PDA

View Full Version : Schumer Promises to Block Trump's Supreme Court Pick



DGUtley
01-04-2017, 09:46 AM
How he plans to do this after Dirty Harry and his gang triggered the Nuclear Option is beyond me -- absent any defections. If the PEOTUS holds true to his pledge, and I expect him to, he'll select from his list. Each of those should be easy approval from the R's.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/04/schumer-promises-to-block-trumps-supreme-court-pick/

Crepitus
01-04-2017, 09:49 AM
How he plans to do this after Dirty Harry and his gang triggered the Nuclear Option is beyond me -- absent any defections. If the PEOTUS holds true to his pledge, and I expect him to, he'll select from his list. Each of those should be easy approval from the R's.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/04/schumer-promises-to-block-trumps-supreme-court-pick/

Has he held to any of his other pledges yet?

Cigar
01-04-2017, 09:52 AM
Good ... as much as they can, The Democrats should give The GOP some of the same crap they pulled for 8 years.

I'm ok with it, but it won't change the GOP ... just like Obama tried to work with them even after they pledge not to work with him on Ingratiation Night

MMC
01-04-2017, 10:14 AM
The Repubs are just going run Chucky Schumer and the Demos over on this.....like a lawnmower cutting grass. Schumer should show the illiberals where they can get some extra padding. Its the least he can do.

Cigar
01-04-2017, 10:16 AM
Schumer Says Democrats Willing To Keep Supreme Court Seat Empty



Source: Talking Points Memo

By CAITLIN MACNEAL Published JANUARY 4, 2017, 8:50 AM EDT

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Tuesday night said that if Donald Trump does not select a "mainstream" Supreme Court nominee, Democrats in the Senate will do their best to keep the seat open.

"We are not going to settle on a Supreme Court nominee. If they don’t appoint someone who’s really good, we’re gonna oppose him tooth and nail," Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "They won’t have 60 votes to put in an out-of-the-mainstream nominee and then they’ll have to make a choice: change the rules. It’s gonna be very hard for them to change the rules because there are a handful of Republicans who believe in the institution of the Senate."

"We are not going to make it easy for them to pick a Supreme Court justice," he added. Schumer said that it is "hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support."

Maddow then asked if Schumer would do his "best to hold the seat open."

"Absolutely," Schumer replied.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/schumer-trump-supreme-court-nominee-opposition

Chickie is Bad


http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11114/111146486/4192238-chucky.jpg (http://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/chuckie-finster-vs-chucky-1615738/)

DGUtley
01-04-2017, 10:46 AM
What goes around comes around....


16948

MMC
01-04-2017, 11:47 AM
What goes around comes around....


16948


That is what it is going to feel like for the Demos after Trump switches up all those Appellate and Circuit Court Judges.....especially the 9th.

hanger4
01-04-2017, 12:02 PM
How he plans to do this after Dirty Harry and his gang triggered the Nuclear Option is beyond me -- absent any defections. If the PEOTUS holds true to his pledge, and I expect him to, he'll select from his list. Each of those should be easy approval from the R's.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/04/schumer-promises-to-block-trumps-supreme-court-pick/

Assuming all Repubs are on board it'll still take 8 Dems to break a filibuster. The nuk option doesn't apply to SC-Justice's

DGUtley
01-04-2017, 12:30 PM
Assuming all Repubs are on board it'll still take 8 Dems to break a filibuster. The nuk option doesn't apply to SC-Justice's

Because? There's no legal reason why it doesn't. If it doesn't it doesn't b/c the R's say it doesn't and for no other reason. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/306330-nuclear-option-for-supreme-court-nominees-will-damage-senate

Full disclosure: I'm personally against use of the N.O. for SC nominees or any other nominees.

hanger4
01-04-2017, 12:51 PM
Because? There's no legal reason why it doesn't. If it doesn't it doesn't b/c the R's say it doesn't and for no other reason. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/306330-nuclear-option-for-supreme-court-nominees-will-damage-senate

Full disclosure: I'm personally against use of the N.O. for SC nominees or any other nominees.

The only way the nuk option can be used concerning a SCOTUS nominee is to change the Senate rules.

DGUtley
01-04-2017, 12:54 PM
The only way the nuk option can be used concerning a SCOTUS nominee is to change the Senate rules.

