I mean, is this post a joke?
Republicans literally just did this to Obama. The power clearly exists. I know you think it was bad to use it but it got used. Unilateral disarmament is not a good strategy.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I mean, is this post a joke?
Republicans literally just did this to Obama. The power clearly exists. I know you think it was bad to use it but it got used. Unilateral disarmament is not a good strategy.
Umm, no they didn't.I mean, is this post a joke?
Republicans literally just did this to Obama. The power clearly exists.
Obama did nominate a SC Justice.
The Democrats should fight this nomination tooth and nail. They won't. The Republicans should not have been rewarded with majorities in the House and Senate plus the presidency for shirking their duties for the last 8 years but they were. I don't care if it's poor decorum. Fuck Gorsuch.
What oath do you think I took?
And I find your arguments incredibly insulting, from comparing my position to the Munich agreement, to saying I do not defend the Constitution. Please dial it back.
Since I remember you working in government during Obama's administration, and you say you were in DC, but now you're clearly not, I assume you worked in the executive branch somewhere. My understanding was that all employees in the executive branch take the oath of office, but I could be wrong.
As to my message board comity, if I seem insulting please consider that a measure of my resolve. I spend a lot of time yelling at people that the mainstream "corporate" Democrats do understand the necessity of action and represent our best hope for progressive success and defense of liberty in the age of Trump. This conversation is leaving me gravely concerned that your perspective may be representative of professional Democrats in DC, which would pretty much make me a liar. This is not a time to pretend that this is the West Wing and what's important is putting the interests of government and the peaceful transition of power first. To be utterly clear -- any Democrats who believe that should get out of DC, and I'm happy to give money to make that point.
The Democrats don't work for the government agencies. They work for America. It's time to stop negotiating with terrorists.
I find your rhetoric as terrifying as you find mine.Since I remember you working in government during Obama's administration, and you say you were in DC, but now you're clearly not, I assume you worked in the executive branch somewhere. My understanding was that all employees in the executive branch take the oath of office, but I could be wrong.
As to my message board comity, if I seem insulting please consider that a measure of my resolve. I spend a lot of time yelling at people that the mainstream "corporate" Democrats do understand the necessity of action and represent our best hope for progressive success and defense of liberty in the age of Trump. This conversation is leaving me gravely concerned that your perspective may be representative of professional Democrats in DC, which would pretty much make me a liar. This is not a time to pretend that this is the West Wing and what's important is putting the interests of government and the peaceful transition of power first. To be utterly clear -- any Democrats who believe that should get out of DC, and I'm happy to give money to make that point.
The Democrats don't work for the government agencies. They work for America. It's time to stop negotiating with terrorists.
I find your rhetoric as terrifying as you find mine.
It's not rhetoric. I have a pretty strong personal interest in not having white supremacists take over the American government. I expect the people in government who represent me to share that interest. If they don't, they aren't much good to me.
I have just as much an interest in that as you do. Again, the idea that I care less than you do, or my convictions are weaker, are baseless and offensive.It's not rhetoric. I have a pretty strong personal interest in not having white supremacists take over the American government. I expect the people in government who represent me to share that interest. If they don't, they aren't much good to me.
I have just as much an interest in that as you do. Again, the idea that I care less than you do, or my convictions are weaker, are baseless and offensive.
I can only go by your statements! If you oppose white supremacy as much as I do maybe stop advocating for going along with it in the interests of keeping government functioning.
I would never go along with it. Has Gorsuch made statements in support of white supremacy? Is he a member of the Klan? If he has, if he has specific policy beliefs that you think disqualify him for the office, that's one thing.I can only go by your statements! If you oppose white supremacy as much as I do maybe stop advocating for going along with it in the interests of keeping government functioning.
I haven't even said anywhere in this thread that I support his appointment. My entire argument is opposing it for the sake of opposing it, or because Trump nominated him, isnt enough. Trying to make government policy out of spite is wrong, no matter who is doing it.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Gorsuch has been nominated to the Supreme Court by Trump, a white supremacist and fascist. Trump views him as in sync with his views. Republicans view him as an excellent replacement for Scalia, who, among many other things, gutted the Voting Rights Act, a piece of legislation designed to protect the right to vote of people of color.I would never go along with it. Has Gorsuch made statements in support of white supremacy? Is he a member of the Klan? If he has, if he has specific policy beliefs that you think disqualify him for the office, that's one thing.
