Trey Bantz
formerly trey ohh five
- 19,602
- 10,574
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
Let's just be glad Trump didn't pick his sister to be SCOTUS
The nepotism would've been too blatant. More blatant than it already is
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Let's just be glad Trump didn't pick his sister to be SCOTUS
Yes they can filibuster. But the GOP could use the nuclear option
That's the thing though, make them do just that.
For one thing, the nominee's judicial philosophy is irrelevant here. What matters is that this seat is stolen so Democrats should vote no on any Trump nominees. If Democrats stand firm, the GOP would have to use the nuclear option and in the future, Dems can take back the Senate and no longer have to deal with that 60 vote hurdle ever again.
If Democrats form a "gang of 8" and approve any Trump Supreme Court nominee, they will be rewarding McConnell for what he did last year. It's time to create the "Harris rule" where a President cannot fill a vacant Supreme Court seat unless that seat was vacated during his term.
@Fusion: Reminder: It cost more than $47,000 PER DAY for Republican Senators to run out the clock on Merrick Garland: https://t.co/8cZQeb6FA1 https://t.co/itiWrUk5H8
@RogueSNRadvisor: Post SC, stage set for gears to really turn. Bannon - NSC, Sessions - DOJ, SC in control. Pres channeling Jim Carrey "...somebody stop me!"
Same. Literally no argument can be made to support what GOP blocking Obama on his SC nominees. Not even letting the man have a hearingAny SC nominee whose name is not Merrick Garland should be blocked.
The seat became vacant during Obama's presidency and he picked Garland. Period.
For the SC pick or you talking about something else? LolBlame Hillary and the weak *** Dems SMH.
Blame Hillary and the weak *** Dems SMH.
I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly
Botching this pick.For the SC pick or you talking about something else? Lol
This.I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly
I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly
Lol
Since the logic against voting on Garland was that the next election cycle had begun, can't democrats argue, because trump has already put his name in for the 2020 election, that technically we should also wait until the new president is chosen?
Going against whoever trump picks, while it is the proper move and justified due to republican obstructionism, won't play over well with non-liberals. However, pitching it using the exact same logic that republicans used last year against obama could play well and would give liberals an opportunity to highlight the fact that trump already registered for 2020. Go on every talk show and have them play clips of republicans opposing the vote of garland and their reasoning. Hammer it every day on every news medium from CNN to reddit. Repeat it so much that people are sick of it. And when republicans threaten the nuclear option, go again on every news show and talk about how the republicans are hijacking our government and violating the constitution. Hammer it home.
This.I'll never forgive her and the party for botching this election so badly
Hmm, maybe you're right. Public perception may not matter. Proof? The public didn't seem to care that Republicans obstructed Obama's SC pick.Not going to happen. The media will spend some time digging into his background. Blah blah. He's pretty vanilla. They'll probably find some controversial ruling, statement, or article by him and blow it up to epic proportions. But the general public doesn't REALLY care about Supreme Court picks. So eventually they'll go back to the real ratings cash cow: Trump. Because at this point he would have said or done something that will piss people off and that will be the driving story. Neil will get confirmed and there will be fake outrage even though people would have already stopped "caring"
Example: Betsy Devos
Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, and Sessions has legit outrage though.Since the logic against voting on Garland was that the next election cycle had begun, can't democrats argue, because trump has already put his name in for the 2020 election, that technically we should also wait until the new president is chosen?
Going against whoever trump picks, while it is the proper move and justified due to republican obstructionism, won't play over well with non-liberals. However, pitching it using the exact same logic that republicans used last year against obama could play well and would give liberals an opportunity to highlight the fact that trump already registered for 2020. Go on every talk show and have them play clips of republicans opposing the vote of garland and their reasoning. Hammer it every day on every news medium from CNN to reddit. Repeat it so much that people are sick of it. And when republicans threaten the nuclear option, go again on every news show and talk about how the republicans are hijacking our government and violating the constitution. Hammer it home.
Not going to happen. The media will spend some time digging into his background. Blah blah. He's pretty vanilla. They'll probably find some controversial ruling, statement, or article by him and blow it up to epic proportions. But the general public doesn't REALLY care about Supreme Court picks. So eventually they'll go back to the real ratings cash cow: Trump. Because at this point he would have said or done something that will piss people off and that will be the driving story. Neil will get confirmed and there will be fake outrage even though people would have already stopped "caring"
Example: Betsy Devos