unions & states are free to allow or disallow it & what is explicitly not mentioned, should be left to the states.

I just see it more easily to be overturned than Roe vs Wade? Wasn't Roe vs Wade 7-2 such a long time back vs a 5-4 decision much more recently?

Chipping away at both laws could certainly happen. I don't know if conservatives believe that they can fully over-turn Roe vs Wade !

[Shadows]

In the New Fox poll. I think 3% of 4% or something like that give the SC the top pick.And the people for whom this is a big issue - let's say 10% or 15% - Those people who vote based on abortion, gay rights, Citizens United are never going to be Swing Voters. They are strongly opposed to 1 party.

And the SC thing is not going to change anything - You may as well live under a rock & think it will impact - No1 gives a sh** !

Screw Gorsuch & let the GOP take the Nuclear option - You know they will take it for the next one anyways - They are not pu**ies like the Dems ! Do they even have the votes for the Nuclear - Would Collins & many others support it? Let them work it out & drag the process !

[Shadows]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Like RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan? Or the Ninth Circuit clowns forgetting to even mention the applicable statute when ruling about? Or the Hawaii guy who is declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

On the remaining points, I'm with you.

You hold fringe extremist positions & the world has gone past you & you are trapped centuries back. That is the only reason Kagan or Breyer seems partisan hacks.

Ofcourse radical extremists holding fringe positions will likely feel that way !

[Shadows]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Like RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan? Or the Ninth Circuit clowns forgetting to even mention the applicable statute when ruling about? Or the Hawaii guy who is declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

On the remaining points, I'm with you.

You hold fringe extremist positions & the world has gone past you & you are trapped centuries back. That is the only reason Kagan or Breyer seems partisan hacks.

Ofcourse radical extremists holding fringe positions will likely feel that way !

Yeah, yeah, all right. If you're at the very left of the room everything beside you is "right-wing" ;-)

Grow up.

That "Grow Up" comment doesn't make you a tough guy, boy. If you think every judge who is liberal, is a partisan hack & all the conservatives are true upholders of the law then you are a fringe guy with really extreme views. Even ultra conservatives like Scalia or strong liberal judges like Ginsburg acknowledge different philosophies in interpreting the constitution. Kagan or Breyer are partisan hacks but Clarence Thomas is okay - Who not only is an unqualified & alleged sexual harasser & can barely speak & is uniformly acknowledged as the most extreme, fringe judge in recent history who doesn't come anywhere near even the judicial scale.

But Kagan or Breyer are hacks, ehh boy while Thomas, Scalia, Alito aren't? Anyways done talking with you boy !

[Shadows]

I'm starting to worry that Dems finally understand that the nuclear option would hurt them way more than the GOP as I clarified multiple times. Seems that different than the Leftists here, they aren't that illusional.

Still hoping they won't deliver 8 votes, the GOP needs to change the Filibuster rule to get a real Conservative Justice when RBG/Breyer/Kennedy retire, what will surely happen until 2020.

I'm also loving the butthut liberal Twitter Replies to the Dems coming back to sanity and supporting that outstanding nominee. Please donate as much as possible to liberal challengers, please defeat them in the Primary or at least don't vote for them in the General election. Nothing is better for the GOP and makes the pickups more possible than that ^^

Garland was a moderate hero who likely would have sided with the right-wing on Citizens United, and the Republicans blocked him from any hearings. Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. It's the least that every single Senator who calls themselves a Democrat can do to vote against cloture.

Garland, Garland, Garland, I can't read that name anymore. It's so hypocritical, unbelieveable! The Dems voted Bork down, obstructed lower Court nominees like Miguel Estrada cause he was Hispanic and they didn't want to have a conservative Hispanic Justice and so on. Just stop the whining, you're not better. Period.

Also, if Garland was that masterclass, why didn't nominate Obama him when he had the opportunity to get him confirmed? He rather went with low energy and less qualified liberal partisan hecks. Again totally hypocrite.

But I see where the wind Comes. You're that left-wing that liberal Garland is "moderate" and Gorsuch is "right-wing of the right-wing". Honestly, you're a joke. Gorsuch is something between Kennedy and Scalia. Like Alito, but not even close to Thomas.

