Schumer Threatens 'Tooth and Nail' Fight Over Supreme Court Nominee

Cybercast News Service ^ | November 21, 2016 | 5:26 AM EST | Susan Jones

[Pietro]

"we’re going to fight that nominee tooth and nail."

Let's remind Chucky that his predecessor blew up the filibuster for his own short sighted needs.

Hence, the filibuster hangs by a thread; "tooth and nail" might be just what the doctor ordered to jettison it completely.

[gaijin]

I wonder how his fat ugly THIEF niece is doing, that ugly harridan.

[donozark]

If Demwits pull this crap, just shut the monster down!

[Blue Turtle]

Schumer's gonna fight Trump! LOL

[Olog-hai]

Someone on the comments section said the same about a nominee to the right of Che Guevara.

[xzins]

Schumer called for nuke option on scotus picks.

He supported nuke option for all other senate issues.

If McConnell has any sense, he will kill the filibuster to make America great again.

If they get rid of the filibuster, then it will be far easier in the future to change bad policy. Let’s have clean votes in Congress the way the constitution intended.

[Zakeet]

Chuckie Smuckie ... the latest goon to take his place in the starting lineup ... from a deep bench of Democrat idiots!

[servantboy777]

>>Uh Chuck.Harry changed the Senate rules. Presidential appointees need only 51 votes for confirmation.<<

I'm thinking it needs to be verified that the rule change is still in effect under Mitch Milktoast McConnell.

If not, Trump needs to apply pressure to ol Mitchy to again put the nuclear option into effect.

[freedomfiter2]

Yes but the Dems play hardball while the GOPe plays tiddly winks.

[Buckeye McFrog]

It really IS time for the filibuster to just go away now.

Let them all take an up-or-down vote on everything.
Let the people be their judge.

[jiggyboy]

I’d like to see Trump just say, without a vote or even hearings, ok, I’ve gotten advice from the Senate, some of it good, some not so good, and now let me you introduce our next Supreme Court Justice, his name is (whatever). He starts Monday.

[SES1066]

Uh Chuck, Harry changed the Senate rules. Presidential appointees need only 51 votes for confirmation.

I believe that they carved out an exception for the Supreme Court nominees, but again, that is also subject to a rule change by the Senate President. What the Democrats will learn, I hope, is that once you establish expediency as precedent, the door stands open. Obama and his 'phone & pen' Executive Orders is another area ripe to be changed by President Trump!

[trebb]

Chuckie Schmarmer can’t help himself- he’s suddenly in the limelight again and thinks it makes him important....

[Chauncey Gardiner]

Newsflash: the “mainstream” is defined by Nov 8, not what chuckie thinks it is

[Sasparilla]

We are ready to pull teeth and rip out nails.

[struggle]

D-We’re going to filibuster you!
R-Nuclear Option
D-Well...we don’t like that!

[baltimorepoet]

The next time there is an Ebola outbreak in Liberia, Trump should appoint Schumer as diplomat to Liberia. Also task him with visiting Ebola victims.

I dislike Schumer as much as Feinstein and Shillary.

[originalbuckeye]

As was the Communist Kagan.

[Gaffer]

There’s the Reid Nuclear Rule, too. Plus a Mike Pence as President of the Senate.

[leftcoaster]

"Come January, Republicans will control all three branches of government,..."

I keep seeing this phrase in many articles. And it is wrong.

The articles are referring to the 3 branches under R control as POTUS, the US Senate, and the House of Representatives.

But the 3 branches of the Federal Government are the Legislative (Congress = House + Senate), Executive (POTUS), and Judiciary (SCOTUS). I don't think any of these articles imply that there are 5 Republicans in control of SCOTUS, so they are not correct in their discussion that Republicans control all 3 branches of government.