President Trump Announces Dr. Gorsuch as Supreme Court Nominee – And Why Senator Chuck Schumer Will Not Filibuster….

President Donald Trump has announced Dr. Neil Gorsuch as nominee for the Supreme Court.  Here is the video of the announcement and Judge Gorsuch acceptance remarks.

.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will not filibuster the nomination.

Relax, it’s 100%.  100%. Done.

Judge Gorsuch will take the bench with the customary vocal goofball moonbattery of the far-left, perhaps with some Trump Derangement Syndrome sprinkled on top, but he will take the bench.

Senator Schumer’s only play is to delay the confirmation process because he doesn’t want Gorsuch on this year’s SCOTUS rulings, which by itself is doubtful if McConnell finds his balls, but Schumer will NOT block the overall nomination. Here’s why.

gorsuch-4

Not taking anything away from Dr. Gorsuch because his credentials are impeccable and he’s already sailed through confirmation previously. However there are other factors.

CONTEXT – First, four justices on SCOTUS have already openly expressed their frustration with a broken legislative branch of government.  In the past two years almost every case in front of the Supreme Count has traveled there as an outcome of congressional inability to construct clarity bi-partisan legislation.

President Obama and Harry Reid created the lack of bipartisanship in legislation. Only the Obama appointees and Ginsburg have bitten their proverbial lip on the issue.  Everyone knows this simple truism.

The court is currently 4-4 with one missing.

Justice Kennedy is 80 years old and has openly stated he wants to retire.  Kennedy views Gorsuch, his former clerk and protege’ as his replacement. Justice Kennedy sees Judge Gorsuch through a mirrored perspective.

With Gorsuch ideologically filling his legacy gap, it is reasonable to see Kennedy stepping down after the SCOTUS season this year.  Most likely using the period of July/August 2017 recess for the term of replacement.

Justice Kennedy’s exit then provides President Trump with nominee #2.

Senator Schumer is not stupid.  He knows this.

SCHUMER’S CARDS – If Schumer filibusters Judge Gorsuch now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will, most likely, use the nuclear option and point to Senator Schumer as the reason therein.  That means Gorsuch on the bench having needed only 51 votes.

McConnell points to Schumers intransigence and also points to the former confirmation of Gorsuch, against the backdrop of the Judges impeccable character and credentials etc.

Deployment of the nuclear option means, more consequentially, when Justice Kennedy announces his retirement, ANY replacement – including a much, much more conservative replacement like Pryor – is a guaranteed seat only needing 51 votes.

Think about it.  The court would then lean even further to the right, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2017, (now 84-years-old), clinging to a respirator in year one of President Trump’s tenure.

SEAT #3 – Can Ginsburg make it to 2020?  Doubtful.  To 2024? Almost impossible.

Senator Schumer’s best play is to push the envelope, but allow appointee #1 (Gorsuch) to gain his seat through the traditional Senate confirmation processes.  This means Schumer still has the ability to influence seat #2 toward moderation, and politically doesn’t have to worry about a 51 vote confirmation threshold in the fall for #2.

Chuck Schumer keeps his powder dry, and ability to influence, for nominee #2.  Mitch McConnell, having used and upheld the customs, tradition and legacy of the Senate in appointee #1 – would not be able to use the nuclear option on #2.

  • If Schumer pushes too far now, the 51 vote threshold applies to Gorsuch and any #2 nominee.
  • If Schumer allows confirmation of Gorsuch, both #1 and #2 (any any additional nominees) to go through the 60 vote need.

That’s why Schumer will not filibuster Gorsuch.

Everything from now until Judge Gorsuch confirmation is just political optics, narrative selling, fake-protestations and smoke and mirrors.   The actual confirmation itself is a guarantee.

Fughedaboudit..

.

gorsuch-2

…“and we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning, and eventually you will say we can’t take all of this winning, …please Mr. Trump …and I will say, NO, we will win, and we will keep on winning”…

~ Donald Trump

trump-complicated-business

…”Sorry to keep you waiting. Complicated business folks, complicated business”…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Dem Hypocrisy, media bias, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

581 Responses to President Trump Announces Dr. Gorsuch as Supreme Court Nominee – And Why Senator Chuck Schumer Will Not Filibuster….

  1. Red says:

    I say nuclear option too. I’m sick of the RINOS gentleman act…..there MAY be a handful of gentlemen but that is it. In my opinionthere are very few ladies or gentlemen in either house of congress.

    Liked by 19 people

    • Only as a last resort. Remember, the Dems are regretting their decision to go nuclear on the cabinet nominations. Best if we can avoid it because we won’t be the majority forever.

      Like

      • psadie says:

        That is true however don’t think for a minute that the Dems wouldn’t use the nuclear option as needed with “no regard” for anyone else!!! That is the only way they can win!

        Liked by 9 people

      • COLibertyBelle says:

        With all due respect, we just might be the majority for a good long time!

        Liked by 5 people

      • amjean says:

        No! The dems wouldn’t do that; they
        will ALWAYS use every trick in the
        book. I say we take every
        legal advantage we can get.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kroesus says:

        what difference would it make for our side?……Dem cabinet and SCOTUS picks are a mere formality for Senate approval being more of a pass through than a grilling

        Like

      • oldtoenail says:

        You assume the Democrats will not use the nuclear option since we didn’t. That is ridiculous. They will use it if we block their nominee. Stop this wishful crap! Use it first and make them regret using it for the lower courts. It is stupid to always give the opponent the first two or three strikes.

        Liked by 1 person

        • daddio says:

          agree. as someone said above, we will not always be in power. Make hay while the sun shines. Use every trick in the book, just as our opponents would do, and pack the courts for decades to come with right thinking people, the same way the left has been doing for decades. This is a war, and he who strikes first wins.

