Looks like the Senate has gone nuclear

[master_shake_]

term limits anyone?

 

[Sonikku]

I find it interesting that it took some time of constant blocking and obstruction from the GoP for all over the place for the Dems to make even a watered down version of this move. The very instant the Dems try to fillibuster once when the tables are turned and the GoP immediately takes it to a greater extreme than the Dems ever did.

 

[theeedude]

Schumer doesn't have an iron grip on the D senators. 3 of them voted for cloture on an extremist like Gorsuch, I don't see how you can argue that a more centrist candidate couldn't have gotten 60 votes.
The Republicans stole the seat and then rammed an extremist through by arguing - without evidence - that the Democrats would do what only they themselves had already done.

Schumer only needed 41 to filibuster, and he probably told the remaining 7 who are running in 2018 to do what they felt was best to win then. I think it's quite surprising that only 3 voted for cloture. They must be coming around to the obvious fact that being Republican Light will keep more of their base from turning out than it will get them Republican votes.

 

[shortylickens]

term limits anyone?

We've needed those since congress was started.

And do you know who decides if congressmen get term limits or not?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

People like DSF and taj do an excellent job proving that there is no upper bound to stupidity when hypocrisy is involved. Do people y'all know in real life just like punch you in the face daily? I don't see how anyone could resist doing it if they knew you guys.

What's your problem? What point or opinion did I express that you disagree with? Or is it that reasoned and relatively intelligent dialogue with those you disagree with way outside your wheelhouse? You don't need to answer...your 'must punch you in the face' mentality says it all.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I find it interesting that it took some time of constant blocking and obstruction from the GoP for all over the place for the Dems to make even a watered down version of this move. The very instant the Dems try to fillibuster once when the tables are turned and the GoP immediately takes it to a greater extreme than the Dems ever did.

Not true. Dems abused the crap out of the filibuster when they had the chance...9 appointments alone in 2003 were filibustered. Republicans filibustered only 5 appointments over several years before the Dems went nuclear. Don't revise history here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

And when Democrats thought they had a lock on the presidential election and a possible Senate majority, they were already talking about going nuclear on SCOTUS picks two weeks before the election.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again

 

[Jhhnn]

Yet Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3. Conservatives are slow learners.

Which merely shows that Ginsberg was not a radical nominee.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Which merely shows that Ginsberg was not a radical nominee.

Well that's certainly one way to look at it...if you happen to live in a bubble.

 

[dank69]

Well that's certainly one way to look at it...if you happen to live in a bubble.

Practically at 0 when she was nominated.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Practically at 0 when she was nominated.

Good point. That said, look at Stevens and Scalia...both were approved 98-0! SCOTUS votes became much, much more partisan after Bush II took office.

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

 

[dank69]

Good point. That said, look at Stevens...he was approved 98-0!

Thank you, and Stevens was actually above 0 when nominated.

Hopefully you no longer try to compare these two to Bork in the future.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Thank you, and Stevens was actually above 0 when nominated.

Hopefully you no longer try to compare these two to Bork in the future.

I made no such comparison and have zero clue as to what you're referring to.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

People like DSF and taj do an excellent job proving that there is no upper bound to stupidity when hypocrisy is involved. Do people y'all know in real life just like punch you in the face daily? I don't see how anyone could resist doing it if they knew you guys.

I don't usually get threatened in real life.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Today I agree with you & Putin it will marginalize the Freedumb caucus guys and add some level of responsibility to what gets voted for. See the last healthcare proposal

The Republicans should have just flat out repealed Obamacare. Their biggest mistake was trying to polish that piece of shit.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The Republicans should have just flat out repealed Obamacare. Their biggest mistake was trying to polish that piece of shit.

Of course because the repeal is the easy part its the replace that's hard to do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't usually get threatened in real life.

Me neither. Lunatics seem to be coming out of the woodwork lately...someone actually hoped I would kill myself yesterday!

 

[Indus]

term limits anyone?

Better idea is to just say we don't have a country anymore, just 50 states who can't agree on anything except a common passport and interstate highway system much like europe.

It's time that we had 50 Presidents too.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Of course because the repeal is the easy part its the replace that's hard to do.

Yep. And Republicans will NEVER all agree on the replacement IF ACA has already been repealed.

