So there's no chance on some Republicans voting with the Dems?
Slim to none.
There's a much greater chance that vulnerable Democrats will vote to confirm him. Repubs are a lock, every one of them.
So there's no chance on some Republicans voting with the Dems?
So there's no chance on some Republicans voting with the Dems?
The torture stuff has already come out and will be questioned on because it's widely available information.He was a part of the Bush administration when they decided on their torture policy. He lied about this under oath when he was confirmed for the Circuit Court in 2006. He's a partisan hack who is 100% going to do whatever he can to gut Roe. Oh, and he was suddenly able to pay off thousands and thousands of dollars for debt mysteriously before being nominated.
This is making me fucking sick.
What is the matter with you? Yeesh. Transparent as fuck trying to pin the blame for this atrocity on anyone but the monsters ramrodding this piece of shit through.
I think we'll see more dems vote for him than republicans that vote against. I really don't think any republicans will vote against.So there's no chance on some Republicans voting with the Dems?
Bah.
Just a dog and pony show. The only question at this point is how many Democrats vote to confirm him in addition to every single Republican.
The Supreme Court is gonna sway Conservative for the rest of our lifetime isn't it?
Let's stop with the nonsense already. Libertarians are just hipster Republicans. They don't give a shit, they're happy about this.I hope the Libertarians realize this guy wants to give even more power to the President by removing key oversight from Congress and the Supreme Court, stating that sitting Presidents should be exempt from indictments and prosecution and going as far to say the hiring of a special counsel for Nixon was wrong.
They won't
It'll be longer than that. Depending on the courts and how long it would take for a specific case challenging "federal overreach" of Roe v Wade to be appealed to the Supreme Court, it could take a few years. Maybe less depending on the timing of cases.Time for a one sided conservative SC for the next 30-40 years.
Yay.....
How long until Wade vs Roe is overturned? Next week?
What GOP did to filibuster and basically delay Obama's nomination is a travesty. The GOP contingent is conniving.
Why couldn't Dems do the same leading up to the mid terms?
I meant until after mid terms like how GOP did until after Trump was elected?They aren't the majority. There Is literally nothing they can do.
Supreme Court nominations only need a simple majority to approved as opposed to the standard 60 required previously. Since the the GOP did away with that rule with Gorsuch, the Dems don't have a leg to stand on since they currently do not hold a majority.
This is the path forward for RvW and Republicans know it. It's why I think you're going to see more local districts continue to try and pass abortion clinic cases upward for the SCOTUS to decide. Essentially a death by thousand cuts. Textualists have historically had a very narrow definition of what undue burden entails.You're probably not going to see a stark overturning, but rather the continued erosion of protections and access in red states, to the point where it may not even need to be overturned, but rather give states such deference as to render it inaccessible in large swaths of the country.
Time for a one sided conservative SC for the next 30-40 years.
Yay.....
How long until Wade vs Roe is overturned? Next week?
Man how many words does Hatch put on a page, he's flipping through his remarks every 2 seconds
The Republicans were only able to block the Garland nomination because they had a majority and could just refuse to act. The Democrats can't run that same play because the Republicans still have a majority. As long as Republican Senators vote together, there is literally nothing whatsoever that Democrats can do to block this.I meant until after mid terms like how GOP did until after Trump was elected?
I meant until after mid terms like how GOP did until after Trump was elected?
The GOP were able to do that because they had the majority in the Senate at the end of Obama's Presidency. The GOP still has the majority in the Senate. There's no way for the Democrats to do the same thing because they don't have the majority, the GOP does.I meant until after mid terms like how GOP did until after Trump was elected?
Yeah, and I don't think RBG can make it another seven years so it'll probably be even worse before long.The Supreme Court is gonna sway Conservative for the rest of our lifetime isn't it?
The Republicans were only able to block the Garland nomination because they had a majority and could just refuse to act. The Democrats can't run that same play because the Republicans still have a majority. As long as Republican Senators vote together, there is literally nothing whatsoever that Democrats can do to block this.
Thanks guys for the clarification. As a Canadian, I need better grasp of US politics.
Regardless, this is a watershed moment no? I feel like this was the goal of the GOP with or without Trump.
Fuck I am not happy with this.
Textualists have historically had a very narrow definition of what undue burden entails.
Was it the Samantha Bee show that put up a clip of this guy laughing in a room full of white men about revoking womens' rights? That clip alone was enough to convey what a shit nominee this guy is.
They can use procedural tactics that I don't believe have been used before on something like this, basically they would be blowing up how the Senate works. They won't do it but they could try to gum it up if they really wanted to.