Gorsuch 100 Feinstein/Dems 0

Mr. Deez said:
By fighting Gorsuch, they keep their cred.
Click to expand...

I think this may just be "pick your poison" thing at this point. If they give in and don't filibuster, then their whacko base feels betrayed, the moderates start thinking that cooperation might help their re-election prospects and they feel as if they've given up their trump card to ever oppose a nominee again. They've somehow managed to paint Gorsuch as a monster to the base, and they've gone too far to now say "OK we'll accept him."

They've put themselves in a position where all they can do is force McConnell to play his hand so they can scream injustice and try to win votes in the midterms based on that. The dem playbook at this point has one page: make the base madder and shriller and hope that they become so furious that they either undergo mitosis and split into multiple mad voters, or at least make it impossible for anyone to have a civil discussion about an issue which might make them look bad.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
They've somehow managed to paint Gorsuch as a monster to the base, and they've gone too far to now say "OK we'll accept him."
Click to expand...

Insert Trump's name in that sentence in place of Gorsuch. Kind of funny how every aspect of that sentence works perfectly with Trump in it.

Notice a pattern? Straight out of the Lib playbook. Create a monster that cannot be tolerated at any cost. Said person succeeds. Base labels him illegitimate.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I've heard Garland's name brought up many times. They're not saying it's a protest, because they know how petty that would sound, but they're exploiting it to the extent that they can. I think the rationale is pretty clear though from the circumstances. Any Democrat who plays ball with Trump is going to get torched by the base and risk primary opposition. By fighting Gorsuch, they keep their cred.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd say that Garland's name hasn't been mentioned as much as it should. Republicans literally stole a seat from Democrats in unprecedented fashion. Every Democrat being interviewed should start with that statement before talking about why they are filibustering the nomination because from a Judicial qualifications standpoint, there is not ground to stand on for Gorsuch.



I just don't think that's necessarily true. McConnell's not an idiot. He knows the shoe will be on the other foot one day. I don't think he'd change the rules if he had a choice.
Click to expand...

If that was true, he would have put Garland up for a vote. Where was McConnell's attempt at bipartisanship? Remember, it was the R's who created a logjam of judicial court vacancies due to obstruction. Garland was the moderate. For all intents and purposes, the nuclear option has already been invoked. Harry Reid simply accelerated it.

.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
I guess I'd say that Garland's name hasn't been mentioned as much as it should. Republicans literally stole a seat from Democrats in unprecedented fashion. Every Democrat being interviewed should start with that statement before talking about why they are filibustering the nomination because from a Judicial qualifications standpoint, there is not ground to stand on for Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

I think they handled Garland wrong, but I don't buy that narrative. Who owned the seat to begin with? The President doesn't have any more constitutional ownership over the seat than the Senate does. He can appoint who he wants, and they can act or not act on it as they choose. And bear in mind that they did what Democrats would have done with a Republican president in the same situation. Even from a political standpoint, Obama was the lamest of ducks at the time. He was in his last term and had just gotten his *** kicked in the midterms. Trump is a newly elected President whose party has more clout than it has had in 90 years. They're not in remotely similar positions.

Seattle Husker said:
If that was true, he would have put Garland up for a vote. Where was McConnell's attempt at bipartisanship? Remember, it was the R's who created a logjam of judicial court vacancies due to obstruction. Garland was the moderate. For all intents and purposes, the nuclear option has already been invoked. Harry Reid simply accelerated it.
Click to expand...

First, Garland wasn't a moderate on issues that voters (Republican or Democratic) would care about. When it comes to the judiciary, they care about social issues, because the judiciary has largely usurped the rest of the government on social issues. On social issues, he would have been indistinguishable from Ginsburg or Sotomayor.

Second, putting Garland up for a vote would have likely meant his confirmation (mainly because there are Republican senators who have integrity but are naive), which would have flipped the balance of the Court. There'd be a 5-4 liberal majority (and that's counting Kennedy as a conservative). I think McConnell would like to keep the filibuster, but he's not going to throw away the Supreme Court for the rest of his life to do it. That's why he'll change them on Gorsuch but may not have changed them when the stakes aren't as high, such as when Ginsburg leaves or passes away.

In my ideal scenario, the Court would just follow the law and stop trying to force its agenda through results-oriented nonsense that it pretends to be honest jurisprudence. If they did that, it wouldn't be anywhere near as politicized as it is. That's not going to happen, so the Senate and the President need to start being honest with the public and admit that all the talk about qualifications, competence, who's willing to answer what questions during committee hearings, etc. are shallow talking points. Nobody cares about that stuff, and both parties are hypocrites on those concerns. The real issue is ideology, because the Court has become a super-legislature, which means that policy preferences have to be paramount. The GOP stopped Garland because of his ideology. Democrats want to stop (or look like they're trying to stop) Gorsuch because of his ideology.
 
George Will suggests an excellent option that really should be considered by the R leadership.

