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

[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.

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.
.

The GOP historically has picked better judges who are strict constructionist and pro 2A.

That is a good thing.

The worst justices on the SCOTUS right now are Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan -- all appointed by DEM's and all anti 2A.

 

[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.

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".

Correct however they have both said they won't do that.

 

[yiostheoy]

Just a few years ago, I was constantly hearing that the filibuster is outdated, undemocratic, and racist.

Well there is nothing in the Constitution favoring a filibuster.

The only supermajority votes required in the Constitution are (1) to amend the Constitution and (2) to convict the POTUS in impeachment.

Filibuster simply evolved in the Senate as of 1806.

It is not a good rule.

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia

 

[rightwinger]

Gorsuch is a stolen seat

Make Republicans change the rules if they want to confirm him

 

[Mac1958]

Gorsuch is a stolen seat

Make Republicans change the rules if they want to confirm him

They will.
.

 

[2aguy]

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?
.

Their nutty donors are demanding it....

 

[OKTexas]

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.

That might be their logic, but SCOTUS has already ruled a current congress can not bind a future congress with poison pills like that. So can you say, exercise in futility?

 

[yiostheoy]

Gorsuch is a stolen seat

Make Republicans change the rules if they want to confirm him

The GOP will change the rules today.

Today will be an historic day.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is all about butthurt over Merrick Garland. Democrats are going to object to every nominee because of Merrick Garland.

Remember the Maine
Remember the Alamo
Remember Merrick Garland

 

[yiostheoy]

There will probably be 2 more justices nominated by DJ Trump and ratified by the McConnell senate in the next 2 years.

Kennedy and Thomas also want to retire. Now is the best time.

And if RB Ginsberg croaks then that would make 4 overall including Gorsuch.

 

[AntonToo]

This is all about butthurt over Merrick Garland. Democrats are going to object to every nominee because of Merrick Garland.

Remember the Maine
Remember the Alamo
Remember Merrick Garland

Why is Republican opposition to Garland fair game but as soon as Democrats oppose a Republican pick it suddenly has something to do with anal rape?

Oh yea that's right, I'm talking to a fucking retard.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Yep, Hannity showed videos of that last night, guess who it was, can you say Schumer and Warren?

 

[gipper]

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.
.

In the age of liberalism, all things are political.

 

[dcbl]

please do it - please!

that way we can dispense with the bullshit on ALL judicial nominees

 

[Defiant1]

We may be witness to some fantastic parliamentary procedure theater this week.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Can someone please explain the "logic" when Democrats say it is a "stolen seat"?

The Constitution gives no time frame on when the Senate has to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.

Republicans literally used the "Biden rule" which is literally the only rational thought the man has ever had.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Joe Biden 92

”We should reverse the presumption of confirmation… we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,”
Chuck Schumer 07

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?
.

Democratic Senators weren't elected to facilitate the nomination of rightwing judges. Maybe they're finally waking up to that fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can someone please explain the "logic" when Democrats say it is a "stolen seat"?

The Constitution gives no time frame on when the Senate has to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.

Republicans literally used the "Biden rule" which is literally the only rational thought the man has ever had.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Joe Biden 92

”We should reverse the presumption of confirmation… we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,”
Chuck Schumer 07

What is called the 'Biden rule' is not a rule.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.
.

In the age of liberalism, all things are political.

lol, you think Trump picked Gorsuch without regard to where Gorsuch falls on the political spectrum? Seriously?

 

[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!

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".

Correct however they have both said they won't do that.

Wait and see.