          Liked by 2 people

    • nkmommy says:

      They’re not ladies and gentlemen otherwise they would have voted today to confirm the wife of their colleague McConnell and would have already confirmed their other colleague Sessions. With friends like these …

      Liked by 2 people

    • filia.aurea says:

      Senator Sessions is one of the few gentlemen in the Senate, and just look at how they treated him. Disgusting hypocrites. As you say, it’s nothing more than an “act”.

      Liked by 2 people

    • amjean says:

      Why is the nuclear option not available
      after utilization for nominee No. 1, for
      nominee No. 2?

      Liked by 1 person

      • armie says:

        It is. If it has to be used for a moderate candidate, the onus is on the Democrats, if it’s used for an extreme conservative, the GOP gets the bad rap. And, if it wasn’t used this time, that “the judge is so extremist they had to violate Senate protocol to get him confirmed” argument stays in play for future nominees. It’s posturing, and I think SD’s reading it right.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lbmomblog says:

        I asked Sundance that question, we need clarity on this, or at least I do.

        Like

  2. bob e says:

    Thank you so much Sundance .. what a place the treehouse is ..

    Liked by 18 people

  3. Lol. With success comes mini Sundance’s. It’s cute. Like your own little stalkers.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pam says:

    The man that Hannity interviewed here was instrumental in the selection of Gorsuch.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Pam says:

    Like

  6. blognificentbee says:

    Liked by 10 people

  7. Sayit2016 says:

    Nancy Pelosi is a real piece of work… She is out there screeching that Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court is a”hostile” choice. She further said” if you drink water eat food need medicine, this is a very bad pic. What in the hell is she talking about?

    Liked by 16 people

  8. saintoil says:

    Respect Sundance but disagree. We are past the Queensbury rules. Fight club rules. NUKE them. No down side.

    Liked by 1 person

    • sundance says:

      You don’t understand. If Justice Kennedy sees McConnell use the nuclear option instead of respecting the constitutional framework of the Senate, Kennedy will stay on the bench.

      If Kennedy see’s the nuclear option used because Schumer is unfairly filibustering Gorsuch, then it’s OK and understandable. However, if it’s done as a political tool, Kennedy holds the SCOTUS in such reverence, he will stay on and wait out a change in Senate leadership to that of greater honor.

      Liked by 24 people

      • Doug says:

        I def agree with you Im just not sure if Schumer can hold his own party back. I know Schumer is much too smart but the rest of his party seems hell bent on running everyone over.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Keln says:

        Hmm…so Justice Kennedy considers observance of arbitrary Senate rules a higher honor than protecting the Republic established by the Constitution. Kinda lost me there sir.

        The Constitutional framework says nothing about the political rules of the Senate with respect to confirmations. It only specifies a few cases where votes must be a “super-majority”. Confirmation of a nominee for the SCOTUS is not one of them.

        To use the “nuclear option”, the Senate would have to change their own rules. And once the rules are changed…they aren’t breaking any laws or anything in the Constitution.

        I might point out that the “nuclear option” is known by another name…the “Constitutional Option”.

        There is a reason it is called that.

        If I’m missing something here, then by all means, please correct me.

        Liked by 4 people

        • sundance says:

          The rules of the Senate are not “arbitrary”, voting thresholds are not “rules”. The “vote thresholds” are codified in the constitution itself.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Keln says:

            The power of the Senate to set rules is codified. What those rules are is “arbitrary” insomuch that the Senate can vote on them with a simple majority.

            Perhaps arbitrary is the wrong word, but it is definitely according to the choices of the majority and not set in stone.

            Liked by 2 people

            • ZurichMike says:

              “advice and consent” of the Senate is the constitutional definition under Artile II. How the Senate gets to the “consent” part (a simple majority being the obvious minimum threshold) is up to the Senate rules of how they conduct their business.

              Liked by 3 people

              • Keln says:

                Which is my point. I’ve been running over and over Article II to see where I am wrong, and I don’t see it.

                The Senate need only vote a majority, per Article II, Section 2 (Advice and Consent Clause) of the Constitution, as it is written. It says nothing about requiring a super-majority for appointments.

                It only requires a super-majority (2/3s) for treaties.

                The Constitution further specifies that the Senate has the power to make its own rules, but it does not set what those rules have to be. That is why it is a “power”.

                Maybe I’m missing something, I dunno. I don’t like “arguing” with Sundance on something. Makes me think I am not understanding it.

                I mean, overall, McConnel is a wuss, so this discussion doesn’t even matter because of that. But still, I don’t see why the “nuclear option” is suddenly unconstitutional for Republicans but wasn’t for Democrats.

                Liked by 3 people

                • wolfmoon1776 says:

                  My take is that the nuclear option is a genie that everybody wants back in the bottle, not further out. Another bit of disaster left over from the POSPOTUS.

                  Like

                • Keln says:

                  I get where you are coming from, but the Supreme Court, the only branch where the officers aren’t elected, is indirectly elected through the President AND the Senate.

                  So it seems to me that if both are of one party (if we MUST have parties), then the People have said they want a specific type of SCOTUS judge appointed.

                  So a simple majority ought to be enough.

                  We can talk about genies in bottles, but it’s not like Republicans in any way stopped Kagan and Sotomayor, both of which are pretty extreme activists.

                  If “60” is supposed to stop their ilk, it didn’t.

                  Liked by 7 people

                • lbmomblog says:

                  genie or not, I am still trying to understand the “when” it can and when it can’t be used. Facts.

                  Genie got out, it isn’t difficult to understand the sense of why the Genie should or shouldn’t be used.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • wolfmoon1776 says:

                  Well, Trump says McConnell should use the nuclear option if he has to, so that must be smart strategy for Trump’s plan, so I say use it if needed. Trump may have plans for further justices that he wants in. Also, I think that Trump is not done punishing the Democrats for what they did with Harry Reid under Obama. They have to SEE what it’s like to have a Congress where the function has been damaged by Marxist sabotage.

