Unfortunately you are correct. Barry and all his end arounds on the constitution made this so. I like the nomination but I don't like the way it was done.
We can debate that all day. The GOP filibustered more lower court Obama nominations than all other Presidents combined. I'm not saying all of them were good choices but that was unprecented and none of them were lifetime appointments. I was really hoping a few democrats would have stepped up and not blocked Gorsuch so these rules wouldn't have been changed and at the same time I would have hoped a few republican senators would have stepped up and not gone for the nuclear option but it's clear that Washington is full of a bunch of partisan dickheads on both sides of the aisle.
No they didn't, the only appointment he didn't get was the last one. It is baffling the way you make these claims repeatedly yet Barry literally got everything he wanted pushed through with almost no resistance at all. Why do you think everyone is so upset with crying John and granny mconnel
I didn't say anything about Garland. He didn't even get a vote. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/ Harry Reid definitely shares some of the blame for changing the rules for the the lower court nominations, he basically gave McConnel the ammunition he needed to change the rules again. What's going to suck is when they change the rules for all legislation.
LaSalle EVERY federal court appointment is a lifetime appointment. The back and forth tit for tat between the Rs and Ds has been going on since Bork in some ways. However the three most liberal appointments since FDR Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan were not only were not filibustered but passed by large republican support in spite of their political ideology and in the case of Kagan questionable qualifications. The hypocrisy of the democrats is they couldn't be honest and say they were pissed about Garland (for the most part) but had to make Gorsuch seem so far out of touch he was dangerous. They used a lie that is potentially damaging to jurisprudence. Corporations have been treated in the law as people for 200 years. That is how they operate in the law. If they weren't you would have to sue every shareholder individually. rather than one suit you may have millions. Should you like to be sued for what a company whose stock you owned was accused of? Would you spend your share of the time in jail if the company was convicted of an felony? No one shined or stood out here and pointing fingers doesn't get anywhere. Both sides need to grow up.
I'm pointing fingers at all of them. Republicans and Democrats. And mark my words, the 60 vote majority rule for legislation will be changed as well, it's a dead rule walking.
60 vote rule was never intended by the constitution this was changed by the libtards to get what they want. Fuck the democrats they have all become marxist totalitarians they cant be trusted with any positions of power anymore.
I get what you are saying but the same holds true for the right wing as well. They are all the same just different shades of crooked
Had to expect that the new Supreme Court Justice would be a conservative, I prefer that actually, which may surprise you,.. Gorsuch seems like a good choice,.. though, I too dislike the way he was confirmed. The ruling party in Congress needs some sort of check, the 60 vote rule is a good thing,.. prevents yo-yo law making, (where each succeeding majority undoes the previous party's legislations). Special interest influence, created and sustains our do-nothing congress, it's not the 60 vote rule's fault.
I would hope the folks on this forum would agree with you considering they are staunch electoral college supporters. I believe their reasoning was something to do with mob rule and we shouldn't side with a majority or something like that.