The Senate's coming confirmation of Neil Gorsuch will improve the Supreme Court, and Democrats' incontinent opposition to him will inadvertently improve the Senate — if Republicans are provoked to thoroughly reform the filibuster. If eight Democrats will not join the 52 Republicans in providing 60 votes to end debate and bring Gorsuch's nomination to a vote, Republicans should go beyond extending to Supreme Court nominees the prohibition of filibusters concerning other judicial nominees. Senate rules should be changed to rectify a mistake made 47 years ago.

There was no limit on Senate debate until adoption of the cloture rule empowering two-thirds of senators present and voting to limit debate. This occurred on March 8, 1917 — 29 days before Congress declared war on Germany — after a filibuster prevented a vote on a momentous matter, the Armed Ship Bill, which would have authorized President Woodrow Wilson to arm American merchant ships. (He armed them anyway.)

In 1975, imposing cloture was made easier by requiring a vote of three-fifths of the entire Senate, a change the importance of which derived from what Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., did in 1970: He created the "two-track" system whereby the Senate, by unanimous consent or the consent of the minority leader, can set aside a filibustered bill and move on to other matters. Hitherto, filibustering senators had to hold the floor, testing their stamina and inconveniencing everyone else to encourage the majority to compromise. In the 52 years after 1917, there were only 58 cloture motions filed; in the 46 years since 1970 there have been 1,700.
continued at the link
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
George Will suggests an excellent option that really should be considered by the R leadership.

The Senate's coming confirmation of Neil Gorsuch will improve the Supreme Court, and Democrats' incontinent opposition to him will inadvertently improve the Senate — if Republicans are provoked to thoroughly reform the filibuster. If eight Democrats will not join the 52 Republicans in providing 60 votes to end debate and bring Gorsuch's nomination to a vote, Republicans should go beyond extending to Supreme Court nominees the prohibition of filibusters concerning other judicial nominees. Senate rules should be changed to rectify a mistake made 47 years ago.

There was no limit on Senate debate until adoption of the cloture rule empowering two-thirds of senators present and voting to limit debate. This occurred on March 8, 1917 — 29 days before Congress declared war on Germany — after a filibuster prevented a vote on a momentous matter, the Armed Ship Bill, which would have authorized President Woodrow Wilson to arm American merchant ships. (He armed them anyway.)

In 1975, imposing cloture was made easier by requiring a vote of three-fifths of the entire Senate, a change the importance of which derived from what Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., did in 1970: He created the "two-track" system whereby the Senate, by unanimous consent or the consent of the minority leader, can set aside a filibustered bill and move on to other matters. Hitherto, filibustering senators had to hold the floor, testing their stamina and inconveniencing everyone else to encourage the majority to compromise. In the 52 years after 1917, there were only 58 cloture motions filed; in the 46 years since 1970 there have been 1,700.
continued at the link
Click to expand...

I think that would hep matters. I generally respect the filibuster, but if you're going to whip it out, I think you should be prepared to go full Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. This idea that presenting a piece of paper signed by 41 senators can unilaterally kill legislation is absurd. Instead, put them to the test. Make them go through with it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I think that would hep matters. I generally respect the filibuster, but if you're going to whip it out, I think you should be prepared to go full Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. This idea that presenting a piece of paper signed by 41 senators can unilaterally kill legislation is absurd. Instead, put them to the test. Make them go through with it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If you want to filibuster, then get off your lazy ***, stand up there and start talking. Let's see just how strong your convictions really are.
 
Yeah I was just saying this to a colleague yesterday at lunch - the Dems are crying about "Senate tradition"; well, agree with them, and put the rule back to where a Senator has to hold the floor for a filibuster to continue. In general, I see George Will as kind of an arrogant blowhard, but I agree with him on this one.
 
I'm not sure how you'd go about it, but my take on reforming the filibuster is two-part. One, I agree they should have to physically hold the floor and no new business can conduct until it's resolved.

Two, there should be a limit on the amount of filibusters within a year, session, or whatever period makes sense. Kind of like coaches challenges in NFL football.

Sure they may wish to filibuster everything, but a limit would force the minority party to pick battles wisely and use them where they truly are opposed. This would prevent constant obstruction just for the sake of doing so.

Eventually, either they reform this thing responsibly or one party is gonna get rid of it altogether. When Dems reclaim the Senate, they'll have no interest in mercy.
 
Brad Austin said:
Two, there should be a limit on the amount of filibusters within a year, session, or whatever period makes sense. Kind of like coaches challenges in NFL footb
Click to expand...

This would effectively eliminate the filibuster in one-party rule situations like we have now or had early in Obama's first term. What the Majority Leader will do is fast track a bunch of "must filibuster" legislation that was never a real priority for him early on just to make the opposition party blow all its filibusters. Once they had done that, then he'd move on to the stuff he really cares about.

Brad Austin said:
Eventually, either they reform this thing responsibly or one party is gonna get rid of it altogether. When Dems reclaim the Senate, they'll have no interest in mercy.
Click to expand...