                  The 60-vote thing is a self-control option that the Senate itself imposes upon itself. It has only historic precedent to back it up – nothing “legal” about it. Knowing Mitch, who values the Senate’s self-imposed rules highly, it’s possible to see why he might want to return the Senate to the old ways – there had to be more agreement from the minority to get appointments (which is what the “fake law” non-nuclear threshold does). That makes sense for “Mr. Bipartisan” Mitch. But I think that Trump has a nation to fix, and if picking up a Marxocrat crowbar off the flaming street helps, let Trump make use of it.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • ZurichMike says:

                  I think it’s part of overall succession strategy. Don’t shoot your nuclear arsenal all at once or something like that.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Keln says:

                  From Sundance’s article, yes that makes sense. In reality, then, yes it makes sense.

                  But from the perspective of what should be, it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

                  None of my argument is based on what will happen. We know what will happen. Sundance has it right there.

                  My argument is about what should happen. What these spineless GOPe types ought to be doing.

                  I feel we have a very limited time frame in which to do what it takes to save this country. And once that is past…

                  Liked by 3 people

                • ZurichMike says:

                  Agree. I am so tired of this clique of prissy Senate nancy boys and snarling fag hags with their supersecret, byzantine rules stupidly justified by “decorum”, “tradition” and “protocol”.

                  Liked by 5 people

                • booger71 says:

                  You are correct Keln..”Constitutional Option” is what the nuclear option actually is. The terms filibuster, cloture, etc were not used in the Senate until 1806. Up till then, all Senate business was done by simple majority, except for treaties, impeachments, amendments to the Constitution and overriding a veto.

                  Another thing I noticed, was that a quorum, is nothing more than a majority of those present, so pertaining to the committee meetings, if the Republicans had all their members present (over 50% of the committee) they could have voted President Trump’s picks out of committee. Maybe someone in the Senate should offer a rule change to what a Constitutional quorum actually is.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • lbmomblog says:

                  I haven’t understood that yet either.

                  Like

            • nightmare on k st says:

              you are missing the reason for “60”, any legislation/confirmation should be by concensus, that means the opposition party is satisfied enough by the majority party to encourage them that it is good enough for the country

              Liked by 2 people

              • Keln says:

                Reason doesn’t apply when the nation is so divided. The opposition will oppose for the sake of opposing. They care not about the “good of the country”.

                Liked by 6 people

                • TimeIsNow says:

                  Keln,

                  Yep, the Left/Glonbalists are already in cold civil war mode.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • nightmare on k st says:

                  I refer you to the confirmation vote of Elaine Chao 93-6

                  Like

                • filia.aurea says:

                  As you said earlier, we have a limited time to save The Republic. Reagan’s only regret – didn’t get ‘er done in that first year.

                  Like

                • amjean says:

                  Yes; as long as we have the power, we use
                  the nuclear option as many times as possible.
                  If Kennedy needs assurance that the nuclear
                  option won’t be used on his replacement, then
                  to hell with him. He shouldn’t get assurances
                  on anything regarding his replacement.

                  Now is our time to right the wrongs. Don’t
                  worry about the dems getting in power again
                  and getting their revenge by using the nuclear
                  option themselves. They would use it if the
                  repubs never used it. By this time we should
                  know who they are: socialist/Marxist/communists.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • AMK says:

                  Exactly^^^^^
                  I don’t give a flying flip about decorum. It makes no sense to me to play nice regarding ANY Trump appointments. I would assume the fecking ijits….I mean liberals….will always oppose Trump….just because they can. When have they ever played nice regarding any appointment?

                  Like

              • Summer says:

                What if one party happens to actually have the super-majority? Should they still be concerned with the opposition party’s satisfaction level? Would they? The Democrats passed Obamacare — a major piece of legislation — without a single R vote and against the will of the people and celebrated their victory.

                Liked by 3 people

                • nightmare on k st says:

                  you would agree that 51 of the population satisfied is barely making it, a just and lasting settlement is closer to 60, if 60 is in the majority party, then you are looking at a strong, grassroots, American popular sentiment (mandate)

                  Like

                • filia.aurea says:

                  Nothing gets to be more lasting than a SCOTUS confirmed nominee.

                  Like

                • Summer says:

                  No, I would not agree.

                  And you are shifting the goalposts. You were talking about the opposition party being reasonably satisfied, not the population (the UniParty could not care less about the citizens anyway). 60 votes is 60 votes REGARDLESS of which party these votes belong to. It does not matter if all 60 votes come from one party. Therefore, your assumption that the reason for 60 is to reach consensus and satisfy the opposition is false.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • nightmare on k st says:

                  the 51 and 60 party votes do in fact represent, at least in appearances, the public, a larger group of the population represented, you can make a case for Uniparty cooperation, or any other nefarious reasons ie PizzaGate Sex Ring

                  the MSM and scholars do use words like “concensus”, “mandate” or “will of the people”, that’s the agenda Leftist are using now to make Trump look illegitimate, and not represent America

                  a reasonable, vetted, respected candidate can receive opposition votes, which would be they were “satisfied”the candidate was up for the job, you will notice Elaine Chau was confirmed 96-3

                  Like

              • WSB says:

                That’s a moral decision. Not a strategic decision or constitutional rule.

                Liked by 1 person

            • TheOldBear says:

              Keln you are 100 % correct in you interpretation of the Constitution as it relates to the Senate rules. There is no debate on this your position is the true fact of the matter.

              Liked by 2 people

          • WSB says:

            I thought the Senate and House made their own rules?

