Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by johnnyFive

"Major confirmation battle", translated from the Democrat, means "we'll whinge about principles before rolling over and showing our bellies like every other time."

b_b  ·  192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

They don't really have a choice though. Senate rules now dictate that a simple majority can confirm a supreme Court Justice. Who is responsible for that development is its own debate. Regardless, it's essentially up to a couple GOP senators whether this guy gets in the court (he will). I think that's ok. However, if I we're running for Senate or the House, is be running on a platform of impeachment, but not of Trump. Of Gorsuch. That guy doesn't belong, and Congress could remove him if they had the votes.

johnnyFive  ·  191 days ago  ·  link  ·  

AFAIK anonymous holds are still a thing. It's also too late to play the "procedural rules make it impossible card," considering that under the old rules they couldn't block the door.

Also, Gorsuch has far more business being on the Court than either Alito or Thomas.

b_b  ·  191 days ago  ·  link  ·  

My point has nothing to do with his qualification. It has to do with process. I see no coherent argument that Merrick Garland shouldn't be occupying that seat. It was stolen from him by a perverted political process. Impeachment is the only way to fix that.

johnnyFive  ·  191 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Oh I gotcha, and yeah that makes more sense.

I just wonder what it's going to take the Democrats to start playing by the same rules the Republicans have been using for 30 years.

tacocat  ·  192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Who is responsible for that development is its own debate.

I'd say it's the fault of Mitch "No, I'm not Yertle the Turtle brought to life" McConnell. But I'm not in the mood at the moment to back up that argument.

b_b  ·  191 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I mostly agree. There's an argument that the Democrats shouldn't have removed cancelled the filibuster for non supreme Court seats a few years back. GOP was blocking almost 100% of Obama's picks for no other reason than to strangle the government, but still I think it would have made a better campaign issue. Hard to say. On the other hand, even if they didn't do that probably McConnell would have changed the rule to confirm Gorsuch anyway. McConnell is a next level piece of shit, possibly the most horrible person in government in a very crowded field. Whatever the case, impeaching Gorsuch would cause me great joy.

tacocat  ·  191 days ago  ·  link  ·  

"We can't have a confirmation vote during an election year" is some expert level spin. Not that it hides the intent all that well. It was just so boldly false. McConnell, Kennedy, Ryan and a bunch of others seem way too cocky about the party's long term success or entirely don't care about their legacy. I singled out McConnell because he's made a series of decisions that have amped up the hostility. I also hate his face