Democrats in denial

[Hawkmoon]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/327850-mcconnells-shining-moment

McConnell’s hardball handling of Scalia’s seat also raised questions whether it might blow up relations with Democrats and hurt the chances of passing Trump’s legislative agenda later this year and next.

Schumer on Friday warned it “will make this body a more partisan place.”

It's difficult to imagine the Senate being any more partisan than the Democrat's have already made it. Almost every day I receive e-mail blasts from one or both of my state's Senators, and the continuing message is purely partisan. There's nothing in them about a vision for America, or an agenda to accomplish anything positive. The messages are ALL just variations on "We're going to block everything Trump does. Send money."

That was their message regarding Gorsuch. It wasn't that he's not qualified. It wasn't that he's a bad judge. It was just that he isn't Garland, and the D's wanted payback. How much more partisan can it possibly become, Chuck?

[Perd Hapley]

I think we all know what it means when Democrats talk about partisanship, bipartisanship, or any variation thereof.

[zxcvbob]

I think Garland might be a smart pick for Trump's *next* USSC appointment -- especially if it's to replace one of the liberals on the court.

[Hawkmoon]

I think Garland might be a smart pick for Trump's *next* USSC appointment -- especially if it's to replace one of the liberals on the court.

I don't. We don't need to maintain the same precarious 5-4 / 4-5 split we had when Scalia was alive. Remember, both Heller and McDonald were decided by 5-4 votes. And I'm still of the opinion that Mr. Scalia had to include that wretched "presumptively lawful" language that's causing problems all over the country in order to keep Kennedy with the pro-2A majority. We don't need Garland, we need another Gorsuch, another strict constructionist/originalist.

[Monkeyleg]

We need the most hardline constructionist there is. Schumer wet his bed. Let him lie in it.

[dm1333]

Winning at politics has replaced running the country, both in the house and senate.  ANd the rest of us suffer for it.

[230RN]

We need the most hardline constructionist there is. Schumer wet his bed. Let him lie in it.

Bolded for truth. 

Winning at politics has replaced running the country, both in the house and senate.  And the rest of us suffer for it.

Bolded for truth.

[lee n. field]

chumer on Friday warned it “will make this body a more partisan place.”

Shameless posturing for their base.   Nothing new here.

[Andiron]

I think Garland might be a smart pick for Trump's *next* USSC appointment -- especially if it's to replace one of the liberals on the court.

Oh hell no.   Now is the time to crush them.

[RoadKingLarry]

I think Garland might be a smart pick for Trump's *next* USSC appointment -- especially if it's to replace one of the liberals on the court.

Bullshit.
Democrats screech that if a liberal leaves the court they should be replaced by a liberal. When Scalia died did they try to replace him with a conservative?
Republicans have caved into to democrat screeching for decades in the name of compromise and bipartisan cooperation and all it has done is let the libtards gain ground.
When the shoe is on the other foot and conservatives ask for compromise and bipartisan cooperation all we get is a big FU from the democrats.
*expletive deleted*ck the democrats.

[zxcvbob]

Bullshit.
Democrats screech that if a liberal leaves the court they should be replaced by a liberal. When Scalia died did they try to replace him with a conservative?
Republicans have caved into to democrat screeching for decades in the name of compromise and bipartisan cooperation and all it has done is let the libtards gain ground.
When the shoe is on the other foot and conservatives ask for compromise and bipartisan cooperation all we get is a big FU from the democrats.
*expletive deleted*ck the democrats.

I thought Garland was a conservative; is he not? 

[Monkeyleg]

I thought Garland was a conservative; is he not? 

He was nominated by Obama. Enough said?

[Northwoods]

I thought Garland was a conservative; is he not? 

Nope.  He's less full throated commie than Sotomayor or Kagan, but that means nothing.  Best we could have possibly hoped for with Garland would have been another O'conner type of "swing" vote.  And even that was highly unlikely.  He would have most likely been just as reliable of a liberal justice as Breyer.

[K Frame]

I think Garland might be a smart pick for Trump's *next* USSC appointment -- especially if it's to replace one of the liberals on the court.

Holy crap, could you imagine that shitshow?

Democrats wouldn't be happy, they'd go absolutely stark raving nuts.

And I would bet that they would turn on him in a minute, because if Trump supported him, my God, that must mean his the hand maiden of the antichrist and the Holy Jesusbama was somehow under Satan's influence.

I absolutely love the thought of that happening.

[MechAg94]

Selecting anyone but a decent conservative would gain Trump absolutely nothing.  Dems and liberals would still hate him and the Republicans and Trump supporters would hate it also.  Past Republicans including W. Bush have attempted to play the appeasement game with liberals.  It has never gained them a damn thing. 

We have an opportunity to swing the court to something that might start supporting actual constitutional government.  Take the opportunity while we have it.