Neil Gorsuch

[Belsnickel]

Word on the street is that the Democrats plan to filibuster his confirmation. I called Senators Kaine and Warner this morning to let them know that I have no problems with them voting against Gorsuch, but they should let it come to a vote.

[BmorePat87]

Republicans will finish what the Democrats started

[Belsnickel]

(03-24-2017, 12:17 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:


Republicans will finish what the Democrats started

Yup. Made my phone calls yesterday, sent in faxes today. I don't like this move by the Senate Democrats.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-24-2017, 10:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. Made my phone calls yesterday, sent in faxes today. I don't like this move by the Senate Democrats.

Far be it from me to defend Democrats, but they have to do something.  

[Belsnickel]

(03-24-2017, 10:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Far be it from me to defend Democrats, but they have to do something.  

Here's my thing, though. If they filibuster Gorsuch, they just get the bad image the GOP had for the last 8 years. I don't like him, but at least with him on the SC it's not a swing in ideology. The court remains the same for the time being. Don't like him? Don't vote for him, but let it come to a vote. He's going to be confirmed when the Republicans blow up the rule.

If they filibuster, they give the GOP to point the finger at them being petulant children. That's a news cycle or three where the attention is being taken away from the infighting in the GOP and the ineffective leadership in the White House. Politically speaking for the long term, it's better to let it come to a vote. It may give them some momentum in the Senate in the short term, but it won't last long.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-24-2017, 10:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's my thing, though. If they filibuster Gorsuch, they just get the bad image the GOP had for the last 8 years. I don't like him, but at least with him on the SC it's not a swing in ideology. The court remains the same for the time being. Don't like him? Don't vote for him, but let it come to a vote. He's going to be confirmed when the Republicans blow up the rule.

If they filibuster, they give the GOP to point the finger at them being petulant children. That's a news cycle or three where the attention is being taken away from the infighting in the GOP and the ineffective leadership in the White House. Politically speaking for the long term, it's better to let it come to a vote. It may give them some momentum in the Senate in the short term, but it won't last long.

Politically it seems they can't just pretend Merrick Garland didn't happen.  And thinking long term doesn't seem to be a trait shared by many up there on The Hill.

[Belsnickel]

(03-24-2017, 10:56 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Politically it seems they can't just pretend Merrick Garland didn't happen.  And thinking long term doesn't seem to be a trait shared by many up there on The Hill.

I don't disagree, but a filibuster is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go. I think statements on the floor will do fine expressing the issue. I do agree, though, the long-game doesn't seem to be their strngth these days

[GMDino]

(03-24-2017, 10:56 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Politically it seems they can't just pretend Merrick Garland didn't happen.  And thinking long term doesn't seem to be a trait shared by many up there on The Hill.

Years ago when I voted for McCain over Obama it was because Bush stole (IMHO) his nomination in 2000...not because I wanted Sara Palin that close to being POTUS.

I'd respect the Dems if they said "We don't dislike the current nominee, but we cannot in good conscience vote for him when the previous nominee never even got a hearing due to political games played by our colleagues in the Republican party."

Then vote no, he passes through anyway probably, and they made their point.

I'm with Matt.  This is no different than if there was no opening on the court.  It will stay the same for now.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-24-2017, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Years ago when I voted for McCain over Obama it was because Bush stole (IMHO) his nomination in 2000...not because I wanted Sara Palin that close to being POTUS.

I'd respect the Dems if they said "We don't dislike the current nominee, but we cannot in good conscience vote for him when the previous nominee never even got a hearing due to political games played by our colleagues in the Republican party."

Then vote no, he passes through anyway probably, and they made their point.

I'm with Matt.  This is no different than if there was no opening on the court.  It will stay the same for now.

Maybe it would work to do it that way.  Just seems the base would want a fight.

[GMDino]

(03-24-2017, 11:04 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Maybe it would work to do it that way.  Just seems the base would want a fight.

The louder part of the base probably does.  I've never been part of that.

[Belsnickel]

(03-24-2017, 11:04 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Maybe it would work to do it that way.  Just seems the base would want a fight.

There is definitely a part of the base that wants a fight. I get being pissed about Garland. He would've been a phenomenal justice. If there was enough sense and bipartisanship to pull off something like the episode "The Supremes" from seaosn 5 of The West Wing I would've been all for that, especially since Gorsuch clerked for Kennedy and so he will likely be the next to retire because of it.

