Considering he’s already said his government should let its citizens die for the sake of his ideology I’m betting he’ll say yes, and be wrong about it.
Oh yeah, that wise and thoughtful president who so deeply cares about the rule of law and carefully and knowledgeably makes every decision. :rolleyes:
Today will be a day long remembered. It has seen the retirement of Kennedy and will soon see the end of the Rebellion.
Are you saying Trump will go the way of Tarkin shortly after he said this?
(post shortened)
It was that evil little shit Hairy Reid who first used the so-called nuclear option to skirt the Senate’s 60-vote requirement.
On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted 52–48, with all Republicans and three Democrats voting against, to rule that “the vote on cloture under Rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote,”[31] even though the text of the rule requires “three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn” to end debate.[32] This ruling’s precedent eliminated the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster against all executive branch nominees and judicial nominees other than to the Supreme Court.
Of course, elections have consequences. Republicans chose to extend Hairy Reid’s action to include the Supremes, after the voters gave control of the Senate back to the Republicans.
*The nuclear option (or constitutional option) is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate – by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.
This procedure effectively allows the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules such as Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term “nuclear option” is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.
In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans used the nuclear option to eliminate the exception for Supreme Court nominees, after the nomination of Neil Gorsuch failed to meet the requirement of 60 votes for ending the debate.[1][2]
As of January 2018, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation*.
In other words, thanks to the self-serving effort of that evil little shit Hairy Reid, the Democrats have absolutely no hope of derailing Trump’s next Supreme Court selection.
Not sure if I’m going with:
“At least Tarkin got his infrastructure project funded.”
or
“Mr Trump, I worked with Wil Tarkin. I knew Wil Tarkin. Wil Tarkin was a friend of mine. Mr President, you are no Wil Tarkin.”
.
Because after all, it’s not like women are *human. *They’re just breeding animals for any man who cares to hold one down and rape her, right?
That’s not a Constitutional argument. It’s an argument about what the best policy would be.
I think murder is terrible, but I don’t favor a generalized federal crime of murder. Murder is proscribed by state laws, unless there’s some federal nexus.
But I don’t say that because I believe that people are not human.
Do you see the distinction?
You are a known right winger, which means you want to hurt women as much as you possibly can. Everything else is meaningless handwaving.
You certainly cannot be blamed for generalizing Trump’s flailing in most areas and predicting similar flailing.
Except – I know that Trump’s judicial nominees have been largely excellent. Not, I agree, because of Trump’s wise and thoughtful approach. But because (apparently accidentally) this seems to be an area he’s listened to prudent guidance from people who are wise and thoughtful.
It hasn’t been 100%, of course. Matthew Peterson is a good example of an unqualified Trump nominee.
But on the whole, in this area I think Trump’s record is very good. And based on that historical record, I made my prediction.
This, too, does not address the argument.
As a known right-winger, I also favor a policy of not hitting myself in the head with a cudgel, and of drinking water when thirsty. But this does not mean that wise people, learning this, should hit themselves on the head and avoid water when thirsty.
Gorsuch is garbage and most likely going to look amazing compared to the garbage+ that will be nominated next. The kind of person who would accept a nomination from Trump, no matter how prestigious, is not the kind of person I want ruling on the almost-certain upcoming SC cases involving the Mueller investigation.
Wonder if Trump will be digging into prospective jurors opinions regarding indicting a sitting president.
Would that come before or after the loyalty oath?
Because the argument is meaningless. As a conservative your goal is to hurt women; any argument you make is handwaving designed to further that goal.
He only did that after the Republicans interpreted “advise and consent” as “We will advise and consent to any judicial nominees other than those nominated by President Obama.”
The idea that someone would turn down a nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States just because it came from DJT is silly.
I expect him to appoint lots of piece of shit racist, fascist money grubbing toadies, just as bad as he is -at all levels…
I stand by what I said. This is gonna be a disaster.
Invoke the “Mcconnell Rule” No judges til after the elections. Fuck him and McConnell.
They would if they could, but they can’t, so they won’t.
Yeah, McConnell is immune to hypocrisy shaming. They’re going to have to find another way to delay the vote. Maybe if a million women in Handmaid costumes jammed the halls of Congress.