Neil Gorsuch for SCOTUS

That was the last election. Didn't seem to work out too well for them.

Actually no. The opposite in fact. Bernie would have been pandering to the base. Hillary was clearly center left to anyone without their head in their ass.

But HILLARY!!!

That's the problem with these binary far right bubble dwellers. They just assume that because they HATE Hillary that she has to be the darling of the left. Us v Them identity politics is all they understand so they can't wrap their heads around anything different.

The Clintons are about as centrist as anyone from either party goes. For example, Hillary was soft on universal healthcare and universal education, approached foreign policy like a neo-con, etc.

Gorsuch supposedly plagerized a chapter in his book.

And she should have flipped back. TPP, whatever its demerits, did not deserve to be tossed out so lightly.

And yet was pushing identity politics, which is not centrist.

It shouldn't be, but it certainly is in the US right now.

It isn't, in spite of what the new moral crusaders want to believe.

Care to elaborate on that claim?

A swing and a miss.

Wait, @K. just agreed with @Captain X and @Captain X rates it fantasy land, I'm confused?

What, are you pretending not to have noticed the feminist angle of her campaign? Or any of the other stupid shit she's said along those lines, like women being the true victims of war?

I'm assuming @Captain X believes that only one side is guilty of this, and doesn't recognize stuff like 'real Americans', 'fly-over-country', and of course 'Christians' as labels in identitary politics.

I assumed that was in response to how Trump talked about women. IIRC it started with Carly Fiorina, and pretty much culminated with his kitty grabbing.

Lol, I was expecting you to offer some cherry pickings, but even that on its own is weak. "Feminist angle." Why, because she's a woman who wants to be president?

I'm a critic of identity politics, and I don't believe she's particularly guilty of it.

I hope you're wrong.

Aaand the bomb has been dropped.

If for no other reason I would never have voted for Hillary Clinton for her statement in a speech

"Don't you want to see a woman as president of the United States!?!?"

What the hell should that matter one way or the other?

Yeah, that was pretty stupid. Yes, Hillary, I do want to see a woman as President, just not you.

No, that was something that was simply grabbed onto and twisted to suit their purposes. Clinton had been playing the feminist angle since she started running this last election.

What had long irritated me about Hillary Clinton was that she was basically a "feminist of convenience". She puffed up the "I am woman hear me roar" thing when it suited her purposes yet had no problems "hiding behind her skirts" when it suited her.

She did that in Arkansas where she publicly ambushed a primary opponent of Governor Clintons in the election and really laid into him only to deflect a counterattack on her as being "inappropriate".

And I'll never forget how her campaign played up the angle when she ran for Senator of New York that her male Republican opponent was being "mean" to her during a debate.

It's official. The filibuster is gone for SCOTUS nominees.

We'll see how well this plays out the next time a SCOTUS seat comes up.

Sure, cheer now, but what happens when a Democrat is in office and wants to appoint some Nancy Pelosi type?

Right now I don't care, they wanted pay back for Garland, they got their wish. The Republicans just got pay back for Harry Reid. It serves them right and the Republicans were forced to do this.

The solution I suppose would be a constitutional amendment that codified in the Constitution itself the allowed procedures for filibusters regarding nominees.

Personally, I have no real problem with a presidential nominee being required to obtain at least a relatively small supermajority like 55% of Senators in order to be confirmed.