goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sys on January 31, 2017, 08:55:47 PM
-
never forgive, never forget.
http://act.couragecampaign.org/sign/block-trumps-supreme-court-nominee?source=20170131_org_sp_p_StopTrumpsCourtNom&sp_ref=266715046.114.178336.o.1.2&source=other
-
As with the Republicans, this would be much more effective if Democrats actually waited to see the candidate.
-
As with the Republicans, this would be much more effective if Democrats actually waited to see the candidate.
i don't know if the republican effort could have been any more effective, technically.
-
Marvelously effective. Capped by a marvelous pick. Dems will come out on the losing end if they try to fillibuster Gorsuch. But it's what their crazy base will demand so they're caught in a tough spot.
-
As with the Republicans, this would be much more effective if Democrats actually waited to see the candidate.
i don't know if the republican effort could have been any more effective, technically.
I think it could have been more effective if Obama did not get his nominee and the Republican congressmen maintained some additional political capital and credibility along the way.
-
political capital and credibility.
look at this guy, stuck in the 20th century.
-
Seems like this isn't the hill to die on for the dems. Seems like a highly respects judge-guy.
-
Seems like a highly respects judge-guy.
that's really irrelevant, phil. they have to disincentivize maneuvers like that of blocking garland.
-
Meh.... Maybe better to hold over your opponent's head that you took the high road... That worked well in the past right?
-
It's just one crap sammich after another for the left right now :curse:
-
better to hold over your opponent's head that you took the high road... That worked well in the past right?
no, that's never worked. the only way to disincentivize a rational opponent is to exact a price for aggression that is greater than the probable gain.
-
Seems like this isn't the hill to die on for the dems. Seems like a highly respects judge-guy.
There is no hill to die on here. They really can't stop the appointment anyway so they better put up a fight. I left the democratic party because they are turtling cowards that allowed themselves to get punked by the republicans. It gave me the appearance that democrats were only interested in getting re-elected and to not upset Washington's quid pro quo manner of behavior. Maybe at some point they should perhaps display that spine.
-
they really can't stop the appointment anyway so they better put up a fight.
the only way he can be confirmed before 2018 is if eight democrats betray their constitutional duty or the republicans remove the filibuster for supreme court nominations. trading the filibuster for a justice would be to the democrats advantage. they have nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
-
they really can't stop the appointment anyway so they better put up a fight.
the only way he can be confirmed before 2018 is if eight democrats betray their constitutional duty or the republicans remove the filibuster for supreme court nominations. trading the filibuster for a justice would be to the democrats advantage. they have nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
I'm fairly certain I've seen either hints or direct quotes stating that they would remove the filibuster.
-
I haven't heard anything about removing the filibuster. What I have heard is changing the number of votes necessary for confirmation.
I have also heard a lot of talk that this pick isn't as important as the next one. If they are going to stand against a nomination it would be for the next retirement/death in the SCOTUS.
-
I haven't heard anything about removing the filibuster. What I have heard is changing the number of votes necessary for confirmation.
I have also heard a lot of talk that this pick isn't as important as the next one. If they are going to stand against a nomination it would be for the next retirement/death in the SCOTUS.
That's just stupid. They are all equally important.
-
I haven't heard anything about removing the filibuster. What I have heard is changing the number of votes necessary for confirmation.
I have also heard a lot of talk that this pick isn't as important as the next one. If they are going to stand against a nomination it would be for the next retirement/death in the SCOTUS.
That's just stupid. They are all equally important.
They're all important, but in terms of immediately shifting the ideology of the court, this pick is a wash. It is replacing one "conservative" with another (albeit younger, much like with Kagan and Sotomayor). Replacing - say, Ginsburg, Breyer, or even Kennedy with a more Originalist justice would result in a much more pronounced shift in the balance of the court. That's what Yard is referring to.
Thus, the thinking goes, Democrats would be stupid to force abolition of the filibuster over this pick, because they could potentially use the threat of filibuster to encourage a more moderate replacement of one of the liberal justices in the near future.