            Liked by 2 people

          • Kroesus says:

            cloture (rule being discussed here) is in fact a Senate “rule”…..there is NO force of law holding the Senate to abide by it as it is merely customary and subject to change by the Senate itself….if it held the power of the US Constitution as you weakly infer in your last post it would require a much tougher amendment to affect it….nice try but you are wrong on this one

            Liked by 1 person

      • Grad says:

        Yeah, but why not the nuclear option for #2?

        Liked by 3 people

        • nightmare on k st says:

          when the Senate starts their session, they agree/go along with the rules, if rules not changed for #1 in the beginning, it is not proper if they change it for #2 later on, which they could, but shows that the candidate is not “good enough” for the “normal” process (60) and needs rigging (affirmative action) to get them over the finish line (51)

          Liked by 2 people

          • filia.aurea says:

            Finally, someone has answered the question posed throughout.

            Liked by 1 person

          • amjean says:

            Who gives a flying f*ck? Use whatever
            tools we have to get the right people in
            place to counteract Obama’s ninnies.
            We have seen what Sotomayer and
            Kagen have said and written haven’t
            we? Two activist communist judges.
            We do whatever we have to in order
            to right the wrongs.

            Liked by 3 people

          • WSB says:

            Or the opposition is out of their collective mind.

            Like

          • lbmomblog says:

            with that, and given current Democrat rhetoric that Pres. Trump is not legitimate, I would favor strategy of using option Nuclear Option on #1 regardless. If I understand you, the option then covers the entire session and allows usage should Senate need it at any time during this session. And, at this time there is not enough Democrat Senators to even consider using the option – totally Republican time.

            Like

      • Dakotacav says:

        Sundance I totally agree with your assessment. Anthony Kennedy, then Associate Justice of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, was my constitutional law professor in law school, A year later he was appointed to the US Supremes.

        In class he always expressed reverence for process, procedure and tradition on these matters. After he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, Kennedy made a farewell appearance at a Floor Session of the CA State Senate, where I worked. During his remarks, he waxed poetically about the importance of the CA Senate process, and that Senators should respect the duties embodied in the State Constitution, among them to evaluate the constitutionality of what they enact. Bottom line, he is a creature of protocol and respects the processes of government.

        Liked by 3 people

        • The Fighting Man says:

          At least your conlaw prof didn’t gush over the “wall” coming down by saying “At last, true Communism can come to the world!”

          Like

      • oncefired says:

        Kennedy is from a Time when Your Word and a Hand Shake Meant something! Now we live in a time of utter Back-Stabbing, Scamming and Lawlessness!

        Like

      • mimbler says:

        That’s the bit of the puzzle I wasn’t seeing;
        thanks,
        Mike

        Like

      • stonedome says:

        like Scalia, no one knows when those justice’s ticket will be punched…doesn’t Ginsburg have lingering pancreatic cancer? I was sure she’d be dead a few years ago, so the political winds may change at a moments notice…I believe mr trump is president at a most opportune time concerning scotus appointments and I’m sure relieved falling down grandma was thwarted…I can’t even imagine that future

        Like

      • Nunya Bidness says:

        This argument hinges on Schumer. But he is only one factor. The Dems are in such fury with their boycotts and airport shutdowns, that there is huge pressure on Schumer to launch open warfare. My bet is on filibuster/ nuclear…followed by?..

        Like

      • lbmomblog says:

        ok, but if Gorsuch is so much like (mirror) Kennedy, and that seems to the group to be a not so good thing, why would we care if Kennedy stays on or not?

        Like

    • phoenixRising says:

      I don’t think there will be a filibuster… there are 8-10 Dems saying they will not filibuster. Seems to me there are 60 votes at least for Gorsuch.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. sundance says:

    Liked by 29 people

  10. barton2016 says:

    Can we get a special investigation into the Scalias murder please?

    Liked by 15 people

    • NorthIdaho says:

      Amen.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Patriot1783 says:

      Amen.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Marygrace Powers says:

      First things first/ All in due time/
      It will happen when least expected/
      Code ‘WET WORKS’/

      Liked by 6 people

    • Kristin says:

      But there is no body to be looked at. Cremated at breakneck speed. But I am all for an investigation.

      Like

    • stonedome says:

      The following chemical compound can be used to create a heart attack in anyone, while leaving no trace of a crime:

      Potassium Chloride:

      Potassium Chloride is known to be among the ingredients in many prescription drugs, such as: Klor-Con, Klor-Con 8, Klor-Con 10, and Klor-Con/25, among others. Potassium Chloride breaks down into both its’ individual components, potassium and chlorine. Both are found in the human body and the presence of either or both of these will not raise suspicion by either the attending physician or the coroner, who will carry out the autopsy.

      This compound breaks down into both potassium and chlorine, in which the chlorine (Cl) binds with the human body’s naturally occurring sodium (Na) to create NaCl — sodium chloride — common table salt. The resultant heart attack is found to have no known cause — as all that is found in the body is a slightly elevated level of NaCl. Too much potassium in the body causes tachycardia (fast heart-rate), which then leads to something known as ventricular fibrillation, which is one of many types of cardiac arrest.

      after that just whisk him away and cremate him before an autopsy

      Like

  11. Deep Blue Sea says:

    Here at CU law. Ultra crazy liberal CU law. Gorsuch is great, but he’s not Scalia. Hoping a louder conservative (not religious nut) for the next pick.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Remington says:

      Amen….We cannot lose track of the short term tactical issue here. We need Got such in play for the upcoming Court agenda. Have to play the cards we’re dealt

      Like

  12. Nunya Business says:

    Just Soooooooo proud of our President Trump and his SCOTUS pick tonight. Watched the ceremony again and almost daily I have to wipe my eyes with the pride, as I look on and compare it to what was and might have been. God Bless America!

