Trump to announce SCOTUS pick

[JPG]

Change procedural rules so that only a simple majority be required to approve nominees. Right now, 60 votes are needed -- which means having to get some Democrats to cross over.

Dangerous game for the future. If Republicans lose seats in 2018, it could bite back hard.

Thomas confirmed 52-48
Alito 58-42

 

[danb]

Thomas confirmed 52-48
Alito 58-42

You need 60 votes to allow the confirmation vote to be held.

 

[danb]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...l-gorsuchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court

“On behalf of our five million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will be activating our members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country in support of Judge Gorsuch. He will protect our right to keep and bear arms and is an outstanding choice to fill Justice Scalia's seat,” concluded Cox.

(emphasis mine)


That was kinda quick....

 

[Threeband]

You need 60 votes to allow the confirmation vote to be held.

The longer they obstruct it, the worse they look.

Let them pout and whine for a while, maybe hold their breath and stamp their widdle footsies..

 

[iH8DemLibz]

.....and I want him wearing an NRA-LIFE MEMBER lapel pin at his confirmation hearing too.

 

[Mr H]

The longer they obstruct it, the worse they look.

Let them pout and whine for a while, maybe hold their breath and stamp their widdle footsies..

 

[Omega21]

Ted Cruz is having an on air orgasm over this on Fox. I'm feeling good about the NRA endorsement!

 

[GodOfVice]

Great day for America, now if only Ginsberg was caught by a ray of sunlight! >poof<!

 

[fidelity]

49 years old... that's at least 3 decades God willing with a solid voice on the bench. Genius move.

This is also a signal to Justice Kennedy, who is 80, that the court will be in trustworthy hands should he decide to retire while Trump is in office. Gorsuch had clerked for Kennedy in the past, and as people have noted, is a respected, deliberative jurist. Kennedy was a Reagan appointee, and often, SC justices will try to retire when the party that nominated them holds the WH again. The Gorsuch pick shows that the Trump administration is (from a moderate to conservative viewpoint) doing their job right, so if Kennedy should decide to hang his spurs, they will likely choose carefully in nominating his replacement.

Although I expect Democrats to attack and delay any potential confirmation of Gorsuch, they should really keep their powder dry should the Clinton appointees, Ginsburg (83) or Breyer (78), have unexpected health issues that prevents them from continuing on the court.

 

[redeemed.man]

I have mixed feelings about the nuclear option too

BUT

The Dems *are* going to use it their first opportunity. No point holding back. Nice guys/gals finish last.

 

[redeemed.man]

As long as he doesn't take naps with a pillow over his face.

Yeah that shit still gets under my skin. Clearly a murder.

 

[Mr H]

Wife commented excitedly tonight that T45 could nominate 3 Justices in his term(s).

I decided to hold off telling her it could be as many as 5, if he makes it through 2 terms.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

If these four years are fruitful, we'll hold the White House for sixteen years.

 

[fidelity]

Wife commented excitedly tonight that T45 could nominate 3 Justices in his term(s).

I decided to hold off telling her it could be as many as 5, if he makes it through 2 terms.

Exactly. Which is what constrains what the Democrats can do with Gorsuch -

1) the guy has a noncontroversial record of scholastic and jurist achievement such that Senate Democrats have already voted for him in the past.

2) there are many other potential vacancies to the SC given the age of current serving members. If they burn Gorsuch, I wouldn't be surprised for Trump to go with a conservative that they don't like (e.g. Pryor) for the follow up.

 

[danb]

If they burn Gorsuch, I wouldn't be surprised for Trump to go with a conservative that they don't like (e.g. Pryor) for the follow up.

I am not sure Democrats are rational at the moment. They should be think 2018. They are still fighting 2016. They forgot (or never learned) the most important lesson of 2016... they need to be FOR something, not just anti-Trump.

 

[fidelity]

I am not sure Democrats are rational at the moment. They should be think 2018. They are still fighting 2016. They forgot (or never learned) the most important lesson of 2016... they need to be FOR something, not just anti-Trump.

Trump derangement syndrome. Although I hate the chaos that's so characteristic of his campaigning style, it does keep everyone off balance. The media and Democrats have too many things to attack right now, such that they are diluting their message.

Gorsuch, as long as he doesn't have skeletons, is a done deal. I have no idea what the timeline is, but the longer it takes (esp as it will end in failure on their side), the worse they will look for the effort.

If the Democrats want to succeed at political chess, they should recognize this appointment as one for the "Scalia" seat and move forward. The real battle they need to prep for is if a Ginsburg or Breyer steps down. If the court can be flipped 6-3 in favor of conservatives, Democrats would be forced to have actual laws passed at a national level vs letting the courts somehow effect changes in the rule of law. In this circumstance, some of the circuit courts will have a tough time reinventing the meaning of Heller, etc with a SC that might start to slap down their creative dodges.

Would love to get insight on the number of lower court appointments Trump will be filling in the coming year as well.

 

[rbird7282]

I have mixed feelings about the nuclear option too

BUT

The Dems *are* going to use it their first opportunity. No point holding back. Nice guys/gals finish last.

They already did when they said they couldn't wait anymore to confirm people for certain positions. They didn't use it for Supreme Court nominations however. Karma is a bitch sometimes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danb]

The only lower court appointments that am tracking are the 4 vacancies on thr 9th. But I think that there are a hundred.

Dems would be smart to save their powder, but the base is calling for scalps. The Dems are so eager to deliver scalps, they seem likely to deliver their own.

 

[rbird7282]

I am not sure Democrats are rational at the moment. They should be think 2018. They are still fighting 2016. They forgot (or never learned) the most important lesson of 2016... they need to be FOR something, not just anti-Trump.

At the moment? Democrats aren't rational, ever!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HordesOfKailas]

At the moment? Democrats aren't rational, ever!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but they're currently worse off than in recent memory.