And make no mistake about it, if Democrats filibuster Gorsuch, the filibuster is going to be nuked. Mertle the Turtle is loathe to do that - he cherishes Senate tradition - but he's not going to have any choice if Dems push the issue. Gorsuch is going to be confirmed - the question is how much the Dems damage themselves in appeasing their base.
-
I gotta say, the more Democrats fight this, I think the better it is for Trump.
-
I gotta say, the more Democrats fight this, I think the better it is for Trump.
I'd love to see this explanation
-
yeah, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
Great, fight it then..........
-
Great, fight it then..........
write your senator and encourage him or her to fight, gato.
-
Nah, Barack told me elections have consequences and I'll just honor that pards.
-
I haven't heard anything about removing the filibuster. What I have heard is changing the number of votes necessary for confirmation.
Which is what nuking the filibuster is......
-
So if the dems filibuster and the pubs nuke it what does that mean down the road? Can the pubs force another selection through with just 51 votes or does it reset to 60 again?
-
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/neil-gorsuch-wont-fill-the-vacancy-on-the-supreme-court-1791875408?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
I really really liked this piece.
-
So if the dems filibuster and the pubs nuke it what does that mean down the road? Can the pubs force another selection through with just 51 votes or does it reset to 60 again?
Once the bell is rung it can't be undone. Yes the tradition would be to use 60, but once it's accepted as practice, it can be used again. Deadspin has a good look at this issue and the Republican hypocrisy behind their actions. The fearful thing is that once you start removing these road blocks to everything from confirmation to what constitutes a quorum to take a vote, we've reached a very slippery slope. The problem is that the Democrats didn't realize soon enough that they were dealing with a party that didn't care about tradition or the rule of law. Now wee have a party in power hell bent on one party autocratic rule.
-
So if the dems filibuster and the pubs nuke it what does that mean down the road? Can the pubs force another selection through with just 51 votes or does it reset to 60 again?
From what I've read, yes.
-
Weird Republicans would start throwing all these norms and rules out the window for a president that they mostly cant stand and doesn't even push an agenda a lot of them agree with.
Do they not see the long term consequences of their actions today? When this all blows up and power sings the other way they will be left with no balance of power. Dumb.
-
Holy crap! Sounds like the dems better lube up.
-
Weird Republicans would start throwing all these norms and rules out the window for a president that they mostly cant stand and doesn't even push an agenda a lot of them agree with.
Do they not see the long term consequences of their actions today? When this all blows up and power sings the other way they will be left with no balance of power. Dumb.
When your goal is one party rule you act quickly when you have the legal authority to undo democratic rule.
-
I gotta say, the more Democrats fight this, I think the better it is for Trump.
I'd love to see this explanation
I explained in the Gorsuch thread.
-
Weird Republicans would start throwing all these norms and rules out the window for a president that they mostly cant stand and doesn't even push an agenda a lot of them agree with.
Do they not see the long term consequences of their actions today? When this all blows up and power sings the other way they will be left with no balance of power. Dumb.
Why it is seldom used. Senators tend to take their duties seriously, albeit some go off the deep end (Feinstein, Schumer, Harry Reid).
-
From former Obama Solicitor General: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?_r=1
-
I gotta say, the more Democrats fight this, I think the better it is for Trump.
I'd love to see this explanation
I explained in the Gorsuch thread.
If you think the electorate makes its decisions based on what happens during supreme court nominations there's nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. That's like trying to convince you that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and Jesus don't have a Tuesday morning coffee club.
-
Nah, Barack told me elections have consequences and I'll just honor that pards.
oh, i thought you wanted the democrats to fight.
-
So if the dems filibuster and the pubs nuke it what does that mean down the road? Can the pubs force another selection through with just 51 votes or does it reset to 60 again?
Once the bell is rung it can't be undone. Yes the tradition would be to use 60, but once it's accepted as practice, it can be used again. Deadspin has a good look at this issue and the Republican hypocrisy behind their actions. The fearful thing is that once you start removing these road blocks to everything from confirmation to what constitutes a quorum to take a vote, we've reached a very slippery slope. The problem is that the Democrats didn't realize soon enough that they were dealing with a party that didn't care about tradition or the rule of law. Now wee have a party in power hell bent on one party autocratic rule.