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Sundance, one bitty wrinkle. If Schumer doesn’t protest and filibuster, even a little, he will be betraying his insistence to the the resist crowd that he promised to block ‘whoever’ is nominated. It will look like he rallied the people to the hill and then just sent everyone home. He painted himself into a corner on this one. He almost has to resist now or he will appear weak to his support. Give up on this one and it looks just like Obama’s little red line.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. fred says:

    I have that feeling again. Twice in a month. I feel history made under my feet and I’m light headed with joy. I tell you this completes my top item of the wish list…We got a SCOTUS pick that will change history..This is big….I mean big…….Ready to fight on…… the enemy lines are breaking and a full assault is under way…We won so much. Us little old deplorables. It’s hard to take it all in….This is the cherry on the top………..

    Liked by 5 people

  15. Summer says:

    Lol

    Liked by 4 people

  16. RobertC says:

    Lou Dobbs had Judge Napolitano on tonight for his unique insight. Turns out he’s becoming a Trump fan himself.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Andrew E. says:

    I fail to see how this is anything but a letdown of a post. First, Sundance is saying that Gorsuch is not a Scalia clone, but more moderate, when what we really need are 4-5 Trump appointees all of whom are Scalia/Thomas clones. Second, we get the moderate to sail through taking the nuclear option off the table for Trump’s second and third appointees who will certainly be filibustered and therefore will have to more moderates if we’re ever to get them confirmed without going nuclear.

    So Sundance is saying that Schumer has out-manuevered us. Great. /s

    Like

    • Doug says:

      No he didnt say that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Andrew E. says:

        He said that Gorsuch is a moderate compared to Scalia. And he said the nuclear option is off the table for future picks. Future picks are guaranteed to be filibustered. How will we get future Scalia’s confirmed without going nuclear. Dems won’t let it happen.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ZurichMike says:

          Where did he say that?

          Like

          • fedup says:

            “Kennedy views Gorsuch, his former clerk and protege’ as his replacement.”

            Like

            • ZurichMike says:

              How does that relate to Gorsuch’s ideological bent? Again, it has to do with succession strategy. Kennedy is all about decorum, so if he sees that Gorsuch is rammed through on a simple majority vote (nuclear option), Kennedy would be less likely to retire. While Gorsuch is filling a 9th seat vacated by Scalia, it is Kennedy’s perception of how that seat is filled, and the consequences for additional filling of seats on the Supreme Court, that is at stake.

              Liked by 1 person

              • redlegleader68 says:

                My only quibble here is if Gorsuch is confirmed via the nuclear option and Kennedy’s upset, so what? He stays, well OK. How long do you really, really think Ginsburg’s gonna last? I’m betting the under on that. I’m with Sundance, BTW, but at some point we need to look down the road.

                Like

        • bertdilbert says:

          “Dems won’t let it happen.”

          I think the dems are finished. Let’s see what the senate looks like after Trump removes voter fraud. The democrats are absolutely destroying themselves with all their antics, it is not going to roll.

          Liked by 5 people

      • fedup says:

        It is a possible interpretation of this sentence: “Kennedy views Gorsuch, his former clerk and protege’ as his replacement.”

        Like

    • ZurichMike says:

      Where do you see Sundance saying that Gorsuch is not a Scalia clone? Do you work for CNN and willfully misreport?

      Like

      • Andrew E. says:

        See Sundance’s last comment at the bottom of the previous page. Here it is:

        I’ve said it repeatedly. Neil Gorsuch is NOT Scalia. He’s a Kennedy mirror.

        The replacement for Kennedy will be the Scalia “ideological” replacement.

        I’ve been saying this for months.

        Liked by 3 people

        • ZurichMike says:

          He is referring to replacement strategy, not ideological purity. Although the the space open is one vacated by Scalia, it’s how Kennedy reacts to the confirmation of Gorsuch that will influence whether Kennedy stays on the bench or vacates. It has nothing to do with whether Gorsuch is moderate or ultra right or leftist.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Andrew E. says:

            Look, fine. Say Gorsuch turns out great. Awesome. Sundance is still saying that now the nuclear option is off the table since the Dems let Gorsuch through. How are we going to get future Scalia’s confirmed, which we absolutely must, without the nuclear option? Dems won’t allow it.

            Liked by 2 people

      • fedup says:

        “Kennedy views Gorsuch, his former clerk and protege’ as his replacement.”

        Like

        • ZurichMike says:

          How does that relate to Gorsuch’s ideological bent? Again, it has to do with succession strategy. Kennedy is all about decorum, so if he sees that Gorsuch is rammed through on a simple majority vote (nuclear option), Kennedy would be less likely to retire. While Gorsuch is filling a 9th seat vacated by Scalia, it is Kennedy’s perception of how that seat is filled, and the consequences for additional filling of seats on the Supreme Court, that is at stake.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Andrew E. says:

            So, in other words, in this cold war with the left for the very existence of our nation, Kennedy is still giving us trouble and hampering our ability to hold off the left even after all the times he’s already screwed us in the past. Awesome.

            Liked by 1 person

            • ZurichMike says:

              You are changing the subject now. This is class troll behavior. Get the hell of this thread and go pout at National Review.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Andrew E. says:

                Nope. I have a valid point. Sundance said the nuclear option is off the table if Gorsuch is allowed to pass through. You say, ehh, not necessarily. You’re not disproving me logic. You’re just saying you disagree with Sundance. I hope you’re right.