We just need the DNC to be more pragmatic. The base that wants the filibuster is not that group that wants pragmatism. They are the group that will remain voting for Dem candidates. The ones we lost are the ones that want more pragmatism, they want the party of the people back, and this is not the fight that sends the message that is what is happening.

[*bfine32*]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-to-filibuster-neil-gorsuch-amid-supreme-court-showdown-183625283.html

Quote:In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Monday afternoon, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., became the latest Democrat to say he would vote no on cloture for Gorsuch. “I am not ready to end debate on this,” he said. The Committee voted Gorsuch’s nomination out to the floor Monday afternoon along party lines, with a full vote expected Friday.

Senate precedent requires 60 votes to end a filibuster — an indefinite debate — and proceed to a vote for Supreme Court nominees. That almost always means a judge has to attract some bipartisan support to be confirmed. In 2014, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., lowered the old 60-vote bar for Cabinet nominees and federal judges, after Republicans blocked many of President Barack Obama’s nominees. Now, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is likely to follow suit, and invoke the so-called nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees as well.

I absolutely hate what Congress has become. There was a time not too long ago that if the nominee was free of controversy he or she was nominated regardless if you agreed with their views.

The Dems can point to the GOP's refusal to consider Obama's choice as validation for their actions and now the GOP can point to the Dems lowering the 60 vote rule to validate their actions.

[Benton]

(04-03-2017, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-to-filibuster-neil-gorsuch-amid-supreme-court-showdown-183625283.html


I absolutely hate what Congress has become. There was a time not too long ago that if the nominee was free of controversy he or she was nominated regardless if you agreed with their views.

The Dems can point to the GOP's refusal to consider Obama's choice as validation for their actions and now the GOP can point to the Dems lowering the 60 vote rule to validate their actions.

McConnell made it known it was political. Which is unfortunate. If he'd said "we just don't like Obama's pick" instead of "the next president gets to pick because we don't like Obama" then it would've been passable. Now its just a never ending cycle of both sides bickering without any real resolution.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-03-2017, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I absolutely hate what Congress has become. There was a time not too long ago that if the nominee was free of controversy he or she was nominated regardless if you agreed with their views.  

That's part of the problem.  That "rubber stamp" bipartisan agreement is what has led to politicization of the court, and ultimately the current situation.  The SCOTUS would be entirely non-partisan if the Senate had been doing its job the last 40-50 years.

If neither party agreed to a politically biased judge, the court would not have bias and this would not be an issue.  The ideal SCOTUS, IMO, is 2-5-2.

The far more concerning issue is the continued erosion of the Senate as a bipartisan legislature.  That's the only check we have on the majority party.  Budget reconciliation is almost as abhorrent as the nuclear option.  If McConnell goes down this path, it's only a matter of time until the Senate becomes more or less a rubber stamp of the House.

But even signaling this is under consideration has probably already done the damage.  The Senate is the last firewall to stupid and irresponsible majority rule.  No one has done more damage to Democracy than Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2017, 11:57 PM)Benton Wrote: McConnell made it known it was political. Which is unfortunate. If he'd said "we just don't like Obama's pick" instead of "the next president gets to pick because we don't like Obama" then it would've been passable. Now its just a never ending cycle of both sides bickering without any real resolution.

And I get tired of "well, they did it first" as a reason for continuing it.

As you said, McConnell (and others) have said it was purely political.  Same it was for the other 8 years of obstruction from the GOP.  That doesn't make it right for the Democrats to do it.  And if they do do it that call it even and get back to work...at least they can say they tried to even things out.

[Goalpost]

Looks like they are going to nuke him in.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2017, 01:48 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Looks like they are going to nuke him in.

Yep and they picked a good day to do it.

The Dems are now screwed. This nomination did nothing more than maintain a status quo that has been falling in their favor for some time. Now if one of the more liberal justices leave the Dems have 0 cards to play as the Conservatives take control of SCOTUS

[xxlt]

(04-04-2017, 07:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I get tired of "well, they did it first" as a reason for continuing it.

As you said, McConnell (and others) have said it was purely political.  Same it was for the other 8 years of obstruction from the GOP.  That doesn't make it right for the Democrats to do it.  And if they do do it that call it even and get back to work...at least they can say they tried to even things out.

Then how do the Democrats ever win? If it was a football game and one team gets 8 downs to get a first down and is never penalized for breaking the rules and the other team gets one down to get a first but when they have the ball the defense gets to light it on fire and swing chains at them then which team do you think will win? That is in effect what you are advocating. And, Mitch "biggestposcsinamerica" McConnell thanks you for cheering his team to victory.