The ONLY REASON of Opposition

[GURPS]

Showdown at hand over Trump's Supreme Court nominee


"For the first time in history, we are considering a nominee for a stolen Supreme Court seat, and that alone should be reason for everyone who cares about this institution to turn down this nominee," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., as he wrapped up a 15-and-a-half-hour overnight talk-a-thon to underscore his party's opposition to Gorsuch.

 

[Larry Gude]

The flaw in this argument is that no matter who Trump chooses it's still going to be someone who filled a 'stolen' seat. Heck, this provides Trump with reason to nominate more severe righties next time.

The real problem is that McConnell and the R's do NOT want to change the rules. The last thing they want is to be 'able' to do things like repeal the ACA without at least some D's on board. They want the cover.

 

[tommyjo]

Showdown at hand over Trump's Supreme Court nominee


"For the first time in history, we are considering a nominee for a stolen Supreme Court seat, and that alone should be reason for everyone who cares about this institution to turn down this nominee," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., as he wrapped up a 15-and-a-half-hour overnight talk-a-thon to underscore his party's opposition to Gorsuch.

The title of your post is interesting...

Mr. Gorsuch appears to be a highly qualified and thoughtful person. He deserves a vote and I can't see any reason not to confirm the man.

The same held true for Mr. Garland. There was no food reason for the Rs to oppose him...none.

 

[Gilligan]

There was no food reason for the Rs to oppose him...none.

Right..no food reasons at all.

 

[Lurk]

There was no food reason for the Rs to oppose him...none.

Yes, there was. He was a cupcake when the nation needed a rib eye steak

 

[This_person]

The title of your post is interesting...

Mr. Gorsuch appears to be a highly qualified and thoughtful person. He deserves a vote and I can't see any reason not to confirm the man.

The same held true for Mr. Garland. There was no food reason for the Rs to oppose him...none.

In reference to the previous nominee, Mr. Biden gave the reason. Be careful what it is that is asked for.

 

[PsyOps]

The title of your post is interesting...

Mr. Gorsuch appears to be a highly qualified and thoughtful person. He deserves a vote and I can't see any reason not to confirm the man.

The same held true for Mr. Garland. There was no food reason for the Rs to oppose him...none.

The opposition to Gorsuch is because of Trump, not because dems feel it was a stolen seat. "RESIST!" that is the democrat moto. Everything Trump does, the dems will resist.

And it wasn't like the GOP 'opposed' Garland. Since his nomination came so close to the election, the GOP wanted to ride it out and see how the election played out. They wanted to hold out for a possible GOP nominee. Was this a good strategy? Absolutely! Don't think for a second if it was the other way around the dems would have done the same thing. While Garland may be equally qualified as Gorsuch, the situations for not approving the two are completely different and shouldn't be compared.

 

[PsyOps]

Yes, there was. He was a cupcake when the nation needed a rib eye steak

 

[itsbob]

The title of your post is interesting...

Mr. Gorsuch appears to be a highly qualified and thoughtful person. He deserves a vote and I can't see any reason not to confirm the man.

The same held true for Mr. Garland. There was no food reason for the Rs to oppose him...none.

If it wasn't for Obama's crappy presidency and his crappy cabinet choices (Especially SOS).. the democrats never would have lost their majority.. instead Obama ensured the Republicans had the House, the Senate, the White House and even the majority of the Governor's mansions..

There is NOBODY to blame for Garland than Obama.. if he didn't relinquish control (through his ineptness) he would have got his nominee.

 

[Larry Gude]

The opposition to Gorsuch is because of Trump, not because dems feel it was a stolen seat. "RESIST!" that is the democrat moto. Everything Trump does, the dems will resist.

And it wasn't like the GOP 'opposed' Garland. Since his nomination came so close to the election, the GOP wanted to ride it out and see how the election played out. They wanted to hold out for a possible GOP nominee. Was this a good strategy? Absolutely! Don't think for a second if it was the other way around the dems would have done the same thing. While Garland may be equally qualified as Gorsuch, the situations for not approving the two are completely different and shouldn't be compared.

C'mon. It was 11 months. Had it happened to Dubbya, or if it happens to Trump, everyone right of center will adopt the feigned outrage of Chuck the Elder.

 

[Hijinx]

The opposition to Gorsuch is because of Trump, not because dems feel it was a stolen seat. "RESIST!" that is the democrat moto. Everything Trump does, the dems will resist.