                Liked by 1 person

              • PNWLifer says:

                Tonight I feel like I’m in a classroom full of students who skimmed over assigned reading rather than studied it thoughtfully and then badger and argue with the teacher and students who read and comprehended the material. There’s a lot of intellectual laziness here tonight. What’s up with that?If some of you are suffering from winning fatigue, take a break. It’s okay. It’s new. You’re not used to so much winning. The winning will continue while you rest and recharge. Sundance will have new explainers for more lessons in winning when you come back refreshed.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Sandra says:

                  There seem to be multiple viewpoints of the situation, not just the one Sundance presented which is the Schumer viewpoint. Whether or not Schumer is stupid enough to filibuster, is it maybe a good idea for the GOP to go the nuclear route? Will the Dems ever be civil and cooperative in the future? Just look at their leadership, an insane bunch of mental toddlers who threaten and throw tantrums. It seems pointless to be civil toward them.

                  Liked by 1 person

          • filia.aurea says:

            It appears that most of us agree with SD. McConnell is unlikely to need nuclear option on Dr. Gorsuch.

            Like

    • missmarple2 says:

      This nominee is not a moderate. Where in the heck do you get that idea? He is pro religious freedom (Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor) an originalist, friends with Scalia, endorsed by Mrs Scalia, at the top of the heritage Foundation list, well-educated and a good writer.

      I also think you forget that there is an election in 2018 and there might be fewer democrats in the Senate.

      I am always amazed at people who come on this site and try to make good things seem bad.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Andrew E. says:

        This nominee is not a moderate. Where in the heck do you get that idea?

        From Sundance. He said Gorsuch is a Kennedy mirror. Do we all want to re-live the times Kennedy has been such a letdown over the decades? I’d call that moderate.

        However, I will say that Sundance seems to be alone in this. Most commentators seem to think Gorsuch will be like Scalia. I’m not that disappointed in the pick. Just this post.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sandra says:

      I took from the article only the Schmumer point of view, that it would be in Schumer’s best interest to not filibuster now because if he does then Trump’s #1 and #2 and possibly even #3 picks will sail through with majority-only votes. But Schumer is most definitely in a very poor defensive position. His choices are bad and worse. 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

    • filia.aurea says:

      There is no rule that prevents McConnell taking Constitutional option on picks #2 and #3. It’s a “protocol” deviation..

      Like

  18. Joe Knuckles says:

    Brett Baer had some lying Demonrat lady on talking about the pick. She casually referred to “the Muslim ban” 3 times and he never corrected her. Anytime anybody drops that phrase into a debate, they are immediately disqualified (I stop listening to them). Brett should not have let that stand.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. leebelieu says:

    My question though is will the screeching proglodytes whipped into a frenzy by their MSM/DNC overlords allow compromise? I’m betting no, hoping no, because violent irrational rioting is a sure path to Ellison 2020!1!1! Please Lord keep the enemies of the Republic batcrap crazy!

    Like

  20. Thomas says:

    I hope you’re right and you probably are,but I think they’d rather burn it all down then lose even more power.. Chucky is just getting started,so hopefully Mitch does find his balls!!!!

    Like

  21. phoenixRising says:

    No need for filibuster for Gorsuch – who will receive more than 60 votes. Probably 75-80 imho

    from Axios

    The liberal case for Gorsuch, from a former Obama official

    In a NYT op-ed, Neal K. Katyal, a former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, writes that Neil Gorsuch is a good pick for the Supreme Court:

    “He brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court…I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him.”

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Sandra says:

    McConnell and Schumer should make a deal. Dems should hustle to approve the rest of Trump’s cabinet picks. The reward will be no nuclear option.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Joe says:

    I’m in.

    Why?

    Trump.

    Liked by 5 people

  24. Give it time says:

    Did anyone else notice that Trump reiterated “keeping his word”? Do you know what this means?!! “Name a special prosecutor to look into the ccf and their dealings!”

    Liked by 7 people

  25. If, as Sundance is saying, there would be another vacancy to fill on the Court in the fall, I would be interested in seeing how limp-wristed Republicans like the Turtle are going to allow anyone but the most milquetoast, Judge Roberts-esque pick to replace Kennedy on the Court. It would seem to me that Schumer would have all the cards by then. He could say, look, we let your initial pick sail through for your first pick but any other picks are going to have to get through me.

    Given the likelihood that Republicans will pick up more Senate seats in 2018 (although, admittedly, that’s not a given, and a lot could happen between now and 2018) it seems to me that Trump would be better served if Kennedy were to hang around for another year.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Andrew E. says:

      Yes, you get it. If getting Gorsuch through takes the nuclear option off the table for future nominations, as Sundance is arguing, then we’ll never break the guaranteed Dem filibuster if we nominate future Scalia’s that could tip the balance.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sandra says:

        The Supreme Court is that important. 2 justices, maybe even 3. They should probably go for it. The Dems will never play nice, ever.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I respect and am in favor of Trump’s pick, I just don’t see where and how it gets us anything down the line. Maybe Trump and his team are seeing something I’m not seeing – and that could be very true – they’re the experts. I’ll just have to be content with the idea that Trump is playing chess, the rest are playing checkers, and I can’t see the board to know which is which. 🙂

        Like

    • Deb says:

      I think Kennedy will hang on longer. Ginsburg might not be able too.

      Like

      • But even then I think we’re going to find ourselves in the same position. I just see Schumer holding a better hand in the long-term than Trump is. Primarily because the Turtle isn’t going to do anything to upset the Senate’s holier-than-thou protocol. Thank God for Trump, but we’ve hitched our wagon to a bunch of losers.

        Liked by 1 person

    • nightmare on k st says:

      Trump does the picking, Republican Senators go along with it

      Liked by 1 person

  26. disgustedwithjulison says:

    I hate winning. I cannot take it anymore….

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Martin says:

    No bad coming from someone who didn’t bother to vote for either Trump or Clinton:

    Liked by 4 people

  28. NJF says:

    He’s not gonna like reality I guess.

