Pelosi already calling this a "Hostile Pick" and not "Mainstream"

 

She's just testing out her #AlternateFacts .

Pelosi already calling this a "Hostile Pick" and not "Mainstream"

 

The not mainstream talking point seems to be the talking point of choice. I think there are better ways to attack him thats a poor one. There isn't a more "main stream" pick a conservative could make.

 

There is going to be heated rhetoric Democrats have to do it , their base is angry.

But in the end confirmation is going to happen.

I will say, with all the build up by President Trump, the actual pick was a bit anticlimactic. :lol2:. He was right though, this pick is one everyone should be able to get behind.

 

Seems your political party in Wash DC disagrees. Maybe you should talk to them.

The fair thing to do is have him sit for 9 months before they start considering him.

Just heard some "behind" hat representative from California (not Pelosi) say that since Obama's 1st Supreme Court pick got 68 votes if this one doesn't get 68 he should be blocked.

I'm being lazy.

 

Can the Ds hold this up in any way? I thought the Rs had enough votes already.

 

If I were advising the Ds knowing full well that barring a bombshell (didn't pay taxes/diddled the nanny/etc) this gentlemen will be confirmed. So try to take the "high road" (by DC standards) and say "we believed that Mr Merrick should have been confirmed but due to the ugliness of politics it didn't happen. We've chosen not to take that route in the name of country first.... blah blah blah."

 

It's the only small win they can get.

Just heard some "behind" hat representative from California (not Pelosi) say that since Obama's 1st Supreme Court pick got 68 votes if this one doesn't get 68 he should be blocked.

Well that's asinine.

I'm being lazy.

 

Can the Ds hold this up in any way? I thought the Rs had enough votes already.

 

If I were advising the Ds knowing full well that barring a bombshell (didn't pay taxes/diddled the nanny/etc) this gentlemen will be confirmed. So try to take the "high road" (by DC standards) and say "we believed that Mr Merrick should have been confirmed but due to the ugliness of politics it didn't happen. We've chosen not to take that route in the name of country first.... blah blah blah."

 

It's the only small win they can get.

 

They can still filibuster a Supreme nominee. Reid's nuke didn't stop that.

Just heard some "behind" hat representative from California (not Pelosi) say that since Obama's 1st Supreme Court pick got 68 votes if this one doesn't get 68 he should be blocked.

 

That was on Tucker Carlsons show I saw that. If that is the Democrat standing point it is a bad political move. This isn't a partisan statment by me it is a pure political statement. Democrats can not win this fight. Save your weapon for a fight you can win.

I'm being lazy.

 

Can the Ds hold this up in any way? I thought the Rs had enough votes already.

 

If I were advising the Ds knowing full well that barring a bombshell (didn't pay taxes/diddled the nanny/etc) this gentlemen will be confirmed. So try to take the "high road" (by DC standards) and say "we believed that Mr Merrick should have been confirmed but due to the ugliness of politics it didn't happen. We've chosen not to take that route in the name of country first.... blah blah blah."

 

It's the only small win they can get.

 

The D's can filibuster. But the R's can invoke the nuclear option. Not positive they would but in the end it's probably what would happen. That could be bad for years down the road. For which party, depends on who is in charge.

 

In the end, the D's are most likely gonna have a bigger fight down the road. The prudent move is to save their big guns for that one.

 

Another option is to attempt a negotiation with President Trump. Offer up a quick confirmation in exchange for something. Possibly a new cabinet pick.

They can still filibuster a Supreme nominee. Reid's nuke didn't stop that.

 

Nothing to gain from that.

 

I get their frustration over the political game played regarding Merrick but tit-for-tat is getting us nowhere.

I'm being lazy.

 

Can the Ds hold this up in any way? I thought the Rs had enough votes already.

 

If I were advising the Ds knowing full well that barring a bombshell (didn't pay taxes/diddled the nanny/etc) this gentlemen will be confirmed. So try to take the "high road" (by DC standards) and say "we believed that Mr Merrick should have been confirmed but due to the ugliness of politics it didn't happen. We've chosen not to take that route in the name of country first.... blah blah blah."

 

It's the only small win they can get.

 

They can still filibuster a Supreme nominee. Reid's nuke didn't stop that.

 

If I remember right, there have to be 60 votes to bring him to the floor of the Senate for a confirmation vote. The R's don't have the 60 votes by themselves so the Dems have some control.

To your first point @Clyde. The R's have enough votes to confirm. That only takes a simple majority. However they need 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. They don't have that.

 

The nuclear option reverses the 60 votes needed to block a filibuster and it becomes a simple majority.

I'm being lazy.

 

Can the Ds hold this up in any way? I thought the Rs had enough votes already.

 

If I were advising the Ds knowing full well that barring a bombshell (didn't pay taxes/diddled the nanny/etc) this gentlemen will be confirmed. So try to take the "high road" (by DC standards) and say "we believed that Mr Merrick should have been confirmed but due to the ugliness of politics it didn't happen. We've chosen not to take that route in the name of country first.... blah blah blah."

 

It's the only small win they can get.

 

Republicans can invoke Nuclear option. It is the only nomination Reid did not invoke it. My point has been the next nomination is when the Democrats probably want to force this hand. On this nomination it is getting through one way or the other , unless as you said their is a bomb shell. They just can't win this fight. It would make their base happy but they are not going anywhere. They need the voters who are on the fence. Blocking Trumps nominee when so many Senators are up for reelection in states Trump won is bad politics.

 

Save your fillibusters for the nomination that changes the complexion of the court.

Nothing to gain from that.

 

I get their frustration over the political game played regarding Merrick but tit-for-tat is getting us nowhere.

 

This was my whole point earlier today. Trump could've ended the tit-for-tat by nominating Garland. He chose not to. IMO, this is probably the next best option. A highly qualified conservative judge to replace another conservative judge. If the nomination were to replace one of the liberal judges on the court it would most likely be much different.