Whatever, we both agree what Dems should do ;-)

You continue to make ridiculous statements. I understand you have no integrity but this seems like some joke or pure trolling. The Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down. But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years in a Trump Presidency. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination process is not how hostage about the Whims of the Majority party & when Dems get the majority, they will do as they please & will hold the nominee as long as they want.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & a radical partisan hack, but surely you can't be this delusional ?

[Shadows]

Just in: Donnelly supports Gorsuch.

Another spineless democrat who has just confirmed a primary race. Bad politics on his part.

Indiana doesn't exactly have a YUGE bench of Sanders-esque Democrats though.

Sanders won the primary vs Clinton in Indiana when he was losing overall & since then his base in the Dem party is more active & has grown. So technically, if everything is fine, Donnelly could lose a primary. But even in a GE, if turnout from progressives is low Donnelly would lose to the GOP. Sanders's supporters are more than half of Dem Indiana !

[Shadows]

You continue to make stupid statements. Republicans are free to vote people down, stretch hearings & do whatever they want to stop the nominee. But they can't take a constitutional power of a President to nominate someone -  the Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down.

But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years saying in a Presidency the primary debate process has already begun & let the new President chose. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination is over - If the Dems get the Senate, they will be stopping GOP nominee, as & when they wish & same goes for the Republicans.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & radical partisan hack, but surely you are not this stupid?

Translated: I continue to write the truth that you don't want to hear ;-)

I always advocated to vote Garland down not to deny hearings. Would have been better but we all know that Garland was the backup plan to confirm if Hillary would have won to prevent a more left Justice.

The only thing that you constantly don't want to get is that Dems already did multiple times what you are critizising. And we all know that Dems would never have allowed Bush to pick a successor for a liberal Justice in 2007 or 2008. So: Stop being a hypocrite!

Alito was confirmed in 2006 (ultra conservative judge replaced a swing moderate judge). The question of Dems not allowing - Why do you make false stuff up? At worst, Dems said they could filibuster Alito which was stopped by the bipartisan Gang of 14. GOP can filibuster Garland if they want. Never had anyone dreamed of not even allowing hearings & voting No for Cloture was considered the most extreme option. No nominee was ever treated this way !

Garland was nominated 1 year in advance, was a centrist or slight conservative. There would be no nomination from Hillary if Garland was confirmed & he would have been with bipartisan votes. Hillary had no power to do anything about that vacancy if the Senate did their duty

This has nothing to do with Left or Right. Clarence Thomas, the most radical conservative judge in recent history replaced Marshall, a liberal judge. Sotomayer & RBG, uber liberals replaced conservative judges but moderate one's (close to centrists).

[Shadows]

You continue to make stupid statements. Republicans are free to vote people down, stretch hearings & do whatever they want to stop the nominee. But they can't take a constitutional power of a President to nominate someone -  the Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down.

But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years saying in a Presidency the primary debate process has already begun & let the new President chose. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination is over - If the Dems get the Senate, they will be stopping GOP nominee, as & when they wish & same goes for the Republicans.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & radical partisan hack, but surely you are not this stupid?

Translated: I continue to write the truth that you don't want to hear ;-)

I always advocated to vote Garland down not to deny hearings. Would have been better but we all know that Garland was the backup plan to confirm if Hillary would have won to prevent a more left Justice.

The only thing that you constantly don't want to get is that Dems already did multiple times what you are critizising. And we all know that Dems would never have allowed Bush to pick a successor for a liberal Justice in 2007 or 2008. So: Stop being a hypocrite!

Alito was confirmed in 2006 (ultra conservative judge replaced a swing moderate judge). The question of Dems not allowing - Why do you make false stuff up? At worst, Dems said they could filibuster Alito which was stopped by the bipartisan Gang of 14. GOP can filibuster Garland if they want. Never had anyone dreamed of not even allowing hearings & voting No for Cloture was considered the most extreme option. No nominee was ever treated this way !

Garland was nominated 1 year in advance, was a centrist or slight conservative. There would be no nomination from Hillary if Garland was confirmed & he would have been with bipartisan votes. Hillary had no power to do anything about that vacancy if the Senate did their duty

This has nothing to do with Left or Right. Clarence Thomas, the most radical conservative judge in recent history replaced Marshall, a liberal judge. Sotomayer & RBG, uber liberals replaced conservative judges but moderate one's (close to centrists).

