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.

 

'Nuclear option' expected after Democrats filibuster Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
So, its OK if you are on the side with the most power?


Something new there? The rules have always been the rules, any party can change them.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
So, its OK if you are on the side with the most power?


Something new there? The rules have always been the rules, any party can change them.


What happened to "Checks and Balances"?

Would you feel the same if the Dems pulled this?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: therealfreeworld

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: DBCowboy
THIS is one of the reason why I voted for Donald Trump!!!! Woohoo!!!!! Finally someone is getting something done! Bout time.


And what is he getting done. Fck up another country. And this time as a bonus the usa too. NK aint as weak or isolated as you might think. The real free world aint as dumb and naive as it was when you illigaly invaded Iraq or Afganistan. And you aint fighting poor hungry farmers armed with ww2 guns this time.


Sounds like maybe that 60k college loan you have to pay back for taking classes to learn to hate your own country is paying off?


Perhaps you and others brainwashed by Marxist institutions of higher learning might find a better life in Venezuela?

Sorry, but your virtue signaling of how much Trump has screwed up this country after only being President for a few months is laughable, considering for 8 years I didn't see a peep out of you when Obama did NOTHING?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
What happened to "Checks and Balances"?


The checks and balances in our tripartite government are still there. They just happen to favor the Republicans at this time.


Would you feel the same if the Dems pulled this?


What? Changed the Senate procedural rules? They have, plenty of times.




edit on 6-4-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: therealfreeworld
He put a conservative on the bench. Seems like a pretty big accomplishment to me. I mean, Obama couldn't pull it off.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
A little more info on the nuke option by lawnewz

lawnewz.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
So, its OK if you are on the side with the most power?


Something new there? The rules have always been the rules, any party can change them.


What happened to "Checks and Balances"?

Would you feel the same if the Dems pulled this?


The Dems DID pull it and flooded the lower courts with liberal judges.
So they got roasted by their own rules.
It's now done - the Senate just voted to end the filiubuster and move to a straight up and down vote.

Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: Sillyolme
It could play against them in the future.


I agree and it probably will.

Sad that even a SCOTUS nomination has become so partisan that this has to be considered. The nuclear option has been used before but not for a SCOTUS.

Gorsuch really inst bad at all. I think the dems are wasting their time fighting this. Obama got 2 justices that IMO are far more partisan than Gorsuch without all this hoopla



2 justices?....so?.....hey, I know....make it a law that the supreme court CANNOT have more than 4 liberal justices on the court at anytime in the future....that way, the republicans can control the entire government for ever and ever.....and then do away with every law that was passed by liberals for the last 200 years.....and only then, the crybaby republicans can have their plutocratic oligarchy....AND IT WILL FINALLY BE SPRINGTIME IN AMERICA!!!!....zeik heil...click click


What the hell does anything in this rambling rant have to do with anything I said?


because in the history of the U.S.....there has NEVER been a year long delay in a presidents power to appoint and have confirmed a SCOTUS, just so the opposition party in congress can wait until the next election to get their own president elected first....jesus, why is this so difficult for you to understand?....
read the constitution, it says advise and consent, not stop and delay until we get our guy in
edit on 6-4-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

This is not them showing backbone. It shows weakness. If they had a good candidate they wouldn't need to make this change in the rules.
Trump is a moron and needs to get a win under his belt so he ordered this stupid move.
Oh well.
They will have to live with it now.
They won't always hold the majority.


It's a Huuuuge win fr Trump, that's for sure.
The main thing is Gursuch is only 49, so he'll be there for a long long time.
Hopefully Trump gets to pick another so the Supreme Court can be conservative for the next generation. That is a main reason he was voted in.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Still has nothing to do with what I said.

Bad day?

P.S. Google the "Biden Rule"



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Now watch as the media does it's job as a Democrat party propaganda machine and rewrites history so it wasn't the Democrats who first used the nuclear option to confirm all Obama's lower court judges.

What is it with Democrats and changing rules, setting standards that they scoff at when they're applied to them?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: eriktheawful
My own personal opinion is that a 2/3's vote should only be required when amending the US Constitution


Or treaties.


Agreed.

I think this is one of the reasons why they were seriously looking at it way back in 1917. For over 100 years filibusters pretty much kept things from getting done (either by getting things passed, or it simply not passing and moving on to other things).

Pretty much it's highly paid politicians to sit there and hold up traffic when you think about it.

Think about how much more would get done if time limits were placed on them speaking (IE getting rid of filibusters). Of course what follows suit is putting time limits on how long they can be in office too.

I'm a BIG proponent of term limits for everyone, going right down to county sheriffs and limiting how long a judge can be on the bench for SCOTUS (make it like 10 years, and then yer out of there).



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: DBCowboy

if you do not know the reason behind "Reid breaking the dam", then your simplistic answer makes sense...tell you what, I think the democrats should follow in the footsteps of their fellow republican senators, and frankly state to the public that it is their intention to make trump a one-term president, and to block EVERYTHING the republicans senators, as well as the president, proposes for the next 4 years.....



Have you forgotten the Bush years? Democrats obstructed and acted exactly like they're acting now.


originally posted by: therealfreeworld
I realy hope usa ready for the nuclear retaliasion


This IS the retaliation!



edit on 6-4-2017 by PhuckingWhiteMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Think about how much more would get done if time limits were placed on them speaking (IE getting rid of filibusters).


The original Senate rules had a time limit in place. This was eliminated in 1806 under the assumption that is was a redundant rule, it obviously turned out not to be the case.



edit on 6-4-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: President, Jacygirl fan club.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Never understood why the Democrats were so strongly against this guy.

His record seems to be pretty damn good.

Confirm him and quit playing games.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Never understood why the Democrats were so strongly against this guy.

His record seems to be pretty damn good.

Confirm him and quit playing games.


They have made a big gamble on winning the majority in 2018 (tall order) OR no more nominations by Trump during his term.
If there is another vacancy before Trump's tenure ends, then expect a far right conservative to fill the spot.
edit on 6/4/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
What happened to "Checks and Balances"?

Would you feel the same if the Dems pulled this?


You do realize that the Democrats were planning to nuke the filibuster if Hillary had won and they'd retaken the Senate, right? If you want to blame someone, you can blame the Democrat leadership in the Senate last year. When Harry Reid opened his fat mouth last fall, he gave the GOP every reason in the world to do this now that the tables have turned.

Actions have consequences and you can thank Harry Reid for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Never understood why the Democrats were so strongly against this guy.

His record seems to be pretty damn good.

Confirm him and quit playing games.

They are fighting him simply because they wouldn't let Obama's pick go to vote. That is the only reason they are fighting.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
Never understood why the Democrats were so strongly against this guy.

His record seems to be pretty damn good.

Confirm him and quit playing games.


They have made a big gamble on winning the majority in 2018 (tall order) OR no more nominations by Trump during his term.
If there is another vacancy before Trump's tenure ends, then expect a far right conservative to fill the spot.


And that is something we should all fear. We've made a lot of progress in regards to individual liberty in this country lately and it would be a shame if our SCOTUS picks took us backwards.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

It's done. From now on supreme court justices will be elected by majority vote.
So the balance on the court will ride the tide of whom ever is in power and be determined by the life span of the average court justice.

A vote of 60 required people to work together and compromise.

Lady justice just pulled down one side of her blindfold and said WTF!.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join