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: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75

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.


That could be true. If that's the case, they should be ashamed of themselves for using the same tactics that make the Republicans look like petulant children.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The MSM is acting like the "nuclear option" is something new that was just created by Trump and the republicans.

We need to gove credit where credit is due!



Thanks Harry!

It should be called "Reid Option".



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhuckingWhiteMale

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


Let's move on to the next crisis!
I realy hope usa ready for the nuclear retaliasion[/quot





what supreme court nominee during the bush years was totally banned by the senate because of a open seat on the court?
edit on 6-4-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:29 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?

You're not from around here , er ya ? Nor have you read many posts in this thread. Harry Reid IS a Democrat (and was Senate Majority Leader) and the very one that started "this" . Opened the door for this and much more. For right or wrong , it is here to stay.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.


What progress has been made lately?
Your statement sounds as if the US was not a beacon for individual liberty anyway.
edit on 6/4/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Google "Coke" "pubic hair" and "Clarence Thomas".

Thomas was voted in with less than 60 votes (52-48) and so was Alioto.
edit on 6-4-2017 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Martin75

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.


That could be true. If that's the case, they should be ashamed of themselves for using the same tactics that make the Republicans look like petulant children.


c'mon, intro...the republicans don't care what they look like, they care about protecting wealth and power, no matter how many poor Americans suffer....when was the last time a republican controlled congress EVER passed laws helping the poor?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

That's part of it, but I can guarantee you, they had BIG plans for that 5th vote. So much so that people like Harry Reid got desperate and reckless enough to leave good sense and reason behind, because they could see how they could use that Supreme Court majority for ideological purposes, and it has now backfired and bitten the Dems right in the backside.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: jimmyx

Google "Pepsi" "pubic hair" and "Clarence Thomas".

Thomas was voted in with less than 60 votes and so was Alioto.


My understanding is that the vote for the Supreme Court is and always was a simple majority.
The only change is the removal of the 60 vote threshold to call cloture in the face of a filibuster.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
A vote of 60 required people to work together and compromise.


The Senate has never required a vote of 60 Senators to approve a Supreme Court nominee, it has always been a simple majority.




edit on 6-4-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You would be correct. The actual confirmation vote has always been by simple majority, as directed by the Constitution. The filibuster was with regard to cloture and ending debate.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

I don't know when the SCOTUS went all-in-political, but it's time for a re-set.


Interestingly enough, I am fairly certain this is one of Gorsuch's
areas of great interest, the Judicial Branch and its proper scope.

Interpreting law, not making it.

One reason I am all for him, this may be a very good thing!



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

And yet I was laughed at on ATS when I suggested term limits for congress and Supreme Court.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: UKTruth

You would be correct. The actual confirmation vote has always been by simple majority, as directed by the Constitution. The filibuster was with regard to cloture and ending debate.


Thanks, that is what I thought. Gets mighty confusing with all the double speak in the media.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Thanks Harry!

smh did I really just say that?




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Martin75

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.


That could be true. If that's the case, they should be ashamed of themselves for using the same tactics that make the Republicans look like petulant children.

I agree 100% if politicians had to get real jobs they would be screwed! They wouldn't last a day!



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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!.

Was this your response in 2013 when the democrats did it Silly??????



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
I agree 100% if politicians had to get real jobs they would be screwed! They wouldn't last a day!


If they were used as wheel chocks for tractor trailers they could last longer than a day.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Wait, so this has nothing to do with nuclear warfare



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Wait, so this has nothing to do with nuclear warfare


Nope, WOPR is playing chess.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join