Trump's Supreme Court Nomination

[Ford]

As of the swearing in of the new Congress, Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court is dead. It is up to Trump to fill the vacancy on the highest court.

Of course the worry is that he'll nominate a right winger to fill Scalia's seat, but given the cabinet/administration picks he's made so far, there is an even more absurd/chilling possibility.

Trump has chosen an EPA head who wants to destroy the EPA. An education secretary who hates public education. An energy secretary who can't remember that there's an energy department in the first place.

As such, there is a distinct possibility that Trump will not just nominate a conservative ideologue, but someone who may not even be a jurist. Or worse, someone who is skeptical of the judicial branch itself. Conservatives have long railed against "activist judges," but now we're about to have a President who seems to want to put people in charge of federal agencies who want nothing more than to destroy those institutions.

I mean, the running joke is that he'll nominate Judge Judy, but honestly, he could do worse. And I have a sinking feeling that he will.

 

[Trausti]

Trump has already given his short list of nominees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-justices.html?_r=0

Two, perhaps three or four, names on that list will sit on the Supreme Court.

 

[Ford]

Trump has already given his short list of nominees.

He also promised to build a wall, lock up Hillary Clinton, and "drain the swamp."


At what point do you figure to stop getting suckered?

 

[bilby]

Trump has already given his short list of nominees.

He also promised to build a wall, lock up Hillary Clinton, and "drain the swamp."


At what point do you figure to stop getting suckered?

Perhaps he will lock up the swamp, drain the wall, and build Hillary Clinton.

 

[Trausti]

Trump has already given his short list of nominees.

He also promised to build a wall, lock up Hillary Clinton, and "drain the swamp."


At what point do you figure to stop getting suckered?

When he tells me that if I like my healthcare plan I can keep it; then I'll know he's playing me for a sucker.

Oh, about the wall: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-border-trump-exclusive-idUSKBN14N0TY

 

[Elixir]

I mean, the running joke is that he'll nominate Judge Judy, but honestly, he could do worse. And I have a sinking feeling that he will.

Sad thing is he could nominate Joe the Plumber, tell his sheeples that he's Oliver Wendell Holmes, and they'll believe him.

 

[Terrell]

At least Judge Judy was actually a judge at one time. I do wonder if Trump will stick to that list he released, or go on his own on the matter. He did say he'd be unpredictable; I guess we should wait and see who he announces. Maybe we'll get lucky & get a Souter.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

At least Judge Judy was actually a judge at one time. I do wonder if Trump will stick to that list he released, or go on his own on the matter. He did say he'd be unpredictable; I guess we should wait and see who he announces. Maybe we'll get lucky & get a Souter.

Or maybe:

 

[bilby]

 

[repoman]

So what about Schumer's plan?

 

[Elixir]

So what about Schumer's plan?

Doomed. It only takes a few Dems from districts where (the appearance of) obstructionism would jeopardize their re-election, and that's the end of that.

 

[Ford]

So what about Schumer's plan?

Mitch "I'm not even going to allow a hearing on Garland" McConnell is pretty angry about the Democrats daring to propose blocking a Supreme Court nominee.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-public-will-not-tolerate-dems-blocking-scotus-pick-n703301

You really can't make this shit up.

 

[ElectEngr]

Have the Senate GOP eliminated the filibuster yet? If so, they will have one party rule.

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[dismal]

Have the Senate GOP eliminated the filibuster yet? If so, they will have one party rule.

Later,
ElectEngr

The Democrats, back when they assumed no Republican would ever be President again, eliminated the filibuster for lower courts and cabinet positions.

The Democrats, way back in October 2016 were still threatening to eliminate it for the Supreme Court -- so you know they're against it on deeply held principle.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again

 

[laughing dog]

Have the Senate GOP eliminated the filibuster yet? If so, they will have one party rule.

Later,
ElectEngr

There are two types of filibusters: the "regular" filibuster, and the procedural filibuster (where someone threatens to filibuster). It is the later that is most frequently used nowadays. Frankly, if the Senate eliminated the procedural filibuster, it would be an improvement IMO.

As it is, I hope the Democrats do argue that since Trump did not get the popular vote, we need to wait for the next President, and then begin a procedural filibuster, thereby leaving the Senate GOP with a conundrum - be hoisted on its own petard and leaving the procedural filibuster or eliminating the procedural filibuster.

 

[laughing dog]

Have the Senate GOP eliminated the filibuster yet? If so, they will have one party rule.

Later,
ElectEngr

The Democrats, back when they assumed no Republican would ever be President again, eliminated the filibuster for lower courts and cabinet positions.

The Democrats, way back in October 2016 were still threatening to eliminate it for the Supreme Court -- so you know they're against it on deeply held principle.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again

This is factually incorrect. There was no removal of any filibuster. The Democrats made it easier to stop a procedural filibuster for those appointments with a majority vote. At no time was an actual filibuster (a Senator keeping the floor via droning on and one) ever eliminated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have the Senate GOP eliminated the filibuster yet? If so, they will have one party rule.

Later,
ElectEngr

The Democrats, back when they assumed no Republican would ever be President again, eliminated the filibuster for lower courts and cabinet positions.

The Democrats, way back in October 2016 were still threatening to eliminate it for the Supreme Court -- so you know they're against it on deeply held principle.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again

No. The Democrats got rid of the filibuster because the Republicans were engaging in pure obstructionism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I mean, the running joke is that he'll nominate Judge Judy, but honestly, he could do worse. And I have a sinking feeling that he will.

Sad thing is he could nominate Joe the Plumber, tell his sheeples that he's Oliver Wendell Holmes, and they'll believe him.

..And some people say he''s not a politician.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sad thing is he could nominate Joe the Plumber, tell his sheeples that he's Oliver Wendell Holmes, and they'll believe him.

..And some people say he''s not a politician.

He is a political idiot that has already been taken advantage of by the leaderships in Taiwan and Pakistan, and currently seems ready to hand Alaska back to Russia.

I mean, the running joke is that he'll nominate Judge Judy, but honestly, he could do worse. And I have a sinking feeling that he will.

Sad thing is he could nominate Joe the Plumber, tell his sheeples that he's Oliver Wendell Holmes, and they'll believe him.

What a complete load. Like either Trump or his political idiot followers know who that guy is.

 

[Elixir]

He is a political idiot that has already been taken advantage of by the leaderships in Taiwan and Pakistan, and currently seems ready to hand Alaska back to Russia.

At least if he does that, nobody in America will be able to see Russia from their HOUSE!