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Garland is by far not even close of being (slightly) conservative. Souter and Stevens weren't either. It's simply amusing that a hardcore Leftis wants to tell a Conservative what/who a Conservative is. 

LMAO, you are the one making false stuff up. And you simply don't get the facts!

Alito (Ultra conservative :-D OMG) as a reliable conservative Justice was the replacement for a moderate conservative Justice in a still not majority conservative Court. It was part of the Gang of 14 deal and it was before the Dems had control of the Senate. You're simply comparing apples with pears!

I think you should ask Bork whether he would have prefered the way he was assassinated by Democrats or the way Garland was treated. I doubt that having hearings to mainly even questioning whether you are a human being is better than not getting a hearing.

Again: I would have given Garland hearings and an up-or-down-vote (to vote him down).

Let's stop this sh**t, you would even deny 1+1=2 if you would have to aknowledge that Dems made mistakes before. Sad. Very sad. Such a behaviour is killing every discussion.

Did you even what stupid stuff you wrote here when you say I am embarrassing myself?

Not only are you one of the most unintelligent posters in this forum, but you are an extremist partisan hack with no integrity & you make some of the ridiculous posts in this forum.

Done replying to you !

[Shadows]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

How good would it be it was something kid pulling a kid's hair. But the comparison is incorrect because Democrats are not denying a Gorsuch a hearing & a vote (they don't have that power) they are voting no on cloture which has happened before too when a large share of Dems went against Alito & only the Gang of 14 saved Alito from being filibustered successfully. This isn't a "I give you back" tactic, when Dems have a Senate majority & they stop a nominee from getting a hearing, that will be giving it back & it will come 1 day.

If Dems roll over & don't even over, it is done, this party is a joke. The Republicans will steal a seat when they want, they will do it again with a Democratic President & maybe they will steal RBG's vacated seat too if she hangs on till 2024 & Democrats will play nice & not even use existing Senate rules to Vote No on Cloture. That is just pure dumbness !

[Shadows]

Bennet is begging so hard for a primary challenge.

He represents a swing state, what do you expect? Colorado voted for Bernie because the Clinton family is hated there, not because it wants socialism.

Colorado has one of the highest amount of young people as a %, Marijuana is legal & they identify with many of Bernie's policies ! To say they voted for voted for Bernie because they hated Clinton is untrue.

In that way people hated Romney & his 47% comment, people hated Pail as VP & McCain's warmongering & clueless nature. By that logic no candidate has even won a positive vote. Every candidate wins by his positive & opponent's negative - To say otherwise is flat out untrue !

[Shadows]

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.

The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control.  

And it would've gone down identically...

Yes, agreed. The Filibuster had to end eventually for the Republic to continue to function. It had outlived its usefulness and its intended purpose, and when it got to where any controversial legislation was being filibustered, it was contributing to the gridlock and paralysis which has afflicted congress for the past 20 years, the result being an increasingly - dangerously - powerful executive branch. And in the long run, this gridlock benefits Republicans for ideological reasons: by making government look broken and ineffective, low-information swing voters will gravitate towards the party that claims all government is inherently broken and ineffective. Just think what the Democratic trifecta could have accomplished in 2009-2010 without the filibuster: we could have gotten a public option, comprehensive immigration reform, gun safety legislation, more robust regulation of Wall Street, and possibly much else besides.

And yes, I know we technically have the filibuster for legislation, though I don't expect that to be the case a year or two from now. In any case, long run it has to end, and it's better for Republicans to take the heat for ending it. At the rate things are going, I don't think we'll have to wait long for the next Democratic Trifecta.

Dems had 60 votes in the Senate & the filibuster was not an issue in 2009, they still couldn't get anything done. Other than that, you are right, the filibuster has to go. A resounding Senate, House majority & Presidency should be enough. Especially for Dems, given GOP holds many more smaller states, getting 60 Senate seats looks very tough & with that a house in a gerrymandered situation & the Presidency. I don't see Dems getting that kind of a majority in a while.

Hope GOP abolishes the filibuster & Dems win the house in 2018 !