I haven't even said anywhere in this thread that I support his appointment. My entire argument is opposing it for the sake of opposing it, or because Trump nominated him, isnt enough. Trying to make government policy out of spite is wrong, no matter who is doing it.
He doesn't have to say racist things to be a tool and weapon of people who are white supremacists.
So, you think that Gorsuch hasn't done anything to be barred from the office?Gorsuch has been nominated to the Supreme Court by Trump, a white supremacist and fascist. Trump views him as in sync with his views. Republicans view him as an excellent replacement for Scalia, who, among many other things, gutted the Voting Rights Act, a piece of legislation designed to protect the right to vote of people of color.
He doesn't have to say racist things to be a tool and weapon of people who are white supremacists.
I would never go along with it. Has Gorsuch made statements in support of white supremacy? Is he a member of the Klan? If he has, if he has specific policy beliefs that you think disqualify him for the office, that's one thing.
The Republican Party, by virtue of being led by a white supremacist and existing to support and enable that white supremacist, is a white supremacist organization.
A judge who belongs to a white supremacist organization is clearly not an appropriate candidate to place on the Supreme Court.
Trying to make government policy out of spite is wrong, no matter who is doing it.
Spite is just you making a value judgement. Obviously I agree that policy should not be driven by spite. It should be driven by clear goals. Establishing clear boundaries is a goal. Adhering to existing norms, such as requiring a Senate supermajority to confirm any Supreme Court justice regardless of positions or ideology, is also a goal. Stopping a white supremacist organization from nominating justices to the Supreme Court is also a goal. None of these are spite.
Lord Frieza
Member
Deomcrats blocking this isn't them being obstructionist. They are doing their jobs. Dude is a shit pick who has made a lot of dubious decisions and had a lot of starchly conservative views sociallly. The fact that people equate Dems doing what they can to block this shitty pick to what the GOP did to Garland is really fucking sickening
If you view the entirety of the Republican Party as a white supremacist organization, and any cooperation with them in any issue is supporting white supremacy, then I don't see the purpose of continuing this conversation. You obviously seem to want a complete government shutdown.The Republican Party, by virtue of being led by a white supremacist and existing to support and enable that white supremacist, is a white supremacist organization.
A judge who belongs to a white supremacist organization is clearly not an appropriate candidate to place on the Supreme Court.
Spite is just you making a value judgement. Obviously I agree that policy should not be driven by spite. It should be driven by clear goals. Establishing clear boundaries is a goal. Adhering to existing norms, such as requiring a Senate supermajority to confirm any Supreme Court justice regardless of positions or ideology, is also a goal. Stopping a white supremacist organization from nominating justices to the Supreme Court is also a goal. None of these are spite.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
The fact that Trump and the GOP find him to be a strong candidate should be inherently disqualifying.So, you think that Gorsuch hasn't done anything to be barred from the office?
He very well might be. But "being conservative" in and of itself really isn't a reason not to let someone on the SC. Republicans are in power now, they get to nominate, so the judge will be conservative. If there is something egregious about them, that's another matter.Deomcrats blocking this isn't them being obstructionist. They are doing their jobs. Dude is a shit pick who has made a lot of dubious decisions and had a lot of starchly conservative views sociallly. The fact that people equate Dems doing what they can to block this shitty pick to what the GOP did to Garland is really fucking sickening
Frankly, yes I hate that he is getting on the SC over Garland or so many other options, but I also acknowledge there are worse options out there too.
Well, that's not how the US government works. That they like him certainly makes him disagreeable to me though.The fact that Trump and the GOP find him to be a strong candidate should be inherently disqualifying.
Lord Frieza
Member
He very well might be. But "being conservative" in and of itself really isn't a reason not to let someone on the SC. Republicans are in power now, they get to nominate, so the judge will be conservative. If there is something egregious about them, that's another matter.
Frankly, yes I hate that he is getting on the SC over Garland or so many other options, but I also acknowledge there are worse options out there too.
I like how you cherry-picked just conservative out of what I said as if that's purely the issue.
