SCOTUS

On 8/21 this year there is supposed to be a total solar ellipsis.....so there is that.

He's pretty much a guarantee to get in, it's just a matter of how long the D's want to drag it out and what kind of precedent they want to set. 

I don't think you can use the word ellipsiscle and 3 dots.....that's an over-extension of elllipsisness.

Gorsuch will be confirmed, I have no doubt.  I suspect several Democrats will vote with the Republicans giving a filibuster proof majority. 

Sounds like Shumer is playing the filibuster card.  It's almost humorous to see them try to justify it.

BTW, this is way more about Merrick Garland than it is Gorsuch. 

If that's true they should just filibuster for 1 year and give Trump the remaining 3

lol, that would be funny. 

I don't understand the whole nuclear option completely, but it sounds like if the change is made then it's permanent?  Or perhaps it's just a precedent that's set, I don't know. 
It seems as though the R's don't really want to do the Nuclear option, but will if they have to.  This nominee isn't really the one to get crazy on, but if RGB retires in the next year or two it's going to be crazy. 

My understanding is the vote has always been a simple majority for judge nominees, but the 60 vote rule is for when the opposing party decides to be a D-bag and filibuster a nominee they know they can't stop.  Then they created a rule that a 60 vote majority could stop any filibuster. So the whole nuclear option has nothing to do with the approvals or not, it's simply changing the requirement to stop a filibuster to a simple majority.

(going from memory, so hopefully this is correct)  ;-) 

Yeah it's melodramatic - but they needed a simple term to describe what amounts to some legal handwaving.  Normally it takes a 2/3 vote to amend Senate rules.  What they do instead is declare that there's a constitutional question (about the rule) and then they can proceed to cloture on majority vote.

On a side note, the Senate used to require 2/3 vote to shut down a filibuster, then reduced it to 3/5 some years later.  They also used to require actually standing up and speaking, but now a senator only has to declare his/her intent to filibuster.  That last part I think they should roll back.  It would make grumpy old men really think twice about whether they want to stand at the podium for hours on end without a bathroom break.

I think we could find bipartisan support for that.    

I read something earlier today that there's a little enforced "two speech" rule in the Senate.  It states that you can only give two speeches on any pending issue.  So if they wanted they could use that rule and force the Dems to do a true filibuster until they pass out twice.  Might take a few days, but would avoid going nuclear and make them look like idiots.  Kind of a win/win

Yep, one thing I read about yesterday was that this also effects all judicial nominations.  So it opens up the path for Trump to start stacking very conservative justices in the lower courts as well. 

Bro - you shoulda used an ellipse there. LMAO