How do you feel about being nominated by a so-called president whoâs been under FBI investigations for colluding with a hostile foreign nation?
I see Turtle fully intends to shove this thing through while peopleâs attention is to the Russia thing. 
There is nothing that keeps Gorsuch from getting on the court in the current make-up of the Senate unless Râs vote against. Russia or no Russian thing, it doesnât matter. Short of Râs voting against or Gorsuch saying, oh fuck it, never mind, I change my mind, he is going to the court.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when certain Democratic voters decided purity and the cult of personality was more important than filling a supreme Court Seat.
Donald Trump gets to appoint a supreme court justice. Take that, Hillary! We sure showed youâŚ
Thatâs the beauty of having your party run a non-stop scandal-ridden administrationâwhen things get hot on one front, you can just deflect to another scandal. Win!
Republicons keep repeating the lie that the âAmerican peopleâ chose Trump. They did not. They chose Hillary Clinton by a margin of 2.9 million votes. The Electoral College chose Trump. That should be pointed out every time that false claim is made.
Actually, at the moment at least, confirmation will require ALL Republicans and 8 Democrats/Independents. But watch what happens to the filibuster if they canât get 8.
this needs to be repeated over and over again.
Disastrous PR for Democratic party, Iâm afraid. Personally, I can handle Democrats folding like deckchairs on the question of the stolen seat, since I long ago reconciled myself to the spinelessness factor; I can handle Gorsuch on the SC, since what the fuck, itâs been a republican court all my voting life and Iâve metabolized that fact just as all the Democratic politicians seem to have. But Iâm very worried that a crucial section of the party, i.e., those not yet eligible to vote during the Bush years, will simply be flummoxed by the failure of Democrats to even voice a meaningful complaint about the stolen nominationâand this at at time when the GOPâs credibility is at an all-time low. It will be very damaging to the party and will become a rallying pointâand a valid rallying pointâfor any young progressive naively arguing that the time has come for a new progressive party. Do these senators not read their Twitter accounts? There is a shit storm from hell brewing if they donât show some spine, and it could spell disaster in 2020. At least give people a real soundbite about itâFeinstein didnât go nearly far enough.
I just want to say I am deeply disappointed that it under these circumstances that we begin our hearings.
Deeply disappointed? Wow. That should teach the GOP a lesson.
How about: I just want to say that, whether or not you are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, you should not be the person getting a confirmation hearing for this vacancy. As you well know, the highly respected and highly qualified Merrick Garland was nominated for the vacancy just over a year ago. The Republican leadership in the Senate ignored the needs of the nation and their Constitutional duty and refused to even schedule a hearing for the nominee. For 293 days, the Senate majority took no action on the nomination, except to proclaim that they would not act. No previous nominee in the history of the United States had waited even half that long for a Senate decision. The Senate majority chose this irresponsible behavior, because they wanted to confirm a nominee who would reliably decide cases in a manner that furthered their political goals.
â and so on.
Since they brought up legitimacy, until such time as the FBI concludes its investigation of the Trump campaignâs collusion Russian intelligence, the Senate has no business confirming one of Trumpâs nominees.
Senator TBD: âJudge Gorsuch, given your dedication to an originalist Constitutional doctrine, do you agree that the meaning of the phrase âadvice and consentâ to the framers was not synonymous with ârudely ignoreâ? And do you further agree that, having failed to carry out its Constitutionally mandated duty to actually advise and consent, the Senate is obligated to follow through on President Obamaâs nomination of Merrick Garland before it can legally act on your nomination? Take your time, Judge, I know itâs a question fraught with pitfalls.â
Or how about:
Q: Youâre familiar with the constitution? Specifically, with the âadvise and consentâ clause? Good. Now, letâs say that the Speaker of the House, and not the President, purported to nominate a supreme court justice and this Senate purported to advise and consent to the Speakerâs appointment and voted to hold a confirmation hearing. Would that be lawful?
Answer: No.
Q: And what would be the responsibility of the judge, in such a situation? Would you say that he or she ought to participate in the hearing or accept any eventual confirmation? That such participation would be lawful and conscionable?
A: I would not.
Q: So you would agree with the proposition that any SC nominee must initially form a view as to legality of his/her nomination?
A: Well, I guess so.
Q: So by your presence today, you are indicating that you believe that it was lawful and appropriate for the GOP not to schedule a hearing for Judge Garland?
etc etc
Oh, come on. Heâs talking about Americans. The American people. You know. Youuu knooow.
Yep. Just keep hammering him on his integrity.
Plus, you know, Trumpâs strategery made him lose the popular vote. He coulda easily won 90% of the vote if he hadnât had to win the Electoral College majority.