I wasn't trying to cherry pick, or argue against you. I started my post by saying you could be right. I then moved on to make a more general statement.I like how you cherry-picked just conservative out of what I said as if that's purely the issue.
If you view the entirety of the Republican Party as a white supremacist organization, and any cooperation with them in any issue is supporting white supremacy, then I don't see the purpose of continuing this conversation. You obviously seem to want a complete government shutdown.
I mean, it might be useful to continue the conversation so that you can understand what the Democratic Party should be doing to represent the American people! Maybe you can tell your friends.
Alternately, if you think my logic is wrong, feel free to explain why the GOP is not a white supremacist organization. It's a pretty brief syllogism! Should be easy to poke holes.
Well, I don't agree with your position on many issues, so I won't be advocating them. I don't want to turn the Democratic Party into the Left version of the Tea Party.I mean, it might be useful to continue the conversation so that you can understand what the Democratic Party should be doing to represent the American people! Maybe you can tell your friends.
Alternately, if you think my logic is wrong, feel free to explain why the GOP is not a white supremacist organization. It's a pretty brief syllogism! Should be easy to poke holes.
As for if the GOP is or is not a white supremacist organization, frankly no it's not. But it certainly can act like it at times, and has members (high ranking members) that would qualify as such.
But either way, the GOP represents a large portion of the American people, and the American people have given them control of the government. That is the reality that we unfortunately need to work with, and do as much good as possible.
Lord Frieza
Member
I wasn't trying to cherry pick, or argue against you. I started my post by saying you could be right. I then moved on to make a more general statement.
Oh please, you very clearly zeroed in on a single part of my post as if that's the main problem. His dubious record of siding with corporations over people even in extreme cases, such as the frozen trucker case, his pro-fascist high school club, his bullshit views on women in the work place and his Scalia-echoing of intrepretating of the Constitiution as it was first written as if things haven't changed in nearly 400 goddamn years are all things anyone even remotely left leaning should see as worth fighting for tooth and nail. This is a hill very well worth dying for.
If you don't see that, you are eitber way more right leaning than you're trying to put on, or you really have no idea just how shitty this guy is.
1. Don't call me right-leaning. It sickens me.Oh please, you very clearly zeroed in on a single part of my post as if that's the main problem. His dubious record of siding with corporations over people even in extreme cases, such as the frozen trucker case, his pro-fascist high school club, his bullshit views on women in the work place and his Scalia-echoing of intrepretating of the Constitiution as it was first written as if things haven't changed in nearly 400 goddamn years are all things anyone even remotely left leaning should see as worth fighting for tooth and nail. This is a hill very well worth dying for.
If you don't see that, you are eitber way more right leaning than you're trying to put on, or you really have no idea just how shitty this guy is.
2. Your post had two main points about Gorsuch, those being "dubious" decisions and conservative social views. I said you could be right, and then I moved into a larger point about the fact that whoever we get will be conservative, and at some point we need to make peace with that.
I am not fighting with you, I don't know why you are insisting I am.
Lord Frieza
Member
1. Don't call me right-leaning. It sickens me.
And it sickens me that you and others are so willing to just have Dems lay down for this piece of shit, and have any nerve to compare blocking this to anything remotely like what the GOP did with Garland.
2. Your post had two main points about Gorsuch, those being "dubious" decisions and conservative social views. I said you could be right, and then I moved into a larger point about the fact that whoever we get will be conservative, and at some point we need to make peace with that.
I am not fighting with you, I don't know why you are insisting I am.
Bruh, we all see what you're arguing here.
And it sickens me that you and others are so willing to just have Dems lay down for this piece of shit, and have any nerve to compare blocking this to anything remotely like what the GOP did with Garland.
I never said lay down. My ONLY point has been that dismissing him simply because of who nominated him is wrong.
I have never even said I support him! I don't!
Bruh, we all see what you're arguing here.
And what exactly is that?
Lord Frieza
Member
Whatever. Just fuck it
No, please. I would really like to know what it is I'm really arguing. Should be enlightening.Whatever. Just fuck it
Well, I don't agree with your position on many issues, so I won't be advocating them. I don't want to turn the Democratic Party into the Left version of the Tea Party.
