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

[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!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal. SCOTUS would uphold it.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal.

Sorry. You can't stop a future legislature from removing any such supermajority requirement, unless it's in the Constitution.

SCOTUS would uphold it.

Not.

Of course you can. Utah's lege did it 20 years ago on wildlife laws. Nothing constitutionally or legally prevents such a law closing future action by succeeding leges. They could appeal to the courts.

 

[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!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal. SCOTUS would uphold it.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal.

Sorry. You can't stop a future legislature from removing any such supermajority requirement, unless it's in the Constitution.

SCOTUS would uphold it.

Not.

Of course you can. Utah's lege did it 20 years ago on wildlife laws. Nothing constitutionally or legally prevents such a law closing future action by succeeding leges. They could appeal to the courts.

Of course you can. Utah's lege did it 20 years ago on wildlife laws.

We're talking nationally.
Don't know the rules in different states, don't care.

Nothing constitutionally or legally prevents such a law closing future action by succeeding leges.

Except a future Congress that just votes to remove the supermajority.

They could appeal to the courts.

Courts don't get to tell Congress how Congress can vote.

 

[Penelope]

y

Is it a good thing to block the president, a bad thing, or only a bad thing when Republicans do it?

don't expect an answer. the dems and libs cannot get over the fact that the American voters rejected crooked Hillary and that Trump is now president with control of both houses of congress. They lost and they cannot deal with it.

You have no choice, the elites and Russia helped Trump and some of the poorly educated. Never forgot who and what you voted for. It will come back to haunt you.

the elites and Russia helped Trump

The same elite Russians that gave Hillary so much money?

Putin didn't like Clinton or the Obama Admin. Note how Rex has become SOS and is also a friend of Russia. Putin helped Trump win, there is no doubt about that.

Putin didn't like Clinton or the Obama Admin.

Even after all of their ass kissing? They must have been even less competent than I thought.

Putin helped Trump win, there is no doubt about that.

How? By exposing the DNC's and Hillary's corruption?
Don't you hate it when the public learns the truth about your heroes?

I didn't see any corruption, but you just admitted Russia sent WikiLeaks emails.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ydon't expect an answer. the dems and libs cannot get over the fact that the American voters rejected crooked Hillary and that Trump is now president with control of both houses of congress. They lost and they cannot deal with it.

You have no choice, the elites and Russia helped Trump and some of the poorly educated. Never forgot who and what you voted for. It will come back to haunt you.

the elites and Russia helped Trump

The same elite Russians that gave Hillary so much money?

Putin didn't like Clinton or the Obama Admin. Note how Rex has become SOS and is also a friend of Russia. Putin helped Trump win, there is no doubt about that.

Putin didn't like Clinton or the Obama Admin.

Even after all of their ass kissing? They must have been even less competent than I thought.

Putin helped Trump win, there is no doubt about that.

How? By exposing the DNC's and Hillary's corruption?
Don't you hate it when the public learns the truth about your heroes?

I didn't see any corruption, but you just admitted Russia sent WikiLeaks emails.

I didn't see any corruption

You missed the pay-to-play emails? Hmmmmm.....

but you just admitted Russia sent WikiLeaks emails

If there was no corruption exposed, how could Wikileaks, Russian or otherwise, have influenced people to vote against Hillary?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal. SCOTUS would uphold it.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal.

Sorry. You can't stop a future legislature from removing any such supermajority requirement, unless it's in the Constitution.

SCOTUS would uphold it.

Not.

Of course you can. Utah's lege did it 20 years ago on wildlife laws. Nothing constitutionally or legally prevents such a law closing future action by succeeding leges. They could appeal to the courts.

Of course you can. Utah's lege did it 20 years ago on wildlife laws.

We're talking nationally.
Don't know the rules in different states, don't care.

Nothing constitutionally or legally prevents such a law closing future action by succeeding leges.

Except a future Congress that just votes to remove the supermajority.

They could appeal to the courts.

Courts don't get to tell Congress how Congress can vote.

Thank you for admitting that you don't know and are just mouth farting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal. SCOTUS would uphold it.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal.

Sorry. You can't stop a future legislature from removing any such supermajority requirement, unless it's in the Constitution.

SCOTUS would uphold it.

Not.

Of course you can. Utah's lege did it 20 years ago on wildlife laws. Nothing constitutionally or legally prevents such a law closing future action by succeeding leges. They could appeal to the courts.

Of course you can. Utah's lege did it 20 years ago on wildlife laws.

We're talking nationally.
Don't know the rules in different states, don't care.

Nothing constitutionally or legally prevents such a law closing future action by succeeding leges.

Except a future Congress that just votes to remove the supermajority.

They could appeal to the courts.

Courts don't get to tell Congress how Congress can vote.

