Jump to content

Trump's Supreme Court Pick

lawman

By lawman
in National Politics

Recommended Posts

Lou Member

Lou

Posted
Posted

From fox news blog

"Vote is 55-45. So the Democrats have filibustered the vote.

McConnell asks for the vote to be reconsidered."

Nuclear option commencing

I can't help but think that Schumer & Co shot themselves in the foot today.

They know they will lose not only their fight to stop Gorsuch but they will lose the 60 vote rule forever.

 

They lose two ways. SMH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hap Member

Hap

Posted
Posted

To me the interesting thing about the demise of the filibuster is not that it makes confirming appointees easier. It's that it makes it more likely that appointees will fall toward one end or the other of the ideological spectrum. With 60 votes required to cut off debate, Presidents were more likely to appoint centrists - right-of-center or left-of-center to be sure, but somewhere not too far out - so that they would be confirmed. The Senate, in turn, tended to give Presidents more or less what they wanted. That mostly disappeared under the Obama-Reid regime. Today's action just kicks over the last vestiges of any hope for centrist government. From here on out it's all-out war, and while it may work out well for 2A rights in the next few years, it may work out much less well for the country as a whole over the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chislinger Member

chislinger

Posted
Posted

I hope this isn't a net loss.

That's not even possible at this point. Back when the Dems thought Hillary would win and they'd have a Senate majority they stated publicly they'd abolish the filibuster to ram through Hillary's Supreme Court picks. The GOP literally has nothing to lose at this point by doing this, that's why even the RINOs voted for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tkroenlein Member

tkroenlein

Posted
Posted

I hope this isn't a net loss.That's not even possible at this point. Back when the Dems thought Hillary would win and they'd have a Senate majority they stated publicly they'd abolish the filibuster to ram through Hillary's Supreme Court picks. The GOP literally has nothing to lose at this point by doing this, that's why even the RINOs voted for it.

I know there is no practical difference at this point. The greatest loss happened when the dems did it the first time.

 

We needed the judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lou Member

Lou

Posted
Posted

Schumer started this back when he filibustered Miguel Estrada.

 

Ginsburg was voted in 96-3.

Kagan and Sotomayor would not be on the SCOTUS without Republican votes.

 

It's the Democrats who are the obstructionists

Schumer said as much when he admitted NOBODY Trump nomined would be acceptable to the Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrTriple Member

MrTriple

Posted
Posted
As far as the 2A is concerned, the Dems basically shot themselves in the foot on this one. Anyone with half a brain knows Heller wasn't the end, it was the beginning, and with all the terrible lower court cases on gun control out there, they've basically ensured that those cases will be reviewed and overturned, especially when Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy are replaced with conservatives. Now combine that with rulings like Peruta or Kolbe, maybe even Wilson, and goodbye gun control movement. I could even see New York City's insane licensing laws challenged and overturned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hipshot Percussion Member

Hipshot Percussion

Posted
Posted

There is something that sticks in my craw.... the thought that Gorsuch and those of his ilk are 'conservative' Judges. With them, ideology means nothing. They are 'Constitutional Orginalists' - or something like that. I hate that the media calls them Conservatives, as if its a bad thing, when in truth they are the best kind of Justice,those that research what the Founders meant, thought, and were attempting to accomplish when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

I never call them Conservatives - in the real world that has a bad connotation with anyone who isn't a conservative. I just refer to them as the aforementioned 'Constitutional Originalist'.

 

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChicagoRonin70 Member

ChicagoRonin70

Posted
Posted

Back when the Democrats did this for all Federal judges except the Supremes, I said to myself that this was going to come back and bite them in the chunky bits. How is anyone surprised that the Republicans went this route? The Democrats were the architects of their own demise in terms of the Supreme Court now on its way to being Conservative-leaning (but really, Constitutional Originalist leaning, as Hipshot Percussion astutely noted) for generations to come. The only hope for them is that none of the aging Liberal-leaning judges die or are forced to retire in the next four years, and that the Democrats win both the Presidency and the Senate in 2020.

 

It's gonna be fascinating to watch this unfold the next several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lou Member

Lou

Posted
Posted

Schumer started this back when he filibustered Miguel Estrada.

Ginsburg was voted in 96-3.

Kagan and Sotomayor would not be on the SCOTUS without Republican votes.

It's the Democrats who are the obstructionists

Schumer said as much when he admitted NOBODY Trump nomined would be acceptable to the Democrats.

Again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CILhunter Member

CILhunter

Posted
Posted

Something tells me they are looking into the future for when/if they have majority control back. I don't think they really care about this vote. They just want to make it easier for themselves when their turn comes around again and then point to this as blame on the GOP.

 

Looking at the last 2-3 Democrat appointments to the Supreme Court, they got whatever far left ideologue that they wanted, in spite of still requiring 60 votes. If you didn't support the kook that the Democrat President nominated you were racist/sexist/homophobic/otherwise bigoted, etc. This does not change a thing for the Democrats. It just makes it more likely that Republicans, when they are in power, will get more strict constructionists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blom Member

blom

Posted
Posted

 

Nice. This is one of the top reasons why Clinton needed to lose that last election.

For me it was THE reason. The #nevertrump people were willfully blind to the damage Hillary could do for decades to come with her SCOTUS picks, it was not something that could be undone by the next President.

 

I couldn't agree with you more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...