***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Trey Bantz]

Let's just be glad Trump didn't pick his sister to be SCOTUS

The nepotism would've been too blatant. More blatant than it already is

 

[rolaholic]

Yes they can filibuster. But the GOP could use the nuclear option

That's the thing though, make them do just that.

For one thing, the nominee's judicial philosophy is irrelevant here. What matters is that this seat is stolen so Democrats should vote no on any Trump nominees. If Democrats stand firm, the GOP would have to use the nuclear option and in the future, Dems can take back the Senate and no longer have to deal with that 60 vote hurdle ever again.

If Democrats form a "gang of 8" and approve any Trump Supreme Court nominee, they will be rewarding McConnell for what he did last year. It's time to create the "Harris rule" where a President cannot fill a vacant Supreme Court seat unless that seat was vacated during his term.

Really hope this happens cause let's be real,this is Obama's pick

 

[rico x hood]

It's Neil.

 

[rolaholic]

@Fusion: Reminder: It cost more than $47,000 PER DAY for Republican Senators to run out the clock on Merrick Garland: https://t.co/8cZQeb6FA1 https://t.co/itiWrUk5H8

 

[everysingletime]

Filibuster. Let them nuke.

 

[sole vintage]

The Associated Press‏ @AP

BREAKING: Senate committee approves DeVos for education secretary, sends nomination to full Senate


Ed O'Keefe‏ @edatpost
As of noon: Rick Perry (Energy), Ryan Zinke (Interior), Betsy DeVos (Education) referred to full Senate for confirmation votes.

 

[whywesteppin]

Since the logic against voting on Garland was that the next election cycle had begun, can't democrats argue, because trump has already put his name in for the 2020 election, that technically we should also wait until the new president is chosen?


Going against whoever trump picks, while it is the proper move and justified due to republican obstructionism, won't play over well with non-liberals. However, pitching it using the exact same logic that republicans used last year against obama could play well and would give liberals an opportunity to highlight the fact that trump already registered for 2020. Go on every talk show and have them play clips of republicans opposing the vote of garland and their reasoning. Hammer it every day on every news medium from CNN to reddit. Repeat it so much that people are sick of it. And when republicans threaten the nuclear option, go again on every news show and talk about how the republicans are hijacking our government and violating the constitution. Hammer it home.

The key is to make it look like republican obstructionism every chance we get.

 

[Belgium]

Any SC nominee whose name is not Merrick Garland should be blocked.

The seat became vacant during Obama's presidency and he picked Garland. Period.

 

[rolaholic]

@RogueSNRadvisor: Post SC, stage set for gears to really turn. Bannon - NSC, Sessions - DOJ, SC in control. Pres channeling Jim Carrey "...somebody stop me!"

Yikes :x,hope not...

 

[seandon23]

Any SC nominee whose name is not Merrick Garland should be blocked.
The seat became vacant during Obama's presidency and he picked Garland. Period.

Same. Literally no argument can be made to support what GOP blocking Obama on his SC nominees. Not even letting the man have a hearing

 

[Mr.Guy]

Blame Hillary and the weak *** Dems SMH.

 

[seandon23]

Blame Hillary and the weak *** Dems SMH.

For the SC pick or you talking about something else? Lol

 

[Trey Bantz]

Blame Hillary and the weak *** Dems SMH.

I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly

 

[MVP]

I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly

Lol

 

[Mr.Guy]

For the SC pick or you talking about something else? Lol

Botching this pick.

 

[Mr.Guy]

I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly

This. 

 

[Trey Bantz]

I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly

Lol

Please elaborate Mamba

 

[whywesteppin]

i would also challenge neil gosuck in his confirmation to comment on the constitutionality of congress blocking the garland pick last year.

 

[rico x hood]

Since the logic against voting on Garland was that the next election cycle had begun, can't democrats argue, because trump has already put his name in for the 2020 election, that technically we should also wait until the new president is chosen?