Neither do I. I just want the Democratic Party to act like it opposes white supremacy. If it can't do that, there isn't really any reason for me to vote for it.
I note that you're the one who asserted that you feel just as strongly about white supremacy as I do, and despite that you then went on to say that the Democratic Party should work together with the GOP despite admitting that it contains many white supremacists and acts like a white supremacist organization. And apparently if I don't agree with you about this I'm a Tea Partier! You don't seem to have a very big tent here.
As for if the GOP is or is not a white supremacist organization, frankly no it's not. But it certainly can act like it at times, and has members (high ranking members) that would qualify as such.
So why isn't it, then? Maybe some argument would be useful in convincing people.
But either way, the GOP represents a large portion of the American people, and the American people have given them control of the government. That is the reality that we unfortunately need to work with, and do as much good as possible.
"Either way" is doing a lot of normalization work here. If the GOP is a white supremacist organization, it is clearly irrelevant whether the American people have given them control of the government or not. A white supremacist party has no legitimate claim to governance. We settled that at Gettysburg.
More personally, a party which has no interest in defending my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness clearly has no authority to rule over me. That's also a long-settled question in America as I understand it!
So it's very much not clear to me that trying to "work with" it is the right idea. In fact, I hope very strongly that most Democrats don't agree with you, for my sake, for America's sake, and for the sake of the Democratic Party.
I don't have time to respond to all of this properly (not to be rude, just actually need to go to bed), but just quickly:Neither do I. I just want the Democratic Party to act like it opposes white supremacy. If it can't do that, there isn't really any reason for me to vote for it.
I note that you're the one who asserted that you feel just as strongly about white supremacy as I do, and despite that you then went on to say that the Democratic Party should work together with the GOP despite admitting that it contains many white supremacists and acts like a white supremacist organization. And apparently if I don't agree with you about this I'm a Tea Partier! You don't seem to have a very big tent here.
So why isn't it, then? Maybe some argument would be useful in convincing people.
"Either way" is doing a lot of normalization work here. If the GOP is a white supremacist organization, it is clearly irrelevant whether the American people have given them control of the government or not. A white supremacist party has no legitimate claim to governance. We settled that at Gettysburg.
More personally, a party which has no interest in defending my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness clearly has no authority to rule over me. That's also a long-settled question in America as I understand it!
So it's very much not clear to me that trying to "work with" it is the right idea. In fact, I hope very strongly that most Democrats don't agree with you, for my sake, for America's sake, and for the sake of the Democratic Party.
1. Obstruction for obstruction's sake is a Tea Party trait that I do not want to spread to the Democratic Party.
2. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party also contains white supremacist. So does essentially every large organization in the western world.
3. A white supremacist party would, theoretically, have a legitimate claim to governance if so elected. That's not what the Civil War was about. Being a white supremacist and advocating for that is every American's right. Actually putting white supremacist philosophy into law, on the other hand, is where legal limits (thankfully) come into play.
4. I hate that Trump is the President. I hate that Republicans control the federal and most of the state governments. It makes me sick. And it is something to fight. I have spent much of my professional life doing just that. And I will come continue. But I have a real problem with the fact that me saying "but the government still needs to function guys" somehow makes me the enemy, or uncommitted, or weak. That's not a fair characterization, and it's not productive.
I care about this country, and I have put my money where my mouth is on the front for years.
Matt, I do want to apologize because it's not personal -- I've always liked you as a poster and I absolutely believe that you personally hate white supremacy and that you've worked hard to make America a better place.
I feel very strongly that the position you're taking here is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong, both for America, whose institutions and norms are not necessarily strong enough to withstand the concerted pressure that Trump is putting on them, and for the Democratic Party, which faces a moral crisis in the age of Trump and needs to make sure it doesn't bow to the pressure to normalize white supremacy to try to win elections. It's not a reflection on you personally.
I feel very strongly that the position you're taking here is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong, both for America, whose institutions and norms are not necessarily strong enough to withstand the concerted pressure that Trump is putting on them, and for the Democratic Party, which faces a moral crisis in the age of Trump and needs to make sure it doesn't bow to the pressure to normalize white supremacy to try to win elections. It's not a reflection on you personally.
