IMO why we are so divided

Personally, from what I have heard and seen a lot of republicans, and WHY they voted for Trump, is ALL about the pro-life decision. Hence Gorsuch's nomination. It's the ONLY way it can be overturned. If they don't, they are going to lose A lot of voters in the next election. it's the ONLY reason a lot of people voted for Trump. they dislike the man, they dislike what he stands for, but for THIS cause alone, they voted for him.

I'll also quote the Democrat senator from Colorado who recently announced he will not filibuster - I wish more Senators could take this view:

I completely agree.  Or worse for a court nominee, Trump will resign or be impeached and we'll get who Pence picks.

The GOP didn't even give Garland a hearing. Absolutely refused. Why would they expect cooperation?

I'm listening to the republicans talking on CNN now and wonder if they realize how hypocritical they are. "They can't accept thatnTrump won." Just like they accepted that Obama won and was president? I wish I could just tell them all to STFU.

I just think the Democrats could look very good here if they were to approve this good candidate, even despite the childish antics of the Republicans last year. 


BUT

It's a hijacked spot...and the POTUS is under investigation for collusion with Russians....


So confusing.

feinstein has been around a long time and really is a centrist. and she was willing to give gortsch a chance til he testified. so I think he is a slimy person.. not willing to stick neck out for any principle.. and should not be in the court. the republicans pretend they did nothing under obama that was bad.

miracles could happen.. what if the republicans next nominated garland for the supreme court? gorsuch would be the most conservative member.. along side clarence thomas.

If ANYONE here has said that it was acceptable for the GOP, I must heave missed it. In fact I've only seen anyone, including those on the Right, say it was wrong and they were assholes to do it. So your sarcastic point was useless.

Yep, and McConnell has no shame. Let him kill the fillibuster. He won't like it much when the shoe is on the other foot. Gorsuch will be confirmed, but he will never be legitimate.

I agree with this:


"One flaw in this argument is that it utterly ignores the circumstances by which Gorsuch came to his nomination. Yes, he is well qualified and respected by liberal peers. On the other hand, he only has the opportunity to claim a Supreme Court seat because Republicans violated a long-standing norm that allows presidents to nominate somebody — the exact parameters of who that somebody is being the subject of regular dispute — to fill a vacant seat.

The Republican incredulity that Democrats would have the gall to object to fine, upstanding Neil Gorsuch is quite special. (How can you complain about me picking up some money I found lying there on the sidewalk? Never mind whether it got there because I ripped the wallet out of your pocket.)

The notion that Republicans would somehow not be willing to abolish the filibuster for Trump’s next nominee, after being willing to do so to complete the wake of the judicial heist of the century, defies plausibility. Every Supreme Court vacancy counts for one vote. The next vacancy will matter just as much as this one. Sure, if Trump decides to nominate Michael Cohen or Scott Baio to the Court, some Senate Republicans might object. But Trump has clearly indicated that he defers on this subject to regular Republicans. The next judicial vacancy will seem at least as crucial as this one, and the pressure on Senate Republicans to confirm their party’s choice will be overwhelming.

We already live in a world where a Republican president has a 50-vote standard to confirm a nominee to the Court. The only question is whether Democratic presidents have the same standard. The worst possible outcome for Democrats would be to allow Republicans to fill a vacancy with 50 votes while forcing their party to muster 60. And there is a lot of reason to believe this is the case right now. Barack Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee, the highly respected and moderate jurist Elena Kagan, got the support of just five Republican senators, of which two were driven into retirement by actual or threatened primary challengers in part because of those votes. Once Democrats lost their supermajority, their ability to seat a justice probably disappeared with it.

In 2014, Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Elle that she did not want to retire in part because she believed Senate Republicans would filibuster any left-of-center nominee to replace her:

Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Democrats] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.
Mitch McConnell wants to preserve an ambiguous situation where the norms say one thing and the rules say another. This is to his advantage, because he is a serial violator of norms. This isn’t a moral question — he’s a brilliant tactician and he’s very good at identifying political strategies that are legal but which have not been used due to social convention. If McConnell can use the threat of the nuclear option to make the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee a useless weapon for the opposing party, he can preserve it as a potential useful one for himself. If Democrats don’t make McConnell abolish the Supreme Court filibuster, he may use it to blockade their next nominee, and they will have only themselves to blame."

The republicans ARE the mean girls. They bully everyone around and expect people to go along with it.

If people had a problem with what they did, it only went so far as "maybe that wasn't ok, but oh well. Now we get to pick who we want." Didn't stop then from voting for those who did it.

More like obstinate whiny little toddlers.