General Discussion

kentuck

(115,313 posts)

33. I think it could have been argued that it was obstructed....

Wed Mar 29, 2017, 05:21 PM

Mar 2017

and not addressed in a judicial amount of time. You are correct that the Constitution does not put a time limit on a judge's nomination.

So, if that is the case, there is no time limit for the Democrats to take up the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, right?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I don't understand the argument about saving the "filibuster" for the next SC nomination?? [View all] kentuck Mar 2017 OP

Don't look at me! old guy Mar 2017 #1

They will just "go nuclear" then. There's nothing to be gained by surrendering now. fight! SharonAnn Mar 2017 #41

The thinking is that it would force the next appointee to be moderate. Qutzupalotl Mar 2017 #2

I sure can't Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #3

Thanks for your question. I don't understand it either. janx Mar 2017 #4

The nuclear option has existed for decades. Filibusters have taken place anyway. pnwmom Mar 2017 #13

Apart from Abe Fortas, when was a Supreme Court nomination the subject of a filibuster? onenote Mar 2017 #18

Robert Bork. n/t pnwmom Mar 2017 #21

Bork was not filibustered. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #24

No, he withdrew before he could be filibustered. Crying about how unfair the process was. haele Mar 2017 #25

He did not widthraw his nomination. The full Senate voted on it and he was rejected 58-42. PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #29

I stand corrected... haele Mar 2017 #31

I agree with you metroins Mar 2017 #5

Chuck is trying to play chess Yupster Mar 2017 #46

Yes, it is a bullshit argument with no real merit being peddled by the media, who's corporate JCanete Mar 2017 #6

It's a bullshit argument Xipe Totec Mar 2017 #7

Exactly! kentuck Mar 2017 #10

I can't explain it because I think it's foolish! femmocrat Mar 2017 #8

It is past time to call the republicans on ALL their bullshit Angry Dragon Mar 2017 #9

Chuck seems to be trying to help the Republicans nt Progressive dog Mar 2017 #11

You mean "keep their poweder dry?" Warpy Mar 2017 #12

They only need 60 votes to stop debate... kentuck Mar 2017 #15

Here's what I understaned it to be onenote Mar 2017 #14

As if the balance wasn't shifted with Scalia? kentuck Mar 2017 #19

I don't agree with the "logic" gratuitous Mar 2017 #16

Since they unconstitutionally blocked Merrick Garland... kentuck Mar 2017 #20

Or just insist on Garland himself gratuitous Mar 2017 #23

It wasn't unconstitutional, which is why the Obama administration didn't challenge it... PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #26

I think it could have been argued that it was obstructed.... kentuck Mar 2017 #33

Right. The problem for the Democrats is that the Republicans have a 52 senators and don't really... PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #34

Good point! kentuck Mar 2017 #39

There is no merit at all to that argument. denverbill Mar 2017 #17

Gorsuch was picked as a somewhat centrist choice vs Scalia HoneyBadger Mar 2017 #22

Gorsuch isn't centerist. He's a genial Corporatist who lives in the pocket of the Heritage Jerks. haele Mar 2017 #27

Gorsuch won't be replaced he'd just be confirmed with 50+ votes if they go nuclear. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #28

Because the POTUS is not allowed to withdraw a nominee HoneyBadger Mar 2017 #35

A nomination can certainly be withdrawn at any time, it just isn't going to happen in the Gorsuch PoliticAverse Mar 2017 #37

To the right of Scalia is what they really want HoneyBadger Mar 2017 #44

If Merrick Garland had been seated on the SCOTUS and Gorsuch was nominated next Freethinker65 Mar 2017 #30

Make them nominate a moderate HootieMcBoob Mar 2017 #32

Not going to happen. They'll go nuclear before they allow themselves to be defeated by the Democrats onenote Mar 2017 #48

There's no guarantee that if the Democrats held off this OnDoutside Mar 2017 #36

Mike Malloy had the same idea crappyjazz Mar 2017 #38

Rs need 50 votes to go nuclear...call the bluff moflower Mar 2017 #40

There is no conceivable way the repubs don't go nuclear if that's what it takes to confirm Gorsuch. onenote Mar 2017 #47

a filibuster that can be dismantled anytime by a majority vote is no filibuster at all 0rganism Mar 2017 #42

Idiotic argument for many reasons. drray23 Mar 2017 #43

The explanation for this is: propaganda... Talk Is Cheap Mar 2017 #45