And what in Bork’s writings suggested he favored Bull Connor breaking down citizen’s doors in midnight raids?
Technically, there’s 30 hours of debate before a final vote (around 7:00 pm tomorrow) on Gorsuch’s nomination, but I don’t think there’s much doubt about what the final result will be.
55:45 (possibly 56:44) confirmation for Gorsuch is coming. “Bipartisan” confirmation, I may add 
I’ll drink to that. Having a filibuster for Supreme Court nominations was pointless, since it was almost never used (and never used in a completely partisan manner). There is no reason to have something that was never used and will not be used without being broken immediately.
Hopefully 2 or more Trump-appointed SC justices coming. Can’t wait to see the tears during those confirmations.
That would have been a useful thing for republicans to consider in 2008, when they insisted that it would take 60 votes for anything to pass.
There may be more Republican nominations coming, but it’s increasingly unlikely they will be Trump’s. Then we’ll see whose tears are flowing.
Or in 2003 when the Dems filibustered the ABA-unanimously-rated-‘well-qualified’ Miguel Estrada.
I don’t know (and that’s not exactly what I said), but if he ruled in favor of police in a dispute that included a broken door, that might be what it was about. Or maybe Kennedy pulled it out of his ass.
Are you saying you think Trump will be impeached?
Impeached, resigns, or falls over from stress.
shrug maybe. I think it’s pretty unlikely, but I’d likely be more-than-happy with President Pence’s SCOTUS nominations anyways, so it doesn’t really make a big difference to me.
I have no doubt that we will see SCOTUS nominations from Republicans and Democrats in the future. Barring a change of circumstances we can expect a simply majority will be sufficient to confirm such nominations.
The long view teaches us that the other side will have their turn. Count on that.
In the long view we’re all dead. My concern is the next 25 years or so. Having Trump appoint the next two or more SC justices alleviates that concern a bit.
Hehehe. That was funny. 
Who do you think Pence will appoint?
Well the die has been cast.
Good government is based on the voters electing representatives who are capable of reaching a workable compromise. This Congress, as well as the last few Congresses are unable/unwilling to reach any kind of compromise on many/most important issues.
At a time when Congress critters could get along, creating a requirement of 60 votes meant that some legislation/confirmations would require some acceptance from both parties, regardless of which party was in the majority. The resulting bills/confirmations weren’t perfect, but both sides could live with the results.
That gentleman’s agreement is now gone. Hasta La Bye-Bye. I got 51 votes and you don’t.
The rules have changed, which means that tactics will change. Bills will still be passed, confirmations will still be made, and hopefully, at some time in the future, the voters will elect cooler heads to represent them who will reinstate a limited 60 vote requirement. Or not.
We probably shouldn’t have voting at all, just let the ABA decide.
Eh, I am not sure I agree with their decision there, but they had their reasons.
And there reason had to do with that specific candidate. Not the person who nominated him.
The allowed many many other nominations to be confirmed, so it was not because they were against the president, or didn’t think the president had the right to nominate judges, or anything like that, it’s just that he had no record, and so they were concerned about how he would rule.
Once he withdrew his name, the next pick for the court got in with 20 democrats voting for him.
It does seem to be this game that the republicans have been playing for quite a while, where, any time the democrats do anything, for any reason, the republicans now say that they can do the same thing, or worse, for no reason at all, because they can, and the democrats started it.
On every “escalation” I have seen in this matter, it is the democrats doing something like blocking bork because of specific issues against the specific individual (some were salty because of the watergate stuff, some about knocking down doors stuff, some about overturning roe v wade stuff, yeah, political differences of opinion maybe, but difference with a specific candidate.
Then the republicans use the fact that the democrats did something similar as justification for their otherwise indefensible acts.
But, in the end, I am glad that the filibuster is gone. Much more could have been done in 2008 without it. The ACA could have been much much better had it not had to pass muster with all 60 of those who caucus with the democrats, and could have been even better still if it were not essentially fixed in stone the day that Kennedy died. The justices that Obama nominated were actually quite moderate, compared to many he could have, and quite a few that the left wanted. They never would have gotten through a filibuster, so Obama went with much more conservative choices than he otherwise would have. And while the legislative filibuster is still in place, I am sure that it will not last much longer. I would prefer that the democrats force the republicans to do the dirty work of removing that one too, but I would be happy enough with a democratic majority taking care of it by 2021 at the latest.
It’s quite obvious to anyone looking from outside objectively, that the democrats are the grownups in the room, while the republicans are screaming children throwing a tantrum, and for some reason also running the household. (Not saying that there are no adults in the republican party, but that they have completely lost control of it at this time.)
As fast as the whole admin is going down the tubes, I wouldn’t be surprised if Pence gets dragged down too.
So your question could be, who do you think Ryan will appoint?
At least part of this is due to getting rid of earmarks.
Now, I get that earmarks made up almost a percent of the budget, so they were a waste that had to be cut out for fiscal discpline or whatever, but they were also the grease taht helped form agreements.
There are some congress people frmo states or districts where they need jobs or other types of spending in their districts. There are others from districts that don’t mind sending up a bit more of their tax money than they get back in order to further social issues.
This gives something for the parties to trade with. A bit of grease in the system, as it were.
Now, there is no reason at all for the minority party to cooperate with the majority party. In fact, pretty much the only thing the minority party can do at this point is fight tooth and claw any way they can to stop the majority.