They won't have any mercy, not that they were having much mercy before. Both sides can tinker with the rules all they want, but the real root of the problem is that the parties and much of the electorate is overly polarized, which has led to a polarized Senate. Very few moderates gets elected. Back in the '90s or even the 2000s, if the Republican leadership got particularly aggressive, they'd lose people like Lincoln Chaffee (Rhode Island) (and previously his dad, John) and Jim Jeffords (Vermont) and less frequently, Olympia Snowe (Maine). On some issues, they'd also lose Bill Roth (Delaware), Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania), Alfose D'Amato (New York), Bob Packwood (Oregon), Mark Hatfield (Oregon), or Slade Gorton (Washington). Not everybody was Jesse Helms (North Carolina).

If Democrats got overly aggressive in general, they'd lose people Fritz Hollings (South Carolina), David Boren (Oklahoma), and James Exon (Nebraska). Those guys were more conservative than probably half the GOP, and they'd ditch the leadership on anything. If they got too socially liberal, they'd lose Robert Byrd (West Virginia), David Pryor (Arkansas), Dale Bumpers (Arkansas), Bennett Johnston (Louisiana), Harry Reid (Nevada) (he used to be pro-life - hard to imagine now), Tom Daschle (South Dakota), and Howell Heflin (Alabama). If they got too fiscally liberal, they'd lose Kent Conrad (North Dakota), John Breaux (Louisiana), Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia), Dennis DeConcini (Arizona), Richard Bryan (Nevada), Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), and Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colorado). Believe it or not, they occasionally even lost Dianne Feinstein (California) if they got too fiscally liberal. Not everybody was Ted Kennedy (Massachusetts).

These people made it harder to unreasonably invoke cloture and (on the flip side) maintain a filibuster. Nowadays, most politicians who did what these folks used to do would get demonized as "soft" and face primary opposition. There are still a few but no where near enough to make a closely divided Senate work.
 
Last edited:
JF
Have they already taken the vid down?
DIFI said you should not filibuster a SCOTUS candidate just because you disagree with them. Is that what Reid said?
 
Seattle Husker said:
If that was true, he would have put Garland up for a vote.
Click to expand...

Elections have Consequences right? That's what BHO said once. Win the election and Hillary perhaps has Garland being voted on right now. Too bad for you guys that Justice Scalia died right as the election year was getting started. The last time that happened some of your same boys that whined then is whining now like the crybabies that they are on both sides of that election year issue.
 
Horn6721 said:
JF
Have they already taken the vid down?
DIFI said you should not filibuster a SCOTUS candidate just because you disagree with them. Is that what Reid said?
Click to expand...

I dont know why they took it down, is just some C-Span footage
It's Harry Reid justifying his rule change in 2013

 
ProdigalHorn said:
Harry Reid makes my skin crawl. Between he and Chuck Schumer, I don't know which one is the slimiest.
Click to expand...


1smallreid.jpg
 
Here is what the Dems were saying back in 2013 (re: Reid)
Some tweets age better than others

 
Next the Gorsuch Cloture vote passed 55-45
This means a max of 30 hours of debate to ensue
Then CONFIRMATION VOTE - which should be around 7pm tomorrow (if it goes the full 30)
 
Nuclear option complete
Click to expand...

I really didn't think McConnell would have the sack to do this. I gotta remember that right after the election I said that if he (DT) would just get the SCOTUS pick right, I would forgive anything else. I have to remind myself of this daily so I don't get greedy and then pissed that more is not being done.
 
Phil Elliott said:
..... I gotta remember that right after the election I said that if he (DT) would just get the SCOTUS pick right, I would forgive anything else. .....
Click to expand...

This was my platform from day one.
And, with 8 years, he may get 2 more picks (who knows?)
And how they are going to squawk when Trumps gets to replace Ruth Buzzi with 51 votes
Harry Reid's chickens have come home to roost
 
Phil Elliott said:
I gotta remember that right after the election I said that if he (DT) would just get the SCOTUS pick right, I would forgive anything else. I have to remind myself of this daily so I don't get greedy and then pissed that more is not being done.
Click to expand...

THIS. Once Gorsuch is sworn in it's a whole new ballgame. DT has clearly been slow walking his EO's on immigration to wait for Gorsuch.

He's also delayed addressing a few other important issues knowing it'll get blocked by activist judges with no favorable recourse in place.

This is exactly why I've delayed judgement on his agenda until SCOTUS is set.

So far there's been a lot of tip-toeing around guaranteed Lib landmines until that day arrived. Things will start heating up fast once Gorsuch is in place.
 
Ready for a little bit more history?

The Dems began to filibuster judges began back in in 2003 (Bush)
Their first objection was to a nominee for the DC Court of Appeals
He was a Honduran immigrant who worked his way through Harvard -- Miguel Estrada
And he was seeking to become the first Hispanic on that court*

They kept it going for the rest of that year, including filibustering respected and accomplished judicial nominees like Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor


* A leaked Dem memo showed they did not want him on the Court precisely because he was hispanic. They were afraid this 'status' would later make him a contender for the SCOTUS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/02/12/former-aide-in-memo-leak-seeks-probe-dems.html
 
Last edited:
How do these people keep their jobs?
One would think 'honesty' would be a bare minimal qualification
She is a regular on CNN

(check the dates)
C8vvbJqVoAIqW7q.jpg

C8vvbJoUMAAPG-F.jpg


C8vvbJqVoAEEgDa.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top