    Chris Matthews: Gorsuch Vote Will Go To A Filibuster; Democrats Will Not Vote For Him, “Not A One” | Video | RealClearPolitics

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/31/chris_matthews_gorsuch_vote_will_go_to_a_filibuster_democrats_will_not_vote_for_him_not_a_one.html

    Like

  29. Illegal says:

    Read this opion piec by Gorsuch to get an idea of how he thinks.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213590/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6

    Like

  30. NeverSuspect says:

    Mr. Sundance: Great article; just three problems with your conclusion that it’s a 100% done deal. You used reason, logic and facts.

    These 3 things are the bane of liberals (come on, you know this!)

    There are absolutely no guarantees these days! I would not be surprised if ‘ol Chucky Schumer striped naked, crying for Obama, and paraded around the swamp blaming Trump for taking his coat in the winter time.

    Nope, wouldn’t surprise me.

    But I do like your logic!

    By the way, what’s a 10 Dimensional Chess Grandmaster to do when his opponents’ favorite game is Candy Land?

    Liked by 4 people

  31. If Anthony Kennedy is his mentor this pick is a potential disaster. Kennedy has been a major disappointment on the Court, Idk why Republicans always disappoint us, but Dems never do disappoint their base. The GOP list is long, O Connor, Souter, Stevens, Roberts, Kennedy. I also have no use for Pryor, he was the one who spearheaded the effort to remove Roy Moore, I cannot forget this. The Supreme Court should have been reigned in a long time ago, they were never meant to be an oligarchy, but Congress is too yellow to get anything passed, so reigning them in now will not happen.

    Like

  32. Michael says:

    Mitch will use the “nuclear option” for pick #2 if necessary. He’s not “our guy” but he’s tired of Democrat nonsense. You can just sense it whenever you see him speak.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. regedit says:

    Its a good start but we are so far behind as far as Supreme Court goes
    We are down to 2 normal people there(Thomas and Alito)Kennedy is not a conservative at all not to mention Justice Roberts who basically gave us Obamacare,
    To have the Court ,we need at least 2 more nominations from now on( assuming that this Gorsuch guy is the real deal)

    Like

  34. Betty says:

    Neil Gorsuch was who I was hoping the President would pick. He seems like a fine man.

    I look at that picture of Judge Gorsuch and his wife and wish for two things President Trump would have included in the introduction.

    First, a short but honest description of what they BOTH, he and his wife, are going to face in the next month, no one knows better then President Trump.

    And second, offer to Judge Gorsuch and his partner/wife the gratitude of the entire nation for their strength and courage to face what we know they will be forced to face.

    I even think it would not have been too much if President Trump had turned to all of us to ask us to keep those two in our prayers till they are safely through the process.

    And I am grateful, grateful to the Judge and his wife and also all the rest: Pense, Jeff Sessons, Gen. Mattis, Cho, Kelly, Pompeo, Haley and T-Rex, Mnuchin, Zenke and Perdue, good old Wilber Ross and Mr. Puzder, Price, Carson, Perry and Betsy DeVos, Shulkin, Pruitt, McMahon, Mulvaney, Coats and Lightlizer.

    And the others who don’t need to stand naked before our enemies but who have surrendered their lives to serve us and our President. Every day they offer our wonderful president their intelligence, experience, love and devotion and stand ready to do battle for him for our sake. I should write out their names too, but everyone knows who they are.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. sundance says:

    Personally, I’m ok with McConnell using the nuclear option IF SCHUMER FILIBUSTERS, but only if that happens.

    Otherwise I respect the formation of a “republican form of government” too much to simply dispatch the 3/5ths rule. (long ago 2/3rds).

    If we simply go nuclear for the sake of expedience or short-term ideological political gain, we are disregarding the position of the minority. The entirety of our form of governance was to protect the position of the minority.

    Those who advocate for an immediate Senate threshold at 51, are essentially arguing on behalf of a “democracy” and not a “constitutional republic”. At that point what difference does the electoral college make? …and how can a voice argue against the popular vote in a presidential campaign?. Where are the protections for the minority position?

    I cannot in good conscience argue for a simple majority within a body that was entirely created to force a minority consideration. I was furious when ObamaCare was created using the same simple majority principle in the Senate. The right of the minority was dispatched and we rose up in opposition to the construct and the principle behind the usurpation.

    McConnell should gain the 60 votes. Schumer should not filibuster.

    Only if Schumer filibusters should the nuclear option be used…. and God help us when it is, because the structure of our governance will never again be a “republican form of government”.

    There is only one horsehair left above our heads.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Blade says:

    [ Cross-posting from the other Gorsuch thread ]

    I’m serious when I say this. Don’t think of Dr. Gorsuch as a Scalia replacement. He’s a Kennedy replacement (modern center/right). When Kennedy retires (Aug/Sept) during post session summer recess you’ll see the Scalia nominee.

    From your lips to God’s ears. That bastid Kennedy has overstayed his welcome and insulted the Constitution more times than I care to remember.

    Let’s all remember something very important here, especially now since the leftists are busy talking bout “payback for Garland” … The seat that Kennedy sits in was first meant for Judge Bork. Oh yes, there is payback to collect all right but we have not even sent them the freakin bill. When Reagan and the spineless RINOs in the infamous 100th Congress ( Senate was 53-47 RINO ) let the (D)emocrat-Socialists defeat him and then chased off his replacement ( Ginsburg, for smoking pot!!! Yes, that happened ) the leftists effectively demonstrated how they pick our people as well as their own. They did it throughout Reagan and are apoplectic that Trump will not surrender on-demand as the enemy has become so used to.