Future PhaZe
Member
I really don't understand why you wouldn't force the nuclear option. Let them own that precedent along with all the others that Trump is setting so that after his shitty presidency we get a dem in there with the same power with the interest to use it. It'll be 08 again except with hopefully someone with the stones to throw that bipartisan shit out the window and take full advantage of the precedents the Republicans have set during this cycle.
nitekrawlwer
Member
"The FBI Director testified @realDonaldTrump's campaign is under investigation for collusion w/ Russia. Lifetime court appointments can wait."
"But is the Senate really going to pretend there's no cloud over @realDonaldTrump & move on w/ the Gorsuch nomination like things are normal?"
"Neil Gorsuch is up for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court from a President whose campaign is under FBI investigation."
It does seem that Senator Warren definitely shares a bit of the sentiment that we shouldn't be allowing a President under investigation for collusion with a foreign government to make appointments.
"But is the Senate really going to pretend there's no cloud over @realDonaldTrump & move on w/ the Gorsuch nomination like things are normal?"
"Neil Gorsuch is up for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court from a President whose campaign is under FBI investigation."
It does seem that Senator Warren definitely shares a bit of the sentiment that we shouldn't be allowing a President under investigation for collusion with a foreign government to make appointments.
This is one of the biggest Ls in political history, no joke. How could the Democratic leadership let this happen? Gorsuch is humiliating Dem politicians left and right, and they have to continue to embarrass themselves because their base understandably sees their SC seat as having been stolen. The truth is, Gorsuch is qualified for the seat and he will get it, and it's all because the Dem leadership (including Obama) got outfoxxed badly by the GOP. Right now we're sore losers, not the righteously aggrieved party.
This is one of the biggest Ls in political history, no joke. How could the Democratic leadership let this happen? Gorsuch is humiliating Dem politicians left and right, and they have to continue to embarrass themselves because their base understandably sees their SC seat as having been stolen. The truth is, Gorsuch is qualified for the seat and he will get it, and it's all because the Dem leadership (including Obama) got outfoxxed badly by the GOP. Right now we're sore losers, not the righteously aggrieved party.
Not sure I understand. Democratic or lean Dem voters share equal if not greater blame. They didn't think the SC mattered enough in November. The butt-hurt Bernie voters, the liberal voters who stayed at home, the write-in voters etc. They're all to blame for this. Gorsuch should rightfully get confirmed, balance of the court would still be intact. We missed our opportunity to swing it left, got to live with it.
Democrats seem pretty fucked here.
You can't really complain about dysfunctional republican tactics then do the same thing yourself. Do your job and you validate republican tactics work.
Would have been real nice to win that election.
He very well might be. But "being conservative" in and of itself really isn't a reason not to let someone on the SC. Republicans are in power now, they get to nominate, so the judge will be conservative. If there is something egregious about them, that's another matter.
Frankly, yes I hate that he is getting on the SC over Garland or so many other options, but I also acknowledge there are worse options out there too.
This is one of the biggest Ls in political history, no joke. How could the Democratic leadership let this happen? Gorsuch is humiliating Dem politicians left and right, and they have to continue to embarrass themselves because their base understandably sees their SC seat as having been stolen. The truth is, Gorsuch is qualified for the seat and he will get it, and it's all because the Dem leadership (including Obama) got outfoxxed badly by the GOP. Right now we're sore losers, not the righteously aggrieved party.
Great posts.
The GOP played their cards right last year, and Gorsuch is going to get confirmed. There's really nothing Dems can do but hold the L.
This has been building since 2010.
Future PhaZe
Member
This is one of the biggest Ls in political history, no joke. How could the Democratic leadership let this happen? Gorsuch is humiliating Dem politicians left and right, and they have to continue to embarrass themselves because their base understandably sees their SC seat as having been stolen. The truth is, Gorsuch is qualified for the seat and he will get it, and it's all because the Dem leadership (including Obama) got outfoxxed badly by the GOP. Right now we're sore losers, not the righteously aggrieved party.
I mean the hard shelling of Gorsuch is rather pointless I agree. This aint about him. Just force them to fillibuster. There's no reason why you shouldn't force them to do it.