...and...? There's nothing stopping the R's from doing so, other than tradition and decorum. The D's could've cared less about either, by the way. If they do it, it'll further circle our government down the drain.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 01:01 PM
The only way the nuk option can be used concerning a SCOTUS nominee is to change the Senate rules.
Which is trivial.

hanger4
01-04-2017, 01:28 PM
...and...? There's nothing stopping the R's from doing so, other than tradition and decorum. The D's could've cared less about either, by the way. If they do it, it'll further circle our government down the drain.

I agree, but you nor the NYPost said anything about changing the Senate rules. As far "nothing stopping" them I have already sent emails to my states Senators say NO.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 02:11 PM
I agree, but you nor the NYPost said anything about changing the Senate rules. As far "nothing stopping" them I have already sent emails to my states Senators say NO.
Why? Are you crumbling just before the fight begins?

maineman
01-04-2017, 03:12 PM
How he plans to do this after Dirty Harry and his gang triggered the Nuclear Option is beyond me -- absent any defections. If the PEOTUS holds true to his pledge, and I expect him to, he'll select from his list. Each of those should be easy approval from the R's.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/04/schumer-promises-to-block-trumps-supreme-court-pick/

are you aware that Reid's adjustment to cloture rules was only for NON-SCOTUS nominees? If Mitch wants to do away with filibusters altogether, he is welcome to do so, but then he will live with it when he is once again in the minority. It does not appear, however, that Mitch has the votes to do away with the filibuster.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/gop-senators-are-anxious-about-nuking-the-fillibuster.html

maineman
01-04-2017, 03:13 PM
...and...? There's nothing stopping the R's from doing so...

other than not having the votes to do it... there's THAT little stumbling block, of course.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/gop-senators-are-anxious-about-nuking-the-fillibuster.html

Don
01-04-2017, 08:13 PM
Personally I think many democrats can see full well what the "leadership" of their party has done to the party and they won't toe the line any longer. They'll stand up to them and some will go with the republicans on a lot of issues. Trump will do his job to break up the RINO's hold on the republican party too. If he doesn't he'll lose the backing of the people who helped get him in office.

Bethere
01-04-2017, 08:16 PM
other than not having the votes to do it... there's THAT little stumbling block, of course.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/gop-senators-are-anxious-about-nuking-the-fillibuster.html
We only need 3 to cross and your story lists 10.

Good times.

hanger4
01-04-2017, 08:19 PM
Why? Are you crumbling just before the fight begins?

Saying no to that rule change isn't crumbling.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2017, 08:21 PM
Saying no to that rule change isn't crumbling.
We can agree to disagree. Stopping short of the objective gets people (and programs) needlessly killed.

patrickt
01-04-2017, 10:14 PM
A promise from a Democrat. Isn't that precious.

maineman
01-04-2017, 10:20 PM
face it patrickt.... you don't have the votes in the GOP caucus to nuke the filibuster.... and you don't have anywhere near the 60 votes needed to get a SCOTUS nominee by one. Schumer can let seven democrats loose to vote against the filibuster if it helps them in 2018.... and he's still got enough to keep any of Trump's 21 wackos out of SCOTUS.

exotix
01-04-2017, 10:55 PM
Did anyone catch Mitch McConnell today actually stating *Schumers' number one political priority is to block the SCOTUS Justice Pick* ? .... I tell ya I ... http://i67.tinypic.com/2zh16yo.jpg

AZ Jim
01-04-2017, 11:56 PM
Personally I think many democrats can see full well what the "leadership" of their party has done to the party and they won't toe the line any longer. They'll stand up to them and some will go with the republicans on a lot of issues. Trump will do his job to break up the RINO's hold on the republican party too. If he doesn't he'll lose the backing of the people who helped get him in office.Hahahahahahaha

DGUtley
01-05-2017, 03:53 AM
.... and he's still got enough to keep any of Trump's 21 wackos out of SCOTUS.
That's funny, I think the same thing about the two that Obama appointed.

patrickt
01-05-2017, 03:56 AM
face it @patrickt (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=348).... you don't have the votes in the GOP caucus to nuke the filibuster.... and you don't have anywhere near the 60 votes needed to get a SCOTUS nominee by one. Schumer can let seven democrats loose to vote against the filibuster if it helps them in 2018.... and he's still got enough to keep any of Trump's 21 wackos out of SCOTUS.

