Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Gorsuch Nomination

dubbsco

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
9,969
So he didn't get voted in, and the Republicans are invoking some clause where the simple majority will get him into the seat.

Here's why I'm confused. Why is this a thing? Can't essentially the majority party just invoke this rule whenever something doesn't pass?
 
I think the filibuster rule was a "gentlemen's agreement" kinda deal. i.e. its not law, but an official procedural thing. the senate can always vote to eliminate it, since they make their own procedural rules.

the wiki article "filibuster in the united states senate" explains it better than i can.
 
apparently Mitch McConnell changed the filibuster rule today, so only a majority is needed to confirm a SC justice.

while the GOP can't get to 60, they easily have 50, esp. since 3 shitty democratic senators already said they're voting to confirm Gorsuch.

Joe Manchin should just be drummed out of the party already.
 
McConnell basically prevented Obama from filling the position in his last year, saying that presidents aren't allowed to do that on their way out. Which was proven to be untrue.

And now he's invoking some never-before used law to force feed this dude into the position.
 
Gorsuch and Garland both would have been approved easily if not for the childish antics from both sides over the last two years. The real story isn't the SC appointees but rather the broken process and political parties that continue to serve themselves before the people.
 
I'm guessing most of the Democratic pushback against Gorsuch is simple retaliation for Garland.

The problem that Mitch McConnell doesn't realize is that he can't put the genie back in the bottle now, and the next time the Dems have a Senate majority he just assured his own party will have no influence over the process.
 
Gorsuch and Garland both would have been approved easily if not for the childish antics from both sides over the last two years. The real story isn't the SC appointees but rather the broken process and political parties that continue to serve themselves before the people.

I agree completely. I wish they understood that the majority of Americans don't give a crap about their petty problems with each other and voted them in to do what is best for our country.

You win some, you lose some, but the country keeps running right down the middle for the most part. But with this rule change (if you will) there will be huge swings one way or the other from now on. SUCKS for all of us.
 
Gorsuch is so far up corporations asses it just puts the court back to 5-4 far right court just like before Scalia died. Shameful how the Roberts court is just a extension people like the far right Koch brothers . Garland may have been a corporatist to but he at least he would taken some moderate positions. That won't happen under this guy sadly. Bad thing is is Trump will get at least 2 more appointments.
 
Last edited:
We are all moderate to conservative when it comes to protecting our country period. We may disagree a tad on some things but I bet if we had 50 conservative and 50 liberals in a room we could come up with better polices then these 2 parties we have right now.
 
Last edited:
apparently Mitch McConnell changed the filibuster rule today, so only a majority is needed to confirm a SC justice.

while the GOP can't get to 60, they easily have 50, esp. since 3 shitty democratic senators already said they're voting to confirm Gorsuch.

Joe Manchin should just be drummed out of the party already.

Shitty? Dems like Gorsuch, that's not a surprise. It's just a payback from the dems about their judge who didn't get in..
 
It really didn't freaking matter . Asshole republicans were going to get their Scalia judge back no matter what. Even Obama's pick Garland was not that far left.That is what is werid . How the heck were the rebulicans even that mad at that pick? It makes no sense unless ? Trump. Well you know that Can't happen in America right ?
Maybe McConnell knew something? I guess he bet right, and sadly middle class and lower class families will be paying for years to come.
 
It really didn't freaking matter . Asshole republicans were going to get their Scalia judge back no matter what. Even Obama's pick Garland was not that far left.That is what is werid . How the heck were the rebulicans even that mad at that pick? It makes no sense unless ? Trump. Well you know that Can't happen in America right ?
Maybe McConnell knew something? I guess he bet right, and sadly middle class and lower class families will be paying for years to come.

McConnell had nothing to lose. Even if Trump/GOP was a long shot against HRC, it was still a chance rather than Obama/DNC getting to choose. It paid off in the end. Worst case scenario was Hilldawg getting to choose and it wouldn't have been much/any different than Obama.
 
It really didn't freaking matter . Asshole republicans were going to get their Scalia judge back no matter what. Even Obama's pick Garland was not that far left.That is what is werid . How the heck were the rebulicans even that mad at that pick? It makes no sense unless ? Trump. Well you know that Can't happen in America right ?
Maybe McConnell knew something? I guess he bet right, and sadly middle class and lower class families will be paying for years to come.

Maybe that's way it should be - lose a conservative, get one back. Same with Dems. There's 9 judges, there was going to be a 5-4 one way or another.
 
The Supreme Court gets just about one landmark case a decade that truly affects most Americans. Would you explain exactly what the middle and lower class lost with this appointment? I mean exactly - if you give me some platitude about how he is a corporatist so indirectly they lose, I would have to disagree that you know what negative effects will occur, especially when they haven't made any decisions thus far.

Don't forget, I agree that Garland got the shaft, but that in and of itself does not mean this is a bad appointment.
 
The Supreme Court gets just about one landmark case a decade that truly affects most Americans. Would you explain exactly what the middle and lower class lost with this appointment? I mean exactly - if you give me some platitude about how he is a corporatist so indirectly they lose, I would have to disagree that you know what negative effects will occur, especially when they haven't made any decisions thus far.

Don't forget, I agree that Garland got the shaft, but that in and of itself does not mean this is a bad appointment.

Tell that to the frozen Trucker. He will tow the far right line my guess in just about all his cases like he always does. You may be right in 1 case every 10 years but alas the Citizen United ruling has ruined this country. I think democrats were in a tought spot. If they supported him what little of thier base would hate it. But doing this made it easy for Mcconnell to go nuclear . Democrats probably should have waited for the next canidate.
 
Back
Top