I really enjoyed this one. Senate parliamentary rules are "the rule of law" - actually statutes not so much. :lol:
For what it's worth, Mitch McConnell does not want to nuke the filibuster. But he will if the Dems force his hand. The GOP has put forward a perfectly qualified, acceptable candidate. As a committed textualist - actually interpreting laws based upon the written words - Gorsuch is about as far away from partisan as you can get. The Dems have no basis to filibuster other than as retribution for the Senate's refusal to consider Garland. But the GOP had no obligation to give Garland a hearing. It was their prerogative as the majority party.
I hope the Dems do filibuster, and this bites them in the ass extra hard when Trump nominates Bill Pryor to replace RBG.
-
I gotta say, the more Democrats fight this, I think the better it is for Trump.
I'd love to see this explanation
I explained in the Gorsuch thread.
If you think the electorate makes its decisions based on what happens during supreme court nominations there's nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. That's like trying to convince you that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and Jesus don't have a Tuesday morning coffee club.
Good counterpoint. But you said nothing about why Dems stonewalling the nomination would be bad for Trump.
-
I gotta say, the more Democrats fight this, I think the better it is for Trump.
I'd love to see this explanation
I explained in the Gorsuch thread.
If you think the electorate makes its decisions based on what happens during supreme court nominations there's nothing I can say to you that will change your mind. That's like trying to convince you that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and Jesus don't have a Tuesday morning coffee club.
Good counterpoint. But you said nothing about why Dems stonewalling the nomination would be bad for Trump.
Why would I say something I don't believe?
-
Well believing the result is completely politically neutral seems a stretch to me, but like you said, it seems we have no common ground to debate this one on.
-
Well believing the result is completely politically neutral seems a stretch to me, but like you said, it seems we have no common ground to debate this one on.
This crap only matters to the constant political circle jerk in the beltway. You think the 600,000 dipshits in Kentucky with Obamacare who voted for Trump and McConnell, against their own interests, give a crap about a filibuster? Come on man you know better than that.
-
Well believing the result is completely politically neutral seems a stretch to me, but like you said, it seems we have no common ground to debate this one on.
This crap only matters to the constant political circle jerk in the beltway. You think the 600,000 dipshits in Kentucky with Obamacare who voted for Trump and McConnell, against their own interests, give a crap about a filibuster? Come on man you know better than that.
Emails :curse:
-
So if the dems filibuster and the pubs nuke it what does that mean down the road? Can the pubs force another selection through with just 51 votes or does it reset to 60 again?
They're just parliamentary rules of the Senate. Yes, they could reimpose the filibuster at any time, but that's unlikely to happen. For example, when Harry Reid nuked the filibuster with respect to appellate judge and cabinet appointments a few years ago, it hasn't been reinstated much to the Dems' regret.
-
So if the dems filibuster and the pubs nuke it what does that mean down the road? Can the pubs force another selection through with just 51 votes or does it reset to 60 again?
They're just parliamentary rules of the Senate. Yes, they could reimpose the filibuster at any time, but that's unlikely to happen. For example, when Harry Reid nuked the filibuster with respect to appellate judge and cabinet appointments a few years ago, it hasn't been reinstated much to the Dems' regret.
Dumb move on his part. Destroying the rules that help the minority party are short-sighted and now Democrats are paying for it.
-
Well believing the result is completely politically neutral seems a stretch to me, but like you said, it seems we have no common ground to debate this one on.
This crap only matters to the constant political circle jerk in the beltway. You think the 600,000 dipshits in Kentucky with Obamacare who voted for Trump and McConnell, against their own interests, give a crap about a filibuster? Come on man you know better than that.
I'm not saying it will change anyone's mind, but it gives an easy talking point to Trump about how broken Washington is and how he has to fix it on his own. If he can keep his base pissed off the next two then four years, they will likely have more solid turnout on Election Day.
-
The democrats and obama really ruined d.c. with their shitty my way or the highway neo-socialist and fascist agenda. Not cool dems. #smdh