Do you think Democrats should block any of Trump's Supreme Court nominees?

[red dog 1]

Progressive Turnout Project
December 4, 2016

ONE-CLICK INSTANT POLL


For nearly a year, Republicans in the Senate refused to confirm President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

Now, the task of nominating a ninth Supreme Court Justice falls to Donald Trump.

Undoubtedly, he will nominate an extremist.

So we need to know what you think.

Do you think Democrats should BLOCK any of Trump's Supreme Court nominees?

Take the poll yourself:
http://go.turnoutpac.org/Confirm-Supreme-Court-Nominee



(Of course, this poll assumes that Mitch McConnell will ALLOW "Democrats to block any of Trump's Supreme Court nominees," which, imo, is a big assumption)

[apcalc]

1. block ALL

[red dog 1]

6. See option # 1 in the poll,

Do you think Democrats should block any of trump's Supreme Court nominees?

(option # 1)
"Yes! Republicans deserve a taste of their own medicine"

[yeoman6987]

11. If democratic senators block, Mcconnell will use nuclear option

Right now Mcconnell said he won't but I bet he changes him mind. He's a scum.

[elleng]

2. It depends on who he nominates.

'Undoubtedly, he will nominate an extremist' may be true, but wait and see. and remember, Earl Warren was thought to be highly 'conservative,' and 'his' court surprised most with it's 'liberal' nature. Sure as heck surprised President Eisenhower, who had nominated him.

'the so-called Warren Court, which outlawed segregation in public schools and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public school-sponsored prayers, and requiring "one man–one vote" rules of apportionment of election districts. He made the Supreme Court a power center on a more even basis with Congress and the Presidency, especially through four landmark decisions: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966).'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

[red dog 1]

4. The poll provides that option

3rd option:
"It depends on who Trump nominates"

[W_HAMILTON]

3. If he nominates Merrick Garland, I think Democrats should vote for him.

Until then, no, I would filibuster every single one of Trump's nominees, but I wouldn't announce that intention until after the new Senate convenes and the new term's rules are set

[red dog 1]

5. If he nominates Merrick Garland, I'll eat my hat!

[LenaBaby61]

16. I think your hat will be...

SAFE red dog 1

[putitinD]

7. anyone Trump nominates will have Goldman Sachs ties.

[red dog 1]

8. Very likely!

And that hypocrite railed against Hillary Clinton for her "Wall Street" ties, especially her ties to Goldman Sachs.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. All of them, as a matter of policy.

I'm assuming Hell would freeze over before he nominated someone reasonable.

[red dog 1]

10. Good assumption!

[roamer65]

12. All except Merrick Garland.

[earthside]

13. This assumes that the filibuster rule remains as is.

If the Republicans are serious about implementing their agenda, the current filibuster rule will be eliminated and the U.S. Senate will be back to simple majority rule.

Democrats in the Senate may not be able to block anything.

[red dog 1]

15. Yes, I noted that at the bottom of the OP

My guess is that the filibuster rule will be eliminated within the first month of King Donald's reign.

[LenaBaby61]

19. Democrats in the Senate may not be able to block anything....

earthside, is what I FEEL very strongly that what you said will be happening, and McConnell WILL go the majority rule route.

Dems will be sitting there like bumps on pickles (Not that Joe Manchin would ever block tRump's Attila the Hun and worse Supreme Court appointments, because he's a DINO). Meanwhile, the court will be Scaliazed and worse.

We're in for some deep do do the next generation plus, because decisions coming out of a pence/tRump/putin administration will turn the gains this country made domestically and civilly back more than 50 years if not back further than that.

[earthside]

28. Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Nelson ...

There will be plenty of DINOs in the next Senate.

Frankly, I have been in favor of going back to the old filibuster rule since the Democrats last had the majority -- they should have dumped this current system and passed what they wanted.

Hey, it is going to be painful, but I suspect the only way for a liberal-progressive agenda to ever come back is to let the Republicans and Trump really do some damage to working Americans.

[kentuck]

14. They will probably be so extreme that the conservative court moves to the left?

I don't know that the Court can be pushed any further right than they already are?

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. No. Ted Cruz will be a fine justice.

WTF kind of poll is this?

[red dog 1]

20. "Progressive Turnout Project"

http://www.turnoutpac.org

[madokie]

18. Every one of them

[JimBeard]

21. Remember Ted Cruze saying this

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/nov/23/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-long-historical-precedent-smaller-su/

Ted Cruz says 'long historical precedent' for smaller Supreme CourtTed Cruz says 'long historical precedent' for smaller Supreme Court

Before Republican Donald Trump bested Hillary Clinton for president, Sen. Ted Cruz sparked a fresh line of speculation when he hinted that the Senate in 2017 might not even vote to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Texas Republican, an attorney and former Supreme Court clerk who went on to represent Texas before the court, asserted that the court’s current composition of eight justices -- following the February 2016 death in Texas of Justice Antonin Scalia -- was consistent with other times the court had fewer than nine members.

Cruz, addressing an October 2016 campaign rally for Darryl Glenn, the Republican U.S. Senate nominee in Colorado, said: "There is certainly a long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with few justices."

We asked Cruz’s Senate office what he meant by a court with fewer than nine justices. Did a specific historical period back his claim? By email, Cruz spokesman Phil Novack didn’t offer detail, saying instead: "The key here is that Cruz said there is time to debate the issue."

Speaking of debate, we spotted objections from two justices to the court not regaining a member. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in May 2016 that eight members "is not a good number for a multimember court." In September 2016, Justice Elena Kagan opined that an eight-member court would become a "problem" over time because of the potential for tie votes, according to a U.S. News & World Report news story.

[red dog 1]

35. Well, it won't be 8 members for long,

I'm sure Trump the Chump will name his pick for the Supreme Court as soon as he's POTUS, and it won't take long for his GOP Senate to confirm his choice...Dem filibuster won't stop him, imo.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. Block every one of them.

[Runningdawg]

23. All of them!

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

24. YES!

`

[Retrograde]

25. If they're of the same caliber as his cabinet nominees

this is a no-brainer: of course the Democratic senators will vote on the nominees' (lack of) merit.

[JimBeard]

34. Or lack of guts to vote against their nominee.

[Afromania]

26. sure

If They are as ridiculous as his cabinet picks I sure hope to hell they do.

[Alekzander]

27. Most definitely if they can do it.

[cabot]

29. He lost the popular vote by nearly three million

It is obvious the people don't want him...so yes. They should block any and every vote they can. I personally think the Democrats should show Il Douche the same respect that the repukes showed towards Obama.

[benld74]

30. ALL

[pansypoo53219]

31. after obama's treatment. BE PARTISAN.

THIS IS WAR FOR AMERICA.

[DonCoquixote]

32. we should be five times worse

then they were to us...obstruct obstruct obstruct

[MFM008]

33. ALL OF THEM

And maggot can piss up a tree.