    The (R)epublicrats must come to grip with the fact that the enemy will never get along, always plays for keeps and you cannot reason with them. Here is the point … no matter what lovely Senate procedure they choose to execute here, the enemy will return again and disregard whatever nicety you afforded them now … They must fight every day forward like it is their last. Just suspend the damn committees and send all nominees to the floor and nuke them through. These committees are post-Constitutional constructs, part of the fluid creations of Congress to occupy themselves so they can ignore the Constitution while letting the public think they are working. They are the very vehicles that allow Congress to overreach their domestic Constitutional powers into foreign affairs, e.g., the Reagan era Boland Amendment attempt to block the Reagan doctrine, and the current McCain/Graham forays into the middle east ( would someone please ask these fools on camera to cite their Constitutional authority to waste one second and one taxpayer dollar practicing foreign policy and trying to start World War III? They are quite literally duplicating the Bolands and Bidens of the past. )

    Irony Alert and Important Lesson for Today … by an act of pure dumb luck the Bork rejection saved the Second Amendment. While everyone fretted over Roe v Wade and other boutique issues during the Bork hearings, it turns out he was rather soft ( to be very kind ) on the Second Amendment which barely came up. So, when they finally confirmed the more “modern/centrist” Kennedy, and he surprisingly sided with Scalia in the 5-4 Heller, the United States of America and her citizens’ right to bear arms was saved due to Biden and Ted Kennedy and all those other pompous asses. [ I can personally verify Bork’s 2nd Amendment ignorance having spoke to him by phone after he moved over to AEI. I was utterly amazed at his lack of interest in this most significant linchpin of a free republic surviving against governmental tyranny that I promptly sent him a few books he had not read. About a year later I spoke with him again and though he thanked me for the books and found them interesting he convinced me that nothing would ever get him to get his hands dirty with something as politically incorrect as an armed populace as bulwark against tyranny. The District of Criminals is loaded with pod people who act only in self-preservation of their cozy trappings of power and privilege, even Conservative academics like Bork, and so many others. ]

    A year and a half ago I predicted that Trump could get FIVE Supreme Court seats: Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy and Thomas. Both Ginsberg and Breyer looked the sickliest at the inauguration and won’t survive eight more years, Kennedy as a likely retiree, and unfortunately the mighty Clarence Thomas is up there as well and is sensible enough to bail when a proper President is in place. I also suggested that Trump may have the absolute cojones to ask Roberts to resign. When Trump gets the Scalia seat filled, we are only back to a 4-3 Liberal-Conservative distribution with the hapless wildcards Kennedy-Roberts as swingers. Let’s hope that this comes to pass and he gets four or five seats.

    No (R) president has ever done justice to the Supreme Court. None! Eisenhower, Reagan, and both Bush’s have each supplied just one Constitutionalist. If Trump places two Constitutionalists on the bench then as far as the preserving and protecting the Constitution, he will have already accomplished 2x more than any other President. If he gets four or five, he will be the greatest protector of the Constitution since and including the Jeffersonians!

    Liked by 3 people

  37. gettherejustassoon says:

    I’m confused. I thought there was a recent article here that the first nominee for the Supreme Court would a sacrificial one, of sorts. According to what I though I read and understood, President Trump would make a nomination knowing it would be defeated in order to get his real pick on the Court.

    Now, was there such an argument made, or have I totally mistaken?

    Like

  38. TONYA PARNELL says:

    NO MORE DEMOCRATS

    Like

  39. Howie says:

    Aside from replacement because of retirement there is also replacement because of events. I imagine at least one such event may take place.

    Like

  40. Nick says:

    Can you imagine if we can get 3 conservative in SCOTUS during Trumps first term? THAT would almost be too much winning like Trump mentions.

    Liked by 1 person




  41. #Grinning
    #MAGA
    #iLOVEu
    #PresidentTrumpSavingAmerica

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Bob Thoms says:

    We are at war to save this great nation. Standing on protocols (Senate or other) is a recipe to loosing.

    If President Trump had conducted his campaign according to prevailing “protocols” he probably would have loss.

    The British Army, fighting the Colonialist’s fought according to protocols (marching drums and nicely aligned in attack formations). Our fore fathers abandoned those protocols and waged guerilla warfare against the King’s army. Guess what the outcome was?

    Like

    • Bob Thoms says:

      Use the “nuclear” option when we need it……damn the Senate protocols and Senatorial Breach……..

      Like

    • Sandra says:

      The Dems kind of remind me of ISIS in that they have made their position very clear, they have announced that they will absolutely fight everything that Trump wants to do. So how do we treat them? Like civilized human beings because it makes us feel better to do that, to not stoop to their level? Or like the uncivilized pieces of crap that they are? They set the nuclear option tone back in 2013. I think I’ve chosen my side. Payback’s a b. Go nuclear. Do it. The Supreme Court is too important to risk.

      Like

  43. racerxx says:

    I’m really tired of pandering to Schumer and the minority party. Let’s get on with it.

    Like

  44. Dukas says:

    Totally agree, the nuclear option should be used right away. Trump could have 2 more replacements and if he serves eight years it could be more. If the nuclear option is already in place it will make Trump’s future replacements easier.

    Like

  45. Leslie Ingersoll says:

    I heard that argument too, that President Trump’s first pick to the Supreme court would just be a foil. I don’t think Dr. Gorsuch is a foil. The nuclear option was acceptable to President Trump, but only if the opposition party fillibusters. I think President Trump will stand strong and continue to be our, America’s champion. He has what it takes to win and MAGA, he has a great cabinet waiting in the wings and he has US, his army of deplorables, to fight against the stronghold of the demonrats and the Uniparty. We will not be silent or manipulated by them anymore. God bless President Donald J Trump and his team🇺🇸

    Like

  46. andi lee says:

    Thank you, Vice President Pence. God bless!

    Liked by 1 person

  47. andi lee says:

    The Shilling Shrew Mir of New York.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s