Trump's Supreme Court picks

[drauz]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-choice-announcement-coming-tuesday-8-p-m-/index.html


President Donald Trump tweeted that he will reveal his choice to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court in an announcement Tuesday night.

"I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.)," the President tweeted.

[Whirlin]

President clickbait.

[Taernath]

http://thesportster2.imgix.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/court.jpg
http://www.thesportster.com/wrestling/top-12-insane-stories-from-wrestlers-court/

BAH GAWD HE'S GOT THE EXPERIENCE

[Tgo01]

Trump should prove what a masterful troll he is by nominating Merrick Garland.

[Kembal]

Trump should prove what a masterful troll he is by nominating Merrick Garland.

This is less clever than it sounds.

[Androidpk]

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130323184624/arresteddevelopment/images/9/9b/3x10_Fakin%27_It_%2861%29.png

[Ardwen]

Maybe he will just name his sister, that would at least be amusing

[Tgo01]

This is less clever than it sounds.

Your face is less clever than it sounds.

[Methais]

He should nominate himself. Then Judge Judy if that doesn't work.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/fe/6d/4bfe6d3fef9e07b763f0acdc1af85e9c.jpg

[Androidpk]

Or he could totally blow minds and nominate Obama. Libs would self-destruct out of mass confusion.

[Methais]

Or he could totally blow minds and nominate Obama. Libs would self-destruct out of mass confusion.

He should nominate Saul Goodman.

Not the actor that plays Saul Goodman, but Saul Goodman.

[Gelston]

He should nominate me, because fuck you.

[ClydeR]

President Donald Trump tweeted that he will reveal his choice to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court in an announcement Tuesday night.

"I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.)," the President tweeted.


Why is he bringing two different judges if he has already made his decision? To keep up the suspense?


(CNN)The two judges who have been considered the top finalists to be President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court -- Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman -- are being brought to Washington ahead of tonight's White House announcement, sources tell CNN.

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-hardiman/index.html)

[time4fun]

Why is he bringing two different judges if he has already made his decision? To keep up the suspense?

My guess is that he's playing mind games with his staff. Word is that Ryan, Priebus, and Bannon want him to nominate Gorsuch, and Trump wants Hardiman.

[Taernath]

Why is he bringing two different judges if he has already made his decision? To keep up the suspense?

"It's the most watched Supreme Court nomination in the history of the United States. Let me tell you, the numbers were yuge. Absolutely bigly."

[rolfard]

This entire four years can be spelled out gemstone style; "THE FASCINATION WILL BE...."

[Shaps]

What? You guys are missing the whole point.. Supreme Court is now going to have 10 members. So plainly obvious.

[Tgo01]

Trump knows he'll be nominating another supreme court justice before his terms are up so he's just showcasing them both now.

[BigWorm]

So its Gorsuch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch) and Trump did stick to his list of 21 (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-adds-to-list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks).

Will the Democrats try to filibuster the nomination? Seems likely to result in McConnell invoking the the nuclear option. I hear some people saying that Democrats should wait to put up a fight until the next nomination because this merely upholds the existing balance of power, but I don't think their base is going to accept that.

[Fallen]

Bumping this to ask a question: What's to stop Republicans from changing the rule back to requiring 60 Senate votes once they force Gorsuch through?

[Parkbandit]

Bumping this to ask a question: What's to stop Republicans from changing the rule back to requiring 60 Senate votes once they force Gorsuch through?

Nothing.

Elections have consequences.

[Fallen]

Nothing.

Elections have consequences.

Assuming they go through with the rule change, do you believe they'll change it back before midterms?

[Androidpk]

Who knew this would come back to bite them in the ass? I sure as hell did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

[ClydeR]

Bumping this to ask a question: What's to stop Republicans from changing the rule back to requiring 60 Senate votes once they force Gorsuch through?

The could. But why would they? If Trump gets an opportunity to nominate someone else to the court while Republicans control the Senate, then they will be better off with a 50-vote threshold. The 60-vote threshold is now just an illusion. It's only enforceable when it's not needed. If Democrats regain control of the Senate, then they would just go nuclear when convenient.

[Tgo01]

Assuming they go through with the rule change, do you believe they'll change it back before midterms?

At this point it doesn't really matter. Reid started this by going nuclear with everything but supreme court picks, which gave Republicans all the reasoning they needed to go ahead and go nuclear with supreme court picks. Republicans could potentially shoot themselves in the foot if they reversed the rules after Gorsuch is confirmed if another Republican president nominates someone and they needed to go nuclear again, it would in effect just make the rule worthless.

If Republicans put the rule back and Democrats need to confirm a Democrat nominee against a filibuster they will have all the reason they need to go nuclear as well; "the Republicans did it last time."

As long as one side has a simple majority now they have all the votes and all the reason needed to invoke the nuclear option, so if Republicans go nuclear now that rule is pretty much gone forever.

[Fallen]

Makes sense. I suppose it would take a constitutional change in order to alter how the rules themselves are created (meaning no longer requiring a 51 person vote to alter the rules)?

[Parkbandit]

Assuming they go through with the rule change, do you believe they'll change it back before midterms?

Depends on how they believe they will do at the midterms.

[Androidpk]

Depends on how they believe they will do at the midterms.

They should ask Nate Silver.

[Parkbandit]

At this point it doesn't really matter. Reid started this by going nuclear with everything but supreme court picks, which gave Republicans all the reasoning they needed to go ahead and go nuclear with supreme court picks. Republicans could potentially shoot themselves in the foot if they reversed the rules after Gorsuch is confirmed if another Republican president nominates someone and they needed to go nuclear again, it would in effect just make the rule worthless.

If Republicans put the rule back and Democrats need to confirm a Democrat nominee against a filibuster they will have all the reason they need to go nuclear as well; "the Republicans did it last time."

As long as one side has a simple majority now they have all the votes and all the reason needed to invoke the nuclear option, so if Republicans go nuclear now that rule is pretty much gone forever.

Pushing through the nominee is all that matters at this point. If they don't have the 60 votes, go nuclear.

THIS is why most of us voted for Trump.. SCOTUS nominee picks. Hopefully there will be more in the next 4 years.

[Parkbandit]

They should ask Nate Silver.

He's been spot on in the past 10 elections.

He's simply the best.

[Ardwen]

Yep we need pro corporation, pro PAC and Super PAC court so the billionaires can make more decisions for us, hell not even the other conservatives agreed with his ridiculous ruling on the truck driver

[Parkbandit]

Yep we need pro corporation, pro PAC and Super PAC court so the billionaires can make more decisions for us, hell not even the other conservatives agreed with his ridiculous ruling on the truck driver

Elections have consequences. Isn't that what we were told with Sotomayor and Kagan?

[Ardwen]

all i hear when say things like that is Merrick Garland.

[Parkbandit]

all i hear when say things like that is Merrick Garland.

All I hear when you say Merrick Garland is Biden and Schumer... talking about how in the final year of a President, the Senate shouldn't confirm any SCOTUS nominees.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XINWo6RMdYY

Let me guess.. that was different though!

[Latrinsorm]

Elections have consequences. Isn't that what we were told with Sotomayor and Kagan?This is a right wing site, but I still doubt you're gonna find too many Lindsey Graham fanatics here.

[Androidpk]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-03vXctkqWPI/VYBphC_XYHI/AAAAAAAAGv8/VJUWKbSyaQw/s1600/lindsey-5.jpg

[Ardwen]

Not confirming is not the same as not respecting the pick, meeting him and voting on him. Easy enough to hold the hearings and not vote for him after all.