Do people really believe McConnell wouldn't have ended the 60 vote rule if Democrats blocked Trump's first Supreme Court nominee?

I think Republicans deserve more blame for the norm busting, but it doesn't really matter. Voters don't care about norms. There's no political incentive for Democrats not to escalate by ending the filibuster and packing the court.

The time has come for all the lefty hating Americans to be dropped on an island and left forever. America no longer needs such trash that burns down building and riots when it doesn't get it's way. Time for it to be put in a time out.

And yet none of that was convincing in court, and despite having one of the largest legal firms in the country never thought to fight it in court, instead relying on the blatant corruption of Barr to try to get him off.

Really that's the best argument against you. If it was that open and shut he'd fight the case and win easily.

In reality he was guilty as hell, admitted to it, and you're just being dishonest as usual.

The only scenario in which it would even be dubious is if there wasn't enough time for proper confirmation hearings between when a justice died and inauguration
Up through the end of november, its unambiguously the incumbent president's prerogative to select a nominee and have them confirmed
that scenario hasn't happened yet
but we have had midnight judges appointed in the distant past right before an administration was inaugurated, which is the seminal case of constitutional law review which basically precedented all modern jurisprudence, the famous marbury v madison case

Yes he can lol. Learn to Senate.

I stay up at night wishing people would stop calling the center-right the left, mostly.

Yes, there's no reason for McConnell to go nuclear until he needs to. If Democrats hadn't blocked Gorsuch, McConnell would have confirmed him with 60 votes and the filibuster would remain nominally intact. And then McConnell would have absolutely gone nuclear to confirm Kavanaugh, for the exact same reason he did for Gorsuch, as precedented by Harry Reid. But the distinction there is that GOP senators like McCain and Romney who were hostile to Trump and reticent on the nuclear option could have scuttled a supreme court nomination over a nuclear showdown where they wouldn't do so over a conventional vote, if it was contentious enough to be that close to the line. Not like the Gorsuch vote, where Republicans had an election mandate and Trump's approval skyrocketed to 70%+ for a few weeks riding the election wave and there was no risk of running into the next administration.
then we got exactly that kind of contentious vote with Kavanaugh due to the democrats conjuring up rape fantasies

I predicted that 4 years ago and it came to pass just like I said, and it was an unforced error by democrats and accomplished nothing but feeding the anti-trump radicals who soon took over the party. They appeased their most radical base by doing something that hamstrung them in a later political fight, and now we've got a party of arsonists

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 19 2020 06:09pm

He can use parliamentary procedure to stop a motion, not a presidential nominee.



/e I'm just thinking how cool it would be to see and actual fist fight break out in Congress.

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 19 2020 06:14pm

He can effectively stop anything from happening he wants to. He can make them read a billion page bill if he wants to.

And then PENCE can come along... etc.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate

















This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 19 2020 06:36pm