I would never go along with it. Has Gorsuch made statements in support of white supremacy? Is he a member of the Klan? If he has, if he has specific policy beliefs that you think disqualify him for the office, that's one thing.
Putting Gorsuch aside, if making statements in support of white supremacy (not sure how literally that's meant to be; something like, "I support white supremacy"?) and KKK membership are your two biggest litmus tests for determining who is and isn't a white supremacist, I believe you're gonna be blind to lot of real white supremacy.
This is one of the biggest Ls in political history, no joke. How could the Democratic leadership let this happen? Gorsuch is humiliating Dem politicians left and right, and they have to continue to embarrass themselves because their base understandably sees their SC seat as having been stolen. The truth is, Gorsuch is qualified for the seat and he will get it, and it's all because the Dem leadership (including Obama) got outfoxxed badly by the GOP. Right now we're sore losers, not the righteously aggrieved party.
The mental hoops that some posters will jump through to pin the blame for anything and everything on the Democrats is pretty astounding. Particularly when they have no power here.
Democrats are going to be thinking about optics and other political moves, but personally I want them to do everything in their power to keep Gorsuch from being confirmed. I feel like it's dangerous to allow a likely traitor to place someone in such an important and permanent position.
Putting Gorsuch aside, if making statements in support of white supremacy (not sure how literally that's meant to be; something like, "I support white supremacy"?) and KKK membership are your two biggest litmus tests for determining who is and isn't a white supremacist, I believe you're gonna be blind to lot of real white supremacy.
The mental hoops that some posters will jump through to pin the blame for anything and everything on the Democrats is pretty astounding. Particularly when they have no power here.
The will to power is a hell of a drug.
Democrats are going to be thinking about optics and other political moves, but personally I want them to do everything in their power to keep Gorsuch from being confirmed. I feel like it's dangerous to allow a likely traitor to place someone in such an important and permanent position.
And keep the SC at 8 justices indefinitely, why? To force them to go nuclear? I don't really see the end goal here, Trump is president. This is the cost of shitting the bed on election day. Not only at the presidential level but also in the senate. The ball was dropped hard.
Is Gorsuch going to be confirmed?Great posts.
The GOP played their cards right last year, and Gorsuch is going to get confirmed. There's really nothing Dems can do but hold the L.
This has been building since 2010.
One way or another, yeah. There's no avoiding it. The Progressives who didn't vote for Clinton in Wi, Mi and Pa saw to that.
But there's definitely something Democrats can do. It's fighting it and showing they have a spine, if for the sake of morale alone.
Then, we can all pray (even the non religious) for our SCOTUs's to be healthy until at least 2018.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
And keep the SC at 8 justices indefinitely, why? To force them to go nuclear? I don't really see the end goal here, Trump is president. This is the cost of shitting the bed on election day. Not only at the presidential level but also in the senate. The ball was dropped hard.
No this is the cost of Republicans denying Obama the constitutional duty of placing a nominee in the supreme court. If they'd denied Garland on grounds of him being unsuitable (he isn't, but humour me) then fine. If Scalia had died under Trump then fine. But Republicans stole the seat. Democrats should not acquiesce and give up the seat they were democratically granted.
Democrats seem pretty fucked here.
You can't really complain about dysfunctional republican tactics then do the same thing yourself.
Sure you can. The electorate doesn't care about hypocrisy.
And keep the SC at 8 justices indefinitely, why? To force them to go nuclear? I don't really see the end goal here.
Yes. If McConnell wants to confirm this guy, make him nuke the filibuster, if he even can.
Fenderputty
Banned
I mean, at least try and obstruct Gorsuch until after the 4-4 SCOTUS hears the WI gerrymandering case. Shit should be a lock at 4-4 sealing the WI court order.
Grizzle_Dat
Banned
He has to vote no to please the base. Gorsuch is going to pass with 60, there is no way Schumer wants the GOP to push the button while there is a chance Trump could have another pick during his term.
Future PhaZe
Member
Dems to filibuster via Wash Post
yesssss please be true
yesssss please be true
He has to vote no to please the base. Gorsuch is going to pass with 60, there is no way Schumer wants the GOP to push the button while there is a chance Trump could have another pick during his term.
and then what, they go nuclear anyway? they should absolutely filibuster now.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.