for posters with a democratic senator

[ednksu]

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. 

[ednksu]

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.

[slackcat]

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.

[Phil Titola]

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.

[Bloodfart]

 Holy crap!  Sounds like the dems better lube up.

[ednksu]

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.

[catastrophe]

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.

[slackcat]

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).

[catastrophe]

From former Obama Solicitor General: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?_r=1

[MakeItRain]

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.

[sys]

Nah, Barack told me elections have consequences and I'll just honor that pards.

oh, i thought you wanted the democrats to fight.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

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.

[catastrophe]

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.

[MakeItRain]

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?

[catastrophe]

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.

[MakeItRain]

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.

[Phil Titola]

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 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[Phil Titola]

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.

[catastrophe]

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.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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