Democrats: What would the politics be behind a Gorsuch filibuster?

[Mac1958]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

 

[gipper]

The SC has become politicized. So naturally appointments to it are politicized, by the scumbag politicians.

 

[Mac1958]

The SC has become politicized. So naturally appointments to it are politicized, by the scumbag politicians.

Yep. I'm assuming that's all this is.

These people are far more worried about keeping their jobs than anything else.
.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This was a battle the dems were destined to lose from the get go

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

How will you stop Uncle Vlad from flipping Den Senate seats in the midterm?

He'll use the same mind control ray that he used on Hillary voters to get them to vote for Trump and you're powerless to stop him

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just a few years ago, I was constantly hearing that the filibuster is outdated, undemocratic, and racist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

 

[Mac1958]

I wonder if this change in the filibuster rule would cause our "leaders" -- cough -- to (a) realize that it's not in the best interests of the country to have wild legislative swings with damn near every election, (b) realize that they can't be held hostage by the crazies in their "base" any more, and (c) conclude that it's time to start acting like reasonable statesmen and put country before party for a change.

Okay, just kidding. I know that's not going to happen.
.

 

[easyt65]

Democrats declared that ALL judges deserve an up or down vote, so much so that THEY created the 'Reid Rule' to ensure ALL judges have that up or down vote.
- NOW the Democrats are demonstrating they believe their idea of ALL judges getting an up or down vote was a dumb idea and that the Reid Rule was a mistake.

Democrats declared the US could NOT live with only 8 USSC Justices
- NOW they are determined to filibuster Gorsuch, forcing the US to live with only 8 Justices

The Democrats are putting on display a full-blown Hypocritical Partisan Meltdown.

Gawd, all you need is a bag of popcorn and a soda to sit back and enjoy this show...

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

They would not be able to get around the language of the original law that required 2/3d vote for repeal. Several of the state leges have used such language to make sure legislation would be very difficult to overturn. And the laws have stood up to appeals in the courts.

 

[AntonToo]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Republicans didn't want Obama nominee and acted on it, refusing to even give him a hearing. The cat is out of the bag and chivalry is out the window. Democrats have no choice but to take this road to the only place it could have led.

Lets say Democrats play nice here, what do they gain? Nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

All bets are off

Gorsuch is a stolen seat

 

[Mac1958]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this? The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again. I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?.

Republicans didn't want Obama nominee and acted on it, refusing to even give him a hearing. The cat is out of the bag and Democrats have no choice but to take this road to the only place it could have led.

Agreed, sadly.

Y'know, there are a lot of Americans out there who just wish these people and their enablers would stop playing politics, stop putting party ahead of country.

We're not represented on the national stage for the most part, but we are out there.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

They would not be able to get around the language of the original law that required 2/3d vote for repeal. Several of the state leges have used such language to make sure legislation would be very difficult to overturn. And the laws have stood up to appeals in the courts.

They would not be able to get around the language of the original law that required 2/3d vote for repeal.

Congress can't bind a future Congress with a law like that.
It would only take 51 votes to pass a rule that says that law could be repealed by majority vote.

 

[yiostheoy]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

I doubt this will influence the 2018 midterms much.

The 2018 midterms will all depend on whether Trump can deliver on any of his promises.

But getting rid of the filibuster on all judge ratifications including SCOTUS is a GOOD idea.

Thomas was a squeaker in the face of Anita Hill's defamation of him back in 1991. He did not receive 60 votes as Schumer claims is the "traditional" benchmark.

I don't know why Schumer and the DEM's are opposing Gorsuch.

Opposing him is pure ignorance.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and RB Ginsberg have become disasters each one, legislating from the bench and opposing the 2nd Amendment.

So the DEM's have no room to complain. Their track record of nominations is abysmal.

 

[Flash]

There have been filibusters for Supreme Court nominees before but it has been bi partisan.

These filthy Democrats are doing it along party lines and that is despicable. That just shows the how vile and contemptuous the Democrat Party has become.

If the bastards can't play nice then the majority of the Senate can change the rules to force them to accept the results of the 2016 election.

 

[Mac1958]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

I doubt this will influence the 2018 midterms much.

The 2018 midterms will all depend on whether Trump can deliver on any of his promises.

But getting rid of the filibuster on all judge ratifications including SCOTUS is a GOOD idea.

Thomas was a squeaker in the face of Anita Hill's defamation of him back in 1991. He did not receive 60 votes as Schumer claims is the "traditional" benchmark.

I don't know why Schumer and the DEM's are opposing Gorsuch.

Opposing him is pure ignorance.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and RB Ginsberg have become disasters each one, legislating from the bench and opposing the 2nd Amendment.

So the DEM's have no room to complain. Their track record of nominations is abysmal.

I don't know how this works out well. Whichever party is in charge has complete control, and I'm not fond of that idea.

All the more reason to avoid having one party with this much power in the future.
.

 

[yiostheoy]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

No.

If you watched Meet The Press last Sunday (4/2/2017) you would have heard both McConnell and Schumer agree that the "legislative filibuster" would remain in place.

The only thing changing now (probably today -- a historic day) is that Harry Reid's anti filibuster rule will be extended to include SCOTUS judges now, in addition to all other Federal judges as before.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

No.

If you watched Meet The Press last Sunday (4/2/2017) you would have heard both McConnell and Schumer agree that the "legislative filibuster" would remain in place.

The only thing changing now (probably today -- a historic day) is that Harry Reid's anti filibuster rule will be extended to include SCOTUS judges now, in addition to all other Federal judges as before.

If you watched Meet The Press last Sunday (4/2/2017) you would have heard both McConnell and Schumer agree that the "legislative filibuster" would remain in place.

And it would only take 51 votes to remove the "legislative filibuster".