Going against whoever trump picks, while it is the proper move and justified due to republican obstructionism, won't play over well with non-liberals. However, pitching it using the exact same logic that republicans used last year against obama could play well and would give liberals an opportunity to highlight the fact that trump already registered for 2020. Go on every talk show and have them play clips of republicans opposing the vote of garland and their reasoning. Hammer it every day on every news medium from CNN to reddit. Repeat it so much that people are sick of it. And when republicans threaten the nuclear option, go again on every news show and talk about how the republicans are hijacking our government and violating the constitution. Hammer it home.

Not going to happen. The media will spend some time digging into his background. Blah blah. He's pretty vanilla. They'll probably find some controversial ruling, statement, or article by him and blow it up to epic proportions. But the general public doesn't REALLY care about Supreme Court picks. So eventually they'll go back to the real ratings cash cow: Trump. Because at this point he would have said or done something that will piss people off and that will be the driving story. Neil will get confirmed and there will be fake outrage even though people would have already stopped "caring"

Example: Betsy Devos

 

[RustyShackleford]

Anyone blaming Hillary sounds stupid.

Hell I could say maybe liberals should have voted in midterms, and the nuclear option could have been used to get Garland on the court. Or maybe the Senate would still be blue.

But I guess with all things liberal, the circular fire must pop off. Smh

 

[Mark Antony]

I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly

This. 

I'm assuming you both voted Democrat in the last mid term and Presidential election?

 

[EddieDoyers]

I voted all democrats in the midterm elections
Then again I'm in California so it doesn't matter

 

[RustyShackleford]

I just sense the blame Hillary stuff is a prelude to some more Bernie rants.

 

[whywesteppin]

Not going to happen. The media will spend some time digging into his background. Blah blah. He's pretty vanilla. They'll probably find some controversial ruling, statement, or article by him and blow it up to epic proportions. But the general public doesn't REALLY care about Supreme Court picks. So eventually they'll go back to the real ratings cash cow: Trump. Because at this point he would have said or done something that will piss people off and that will be the driving story. Neil will get confirmed and there will be fake outrage even though people would have already stopped "caring"

Example: Betsy Devos

Hmm, maybe you're right. Public perception may not matter. Proof? The public didn't seem to care that Republicans obstructed Obama's SC pick.

If that's the case, then they don't have to worry about public perception. They can just filibuster away.

The difference now is trump will be a "snowflake" about it and cry to the media about how unfair it is. Which is fine. He's already divided the country and it's not going to reverse until we get through this mess (if we get through this mess). So, from a purely political standpoint, the filibuster makes sense. Or, if I was a Senator, I would get some backroom concessions from Republicans about...... Yes, pretty obvious and only a matter of time. So I think compromising on this SC nomination would be a fair trade.

 

[EddieDoyers]

Since the logic against voting on Garland was that the next election cycle had begun, can't democrats argue, because trump has already put his name in for the 2020 election, that technically we should also wait until the new president is chosen?


Going against whoever trump picks, while it is the proper move and justified due to republican obstructionism, won't play over well with non-liberals. However, pitching it using the exact same logic that republicans used last year against obama could play well and would give liberals an opportunity to highlight the fact that trump already registered for 2020. Go on every talk show and have them play clips of republicans opposing the vote of garland and their reasoning. Hammer it every day on every news medium from CNN to reddit. Repeat it so much that people are sick of it. And when republicans threaten the nuclear option, go again on every news show and talk about how the republicans are hijacking our government and violating the constitution. Hammer it home.

Not going to happen. The media will spend some time digging into his background. Blah blah. He's pretty vanilla. They'll probably find some controversial ruling, statement, or article by him and blow it up to epic proportions. But the general public doesn't REALLY care about Supreme Court picks. So eventually they'll go back to the real ratings cash cow: Trump. Because at this point he would have said or done something that will piss people off and that will be the driving story. Neil will get confirmed and there will be fake outrage even though people would have already stopped "caring"

Example: Betsy Devos

Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, and Sessions has legit outrage though.
The SCOTUS pick is whatever though, we knew he was going to pick a conservative judge. At least he's experienced and is qualified for the job whether or not we like his ideology.