 

[Blackjack200]

Schumer only needed 41 to filibuster, and he probably told the remaining 7 who are running in 2018 to do what they felt was best to win then. I think it's quite surprising that only 3 voted for cloture. They must be coming around to the obvious fact that being Republican Light will keep more of their base from turning out than it will get them Republican votes.

Either way, the R case becomes much stronger with a second filibuster, especially if it's a more centrist candidate. Ramming through an extremist who was the first nomination weakens the argument that it was a necessary measure in the face of D party petulance as opposed to a naked political play for power.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not true. Dems abused the crap out of the filibuster when they had the chance...9 appointments alone in 2003 were filibustered. Republicans filibustered only 5 appointments over several years before the Dems went nuclear. Don't revise history here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

And when Democrats thought they had a lock on the presidential election and a possible Senate majority, they were already talking about going nuclear on SCOTUS picks two weeks before the election.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again

Yes, Dems filibustered radical right nominees & also had the integrity to make moderate nominations of their own that were more likely to win Repub approval. That doesn't work any more. Repubs are desperate to lock down minority rule with the Court, Gerrymandering & voter suppression.

 

[Fenixgoon]

so here's a dumb question...let's say democrats take control of the senate in 2018...why can't they just change the rule back to a 60-vote requirement instead of a majority? am i missing something? everyone's saying "things will never be the same" when you sure as hell can if it's a matter of just changing a rule (back to the way it used to be)

i understand that that is effectively giving up power - but the whole point of the senate is to be a more diplomatic, statesman-like place than the house. and the purpose of the 60-vote majority was to ensure that a candidate was palatable at least to some degree, and not just getting railroaded through because one party wants it that way.

 

[glenn1]

so here's a dumb question...let's say democrats take control of the senate in 2018...why can't they just change the rule back to a 60-vote requirement instead of a majority? am i missing something? everyone's saying "things will never be the same" when you sure as hell can if it's a matter of just changing a rule (back to the way it used to be)

i understand that that is effectively giving up power - but the whole point of the senate is to be a more diplomatic, statesman-like place than the house. and the purpose of the 60-vote majority was to ensure that a candidate was palatable at least to some degree, and not just getting railroaded through because one party wants it that way.

Who cares? Dems lose more from repeal of filibuster since GOP wants revolutionary and large changes in current political status quo. Democrats OTOH are just fighting to maintain the New Deal and Great Society model and add a new entitlement or civil right protection now and again. Removing barriers helps the more extreme party presuming they can get their act together in the legislature.

 

[chowderhead]

so here's a dumb question...let's say democrats take control of the senate in 2018...why can't they just change the rule back to a 60-vote requirement instead of a majority? am i missing something? everyone's saying "things will never be the same" when you sure as hell can if it's a matter of just changing a rule (back to the way it used to be)

i understand that that is effectively giving up power - but the whole point of the senate is to be a more diplomatic, statesman-like place than the house. and the purpose of the 60-vote majority was to ensure that a candidate was palatable at least to some degree, and not just getting railroaded through because one party wants it that way.

why should the Democrats do this? There are many red states with low populations but 2 Senators so the Democrats will almost never get up to 60 votes consistently. Plain states, MasonDixon/border states, deep south states and most mountain states are safely Republican. But Democrats can cobble together a majority of Senators (50). The Republicans should actually want the 60 vote threshold as they are almost always guaranteed 40+ Senators. The Democrats have won the popular vote in the Presidential race since 1992 except once. I am glad they got rid of the filibuster. The Democrats should return the favor the next time they have a majority and the Presidency.

 

[master_shake_]

We've needed those since congress was started.

And do you know who decides if congressmen get term limits or not?

congressmen?

 

[theeedude]

Democrats should be working to eliminate the legislative filibuster, not bringing back SCOTUS one.
When Democrats pass legislation, it expands popular entitlements, which are almost impossible to roll back, even without a filibuster. Case in point, Obamacare. GOP can't even get a bill out of the House to repeal it, so removing Senate filibuster is not much help.
When Republicans pass legislation, it is extremely unpopular stuff like tax cuts for the rich and letting ISP's sell your browsing data, which is politically easy to undo without a filibuster.
This is why McConnell is trying desperately to say that this is only about SCOTUS and not legislation. But Democrats aren't going to let this slide. Passing universal single payer is as important for Democrats as putting justices on SCOTUS is for the Republicans, so they will apply same threshold to it. 50+1 votes.