And you don't get it. You, and Schumer, think your whackos who passed the litmus test of believing the unbelievable in "Adverse Impact" Think you can force everyone to bend to your will. It's not working any longer. To screw our health care you had to resort to the Conhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. I wonder what you'll do now?

maineman
01-05-2017, 10:01 AM
And you don't get it. You, and Schumer, think your whackos who passed the litmus test of believing the unbelievable in "Adverse Impact" Think you can force everyone to bend to your will. It's not working any longer. To screw our health care you had to resort to the Conhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. I wonder what you'll do now?

irrelevant dodge. The fact remains, you don't have the votes within the GOP caucus to do away with the filibuster nor do you have the votes to override one. ERGO.... when the democrats want to STOP a SCOTUS nominee, or a particularly onerous piece of legislation, they have the power to do so.

Subdermal
01-05-2017, 10:14 AM
Personally I think many democrats can see full well what the "leadership" of their party has done to the party and they won't toe the line any longer. They'll stand up to them and some will go with the republicans on a lot of issues. Trump will do his job to break up the RINO's hold on the republican party too. If he doesn't he'll lose the backing of the people who helped get him in office.
This is an important point. The timing of the midterms - the sheer number of Dem seats up for grabs this time around - won't bode well for Dems identified as blocking Trump SCOTUS nominees.

Those seats in jeopardy - and there are a lot of them - may blink. And hard.

Subdermal
01-05-2017, 10:15 AM
irrelevant dodge. The fact remains, you don't have the votes within the GOP caucus to do away with the filibuster nor do you have the votes to override one. ERGO.... when the democrats want to STOP a SCOTUS nominee, or a particularly onerous piece of legislation, they have the power to do so.
Even if it's the last thing they do.

And it may be.

maineman
01-05-2017, 10:30 AM
This is an important point. The timing of the midterms - the sheer number of Dem seats up for grabs this time around - won't bode well for Dems identified as blocking Trump SCOTUS nominees.

Those seats in jeopardy - and there are a lot of them - may blink. And hard.

one would think they would have chosen a more conciliatory leader other than Schumer if they really were in the mood to be conciliatory. And Schumer can let his seven most vulnerable caucus members break loose from any filibuster if they need political cover. Again.... to assume that less than half of less than half of the electorate creates some overwhelming "mandate" to accomplish all things Trumpian is silly. He STARTS with the worst approval rating of any starting president since Gallup started tracking it nearly 70 years ago. I would think that well reasoned opposition to the Trump agenda would have a positive effect on many senate democratic reelection prospects.

patrickt
01-05-2017, 11:30 AM
irrelevant dodge. The fact remains, you don't have the votes within the GOP caucus to do away with the filibuster nor do you have the votes to override one. ERGO.... when the democrats want to STOP a SCOTUS nominee, or a particularly onerous piece of legislation, they have the power to do so.

Nice dodge, leftist. But, I'm sure you don't define yourself as an obstructionist. And, you dodged the fact that to screw Americans out of their health insurance you had to bribe a couple of Democrat Senators. What if a few more Democrats decide America is more important than the liberal dictatorship? Or, more accurately, what if their constituents decide it for them and they want to hold onto the cushy jobs?

maineman
01-05-2017, 12:21 PM
Nice dodge, leftist. But, I'm sure you don't define yourself as an obstructionist. And, you dodged the fact that to screw Americans out of their health insurance you had to bribe a couple of Democrat Senators. What if a few more Democrats decide America is more important than the liberal dictatorship? Or, more accurately, what if their constituents decide it for them and they want to hold onto the cushy jobs?

"what if" until the cows come home Pat.... the fact is that right now... in 2017.... you do not have enough votes in the GOP senatorial caucus to nuke the filibuster. AND, you do not have the 60 votes to override one. That's real.... that's not "what if" happens at some point in the future. My guess is that, given Trump's abysmal approval ratings right from the outset, that Americans will not be displeased by democrats' efforts to slow him down.

And make no mistake about it, when it comes to Donald Trump's agenda, I most assuredly define myself as an obstructionist.

DGUtley
01-05-2017, 01:07 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/january_2017/57_of_democrats_want_trump_to_succeed

maineman
01-05-2017, 01:10 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/january_2017/57_of_democrats_want_trump_to_succeed

"succeed" is a somewhat ill-defined and nebulous term. I want him to succeed to the point where he can avoid starting WWIII. Does that put ME in that 57%??

Bethere
01-05-2017, 01:25 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/january_2017/57_of_democrats_want_trump_to_succeed

We're not obstructionists, we're rugged hero patriots.

decedent
01-05-2017, 01:35 PM
Good ... as much as they can, The Democrats should give The GOP some of the same crap they pulled for 8 years.

I'm ok with it, but it won't change the GOP ... just like Obama tried to work with them even after they pledge not to work with him on Ingratiation Night

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.” -- John McCain