And it wasn't like the GOP 'opposed' Garland. Since his nomination came so close to the election, the GOP wanted to ride it out and see how the election played out. They wanted to hold out for a possible GOP nominee. Was this a good strategy? Absolutely! Don't think for a second if it was the other way around the dems would have done the same thing. While Garland may be equally qualified as Gorsuch, the situations for not approving the two are completely different and shouldn't be compared.

Good Post. There is no doubt in my mind if Hillary had been elected Garland would have been accepted by the GOP.
They certainly would not have acted like 6 year olds over his nomination.

 

[stgislander]

Good Post. There is no doubt in my mind if Hillary had been elected Garland would have been accepted by the GOP.
They certainly would not have acted like 6 year olds over his nomination.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

 

[itsbob]

C'mon. It was 11 months. Had it happened to Dubbya, or if it happens to Trump, everyone right of center will adopt the feigned outrage of Chuck the Elder.

If Trump and the Republicans lose their majority they get what they get.

Up to them to KEEP the majority to prevent this from happening.

Obama failed, he failed his party, his party failed.. Garland isn't a SCOTUS.

 

[Hijinx]

I am still disturbed over only 4 Senators voting to not confirm the traitor John Kerry for S.O.S.
I satisfy myself by believing they only wanted to get him out of the Senate because he was such an a-hole.
They certainly should be able to look at his deals with Iran to see Kerry was not on the side of the United States.

 

[Hijinx]

If Trump and the Republicans lose their majority they get what they get.

Up to them to KEEP the majority to prevent this from happening.

Obama failed, he failed his party, his party failed.. Garland isn't a SCOTUS.

The Republicans will lose big in the next election IMO.
Because they refuse to work with the elected President.
They could come up with good legislation that he would sign and they could work with him when he goes off at a tangent,and help bring him back to where he belongs but instead they are almost as upset by the victory of an outsider as the Democrats are.

Certainly Trump needs help. Any outsider would, but with good guidance and good legislation presented he would fit in.
IMO they should work through Pence to help Trump in the places where that help is needed.

 

[PsyOps]

C'mon. It was 11 months. Had it happened to Dubbya, or if it happens to Trump, everyone right of center will adopt the feigned outrage of Chuck the Elder.

And you know as well as I do that this is how politics plays out. Why go for a left-of-center moderate when they have the leverage to hold for a more conservative justice? But given the time frames, the two do not compare. Obama nominated Garland when we entered into the election season. If I were a republican aimed at holding my office, knowing my constituents would want me to hold out, I would hold out to see how the election played out. And it worked for them.

 

[PsyOps]

I am still disturbed over only 4 Senators voting to not confirm the traitor John Kerry for S.O.S.
I satisfy myself by believing they only wanted to get him out of the Senate because he was such an a-hole.
They certainly should be able to look at his deals with Iran to see Kerry was not on the side of the United States.

Hey... there's the term limit solution. Start putting them up for cabinet positions.

 

[PsyOps]

Good Post. There is no doubt in my mind if Hillary had been elected Garland would have been accepted by the GOP.
They certainly would not have acted like 6 year olds over his nomination.

Thanks. Judging by past SC votes, they would have approved Garland, overwhelmingly. That's why this whole filibuster nonsense is rooted in Trump-hate.

RESIST!

 

[Larry Gude]

If Trump and the Republicans lose their majority they get what they get.

Up to them to KEEP the majority to prevent this from happening.

Obama failed, he failed his party, his party failed.. Garland isn't a SCOTUS.

I'll keep saying this until it sinks in; Trump doesn't give a flying monkeys ass how the R's do in the mid terms. He wants to make deals. If that's with D's, that's not new, or a problem, for him.

 

[Hijinx]

And you know as well as I do that this is how politics plays out. Why go for a left-of-center moderate when they have the leverage to hold for a more conservative justice? But given the time frames, the two do not compare. Obama nominated Garland when we entered into the election season. If I were a republican aimed at holding my office, knowing my constituents would want me to hold out, I would hold out to see how the election played out. And it worked for them.

Thus the crying from the losers/. In opposition only because they lost.
Obama got his two liberals Sotomeyer and Kagan.
Neither was filibustered.

Now I don't know much about Garland but if I could judge from Sotomayer and Kagan. I didn't
want him on the court.

Two Judges is enough for any President to appoint.IMO

The Democrats are being stupid about this.