Thank you for admitting that you don't know and are just mouth farting.

When you find proof that Congress can bind a future Congress to a supermajority requirement,
you be sure to come back and post it. In the meantime, I'll continue to mock your idiocy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have given you an example.

All you can say is "I don't like it" and "nuh uh."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have given you an example.

All you can say is "I don't like it" and "nuh uh."

Utah? Who gives a fuck?

Give me an example for the US Congress.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All you have, todd, is "not so," absolutely nothing other than your opinion. That does not sell.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All you have, todd, is "not so," absolutely nothing other than your opinion. That does not sell.

Not a single example of a future Congress handcuffed by a supermajority requirement that's not in the US Constitution.

If you had an example, you'd provide it.........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All you have, todd, is "not so," absolutely nothing other than your opinion. That does not sell.

Can today's Congress tell tomorrow's Congress what to do? No. Maybe. Sort of.
By Christopher Beam

What exactly is "binding legislation"?
In the debate over how to reduce the deficit—should we cut spending or raise taxes? should we do it now or later?—economists say we should spend now and save later. This is partly Economics 101: We're still in a recession, so let's stimulate our way out of it before turning to fiscal austerity. But it's also a convenient way to put off hard choices. Regardless of whoever pays the economic price for deficit reduction, the consensus seems to be that future Congresses should pay the political price.


Indeed, many of the biggest pieces of legislation facing Congress put off political pain. doesn't kick in until 2018. * Financial regulatory reform would put a consumer financial protection agency in place right away, but the panel wouldn't reach full strength until 2020. Immigration reform, meanwhile, would require illegal immigrants to wait another eight years before they could apply for permanent residency.

In other words, each bill contains provisions that will be implemented sometime in the future—not by Congress, necessarily, but by the executive branch. But these policies will require enough continued congressional support that no future Congress tries to reverse them.

And there's no guarantee they wouldn't. The problem is partly legal, partly political. Courts have long held that Congress cannot "bind" future Congresses—that is, it can't force a future session of Congress to carry on its own policies. That practice, formally known as "legislative entrenchment," is seen as privileging one group of lawmakers over another, "binding" future to the priorities set in the present. In the 1996 case U.S. v. Winstar Corp., Justice David Souter quoted the British jurist William Blackstone, who said that "the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if it's [sic] ordinances could bind the present parliament." The principle is more complicated in the United States, where the government is bound by the Constitution and any private contracts into which it enters. But as a general rule, any Congress can reverse the decisions of any past Congress. For example, Bob Dole repealed future tax cuts in the 1980s.


Can today's Congress tell tomorrow's Congress what to do? No. Maybe. Sort of.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Todd has nothing. Period. Zip. Zulch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[HenryBHough]

Repetition is a clear sign of desperation.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?
.

Simple as this...

Why is Garland not appointed?

Trump is getting Obama's pick... It is that simple.. Dems are blocking it out of principle, If a new seat came tomorrow the grand but this was not theres to pick and rewarding bad behaviour is not on...

That isn't what they're saying. They're saying it's because Gorsuch is too conservative. They're saying it's because he wasn't forthcoming enough during his hearings. They didn't complain about Kagan or Sotomayor being too liberal or not spilling the beans on everything they had done or would do.

They're playing tit-for-tat; you did it, so we're gonna get you back.

So they just playing politics, party over country, just like the other guys.

Are we not better than this?
.

We were better than this. And we could be again. One side is responsible. When they stop being dicks, shit will get better.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd has nothing. Period. Zip. Zulch.

In the 1996 case U.S. v. Winstar Corp., Justice David Souter quoted the British jurist William Blackstone, who said that "the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if it's [sic] ordinances could bind the present parliament." The principle is more complicated in the United States, where the government is bound by the Constitution and any private contracts into which it enters. But as a general rule, any Congress can reverse the decisions of any past Congress. For example, Bob Dole repealed future tax cuts in the 1980s.

LOL!

 

[JakeStarkey]

As a general rule.

But not if the legislation binds any future legislation from overturning it with specific guidelines.

I commend you finally doing your research.

Let's put it to the test.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As a general rule.

But not if the legislation binds any future legislation from overturning it with specific guidelines.

I commend you finally doing your research.

Let's put it to the test.

But not if the legislation binds any future legislation from overturning it with specific guidelines.

What part of ...."the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if it's [sic] ordinances could bind the present parliament." do you not understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is merely opinion that would need to be considered in SCOTUS. It is not binding on SCOTUS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is merely opinion that would need to be considered in SCOTUS. It is not binding on SCOTUS.

When you find proof that Congress can bind a future Congress to a supermajority requirement,
you be sure to come back and post it. In the meantime, I'll continue to mock your idiocy.