It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Supreme Court Nomination Falls Apart In Record Time As Democrats Plan Filibuster

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 02:22 AM
link   
DP
edit on 1-2-2017 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
ECHOECHOECHOECHOECHO



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
Simply postponing the inevitable.

They can't even save face, no shame.


Is that why the Republicans pushed against this position being filled for 11 months to avoid the role going to someone not as rabidly right wing? Did the Republicans have any shame for the last 11 months?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Why would they? They had the numbers to keep it from happening. Unlike that situation, this is a sure thing and they all know it...some of them even supported him in the past. *gasp*



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
I watch that one, today, Democrats really had lost their place in our nation, they are not doing what they doing because they don't like the choices, but because they don't like Trump.

While is expected what is different is vicious, silly and childlike way they do it.

Democrats are truly a dying breed and they know it.



hmmmm where have i heard this before??? oh yeah, sounds exactly how the last 8 years were, democrats saying the republicans were a dying breed and the republicans doing everything out of spite for obama.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: uncommitted

Why would they? They had the numbers to keep it from happening. Unlike that situation, this is a sure thing and they all know it...some of them even supported him in the past. *gasp*


So basically you were all for the Republicans blocking anything happening but are bitching at the prospect of the Democrats doing the same? Are we going to have four years of this blatant hypocrisy?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Let the republicans reap what they sowed. They did it to the Dems for 8 years I say they got it coming. Filibuster everything just like they did and confirm no appointments until the next election. They earned it.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Look up the term "nuclear option."



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: mOjOm

The left did lose, and rather than channeling that anger towards it's own party for having failed them, they've become unhinged and want to burn the entire place down.

I can't recall the right doing that in my lifetime. They got sick of the establishment GOP and did something about it.

But by all means, I hope the left keeps doing what they are doing. There is no greater rebuttal to a flawed manner of thinking than the example of it.

I have lots of popcorn stored.

They. Shut down. THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT!! If that's not scorched earth I don't know what is!



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AttitudeProblem
Nuts !




well now what is the expression , the shoe is on the other foot?

perhaps harry reid should have sought other remedies



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
after leaving that seat vacant for around a year, I hope the dems do kind of throw a few roadblocks into the confirmation hearing, heck there's already been a few republicans out stating how important it is to fill the seat in a timely manner.. I want to see more of them.. coming out and proving just how hypocritical they can be!!!
that seat should have been filled long before now, not because of anyone's political leanings but because the empty seat prevented the supreme court from working as efficiently as it should have and some us we the people got a half arsed right to appeal in our court system because the decision in the supreme court couldn't be made!



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I haven't read the thread replies yet, but in my opinion, if Trump wanted to mend fences he shouldn't have nominated Merrick Garland, and if the Republicans had cause, let them reject him and then nominate Gorsuch. There's a good chance that there will be 3 SCOTUS appointments during the next 4 years. Republicans would do well to temper themselves.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




Republicans would do well to temper themselves.

Why?
They are doing EXACTLY what they were elected to do.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Oh please, Dems approved this guy for the appeals court so...it would be asinine at this point. What they will do is try to obstruct it out of spite because of what GOP did with Merrick. The catch is, they need to pick their fight well. A couple of other Supremes are wild cards due to age/health. Dems could face Trump getting two picks and, at least, Gorsuch has nothing objectionable in his writing/rulings. Do they really want to throw down and reveal themselves as systemic obstructionists - over a good pick - when they may well have to do battle over another pick too?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


I don't believe that they were elected to destroy bipartisanship.

That being said, from what I've read about Gorsuch, they could have picked someone far worse. This one isn't a battle worth fighting, in my opinion. Trump's cabinet is where the battleground is, in my opinion. The Dems have made an error in priorities.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




I don't believe that they were elected to destroy bipartisanship.

Please show me 1 example where that existed in the last 8 years.
If you think there are ANY expectations of bipartisanship within the electorate that put the current admin in office you are sorely mistaken.
Also there was NONE from the dems in the campaign either. Basket of deplorables is the opposite of bipartisanship.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack




Oh please, Dems approved this guy for the appeals court so...it would be asinine at this point.


and obama's appointment was previously approved by the republicans.... how long ago did obama present him for consideration to congress??

that's the problem with playing playing these types of political games, the other side is sure to do the same thing back at you. nothing gets done.. and in this case, the biggest losers are those spending a large sum of money appealing the supreme court because they believe that the lower court's decisions was unjust, the case wasn't handled appropriately, of deprived them of their constitutional rights, just to walk away with no clear cut decision.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

When Obama came in, he had a Dem majority and could have rammed the ACA through, but he allowed Republican input, through committees, and made huge concessions, for the sake of bipartisanship.

It's my opinion that the right thing to do was to allow the Senate to advise on the Merrick Garland, even if they didn't consent, we would have known why and we wouldn't be having this Supreme Court apparent crisis.




edit on 1-2-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I will only have issue with the filibuster if they are unable to make any reasonable showing of his inability to serve.

SCOTUS appointees are very serious. We are talking "for life" serious. Does anyone really want a Dan Quayle, or worse a Steve Bannon, sitting on our highest court wreaking havoc on daily processes?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

Democrats should consider the possibility that given the GOP has the votes, the GOP could just play theater making the point that the Dems are obstructionists, withdraw Gorsuch when that point has been sufficiently been made, and then advance an alternative candidate even less palatable to the left, deploying the 'nuclear option' at that time.



I suggest the left get better at playing chess, because they are walking into a checkmate.


edit on 1-2-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join