• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats secure votes to block Gorsuch as Senate panel considers nominee

Cardinal said:
Republicans: "Look at what you've made me do!!!"

[violently saws off left foot].
Click to expand...

Because Reid already sawed off the right foot.
 
What would be interesting is if the Democrats do push the filibuster and kill the illusion of the filibuster now. I would imagine there would be several SCOTUS retirements in short order from the conservative side, looking to lock up the current conservative seats with younger judges.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Great, so now even the one legged man can kick our ass in a contest.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Without the filibuster the party in power can lock up the judiciary pretty easily in a single term for decades to come.

I've often thought of writing a political thriller that followed this very scenario where the ruling party kills the filibuster and then SCOTUS judges start dropping dead. I think the story would be pretty short because there wouldn't be much of a mystery surrounding who was bumping off judges.
 
jmotivator said:
What would be interesting is if the Democrats do push the filibuster and kill the illusion of the filibuster now. I would imagine there would be several SCOTUS retirements in short order from the conservative side, looking to lock up the current conservative seats with younger judges.
Click to expand...

Then you disagree with Gorsuch saying there is no such thing as a GOP or DEM Justice.

You underestimate the libertarian professionality of Roberts and Kennedy.

The best hope I have for Gorsuch is that he joins Kennedy and Roberts and not Thomas and Alito .
 
This is like filibustering Andy Griffith.

Oh well, thanks, Harry.
 
Erod said:
This is like filibustering Andy Griffith.

Oh well, thanks, Harry.
Click to expand...

Thank McConnell for 2016 and 2013, Frist for 2005, Lott for 1999, Nixon for 1957 and the USSC for 1892 .
 
NIMBY said:
Then you disagree with Gorsuch saying there is no such thing as a GOP or DEM Justice.

You underestimate the libertarian professionality of Roberts and Kennedy.

The best hope I have for Gorsuch is that he joins Kennedy and Roberts and not Thomas and Alito .
Click to expand...

I said conservative, not GOP. Gorsuch is a fantastic originalist justice but that doesn't make him a GOP judge. There are things that the GOP might try to pass into law that wouldn't pass muster with an originalist justice.

I'm fairly certain that Gorsuch would fall more in line with Roberts and Kennedy. My statement was that I believe that there will be pressure on Thomas and Kennedy to retire now, maybe given the opportunity to help pick their replacement.
 
jmotivator said:
Because Reid already sawed off the right foot.
Click to expand...

Think through the logic of concluding that because the right foot has been removed, it is necessary to remove the left foot. As Slyfox said, adults are not in control.
 
Cardinal said:
I love how excited the Republicans are to use the nuclear option. I'm trying to figure out if

a)They're unaware that they're removing the filibuster for themselves the next time they're in the minority, or

b)They're aware, but genuinely believe they'll be in power forever.
Click to expand...
Well, the reality seems to be that both sides are well aware that they could go nuclear. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to, at this point. If Party A doesn't use it they will appear to be fools when Party B uses it when they have the chance. Party A's using or not using the option has absolutely no impact on whether Party B will use it when they can.

If Schumer and McConnell were adults perhaps this could be avoided but that option is out the window.
To go to this grade school level, it appears that Dems did it first, over the past 8 years.
And the old saying about the problem with an eye for an eye is that everyone is blind.
 
jmotivator said:
I said conservative, not GOP. Gorsuch is a fantastic originalist justice but that doesn't make him a GOP judge. There are things that the GOP might try to pass into law that wouldn't pass muster with an originalist justice.

I'm fairly certain that Gorsuch would fall more in line with Roberts and Kennedy. My statement was that I believe that there will be pressure on Thomas and Kennedy to retire now, maybe given the opportunity to help pick their replacement.
Click to expand...

I agree. And if Ginsberg and/or Breyer retire......SCORE!
 
Erod said:
I agree. And if Ginsberg and/or Breyer retire......SCORE!
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I hope they hold on until a Democrat is in office because I think if they "retire" under Trump's presidency it will trigger the crazy even more than Trump's win.

Though that might be the perfect platform for the Republicans to offer making the filibuster a constitutional amendment.
 
jmotivator said:
Quite frankly, I hope they hold on until a Democrat is in office because I think if they "retire" under Trump's presidency it will trigger the crazy even more than Trump's win.

Though that might be the perfect platform for the Republicans to offer making the filibuster a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

I think those cows have left the barn. The far left will morph into the next terrorist organization in the US. Kind of like Bill Ayers, but with more angst and determination. It's already budding, and it seems they're starting to want to out-do each other.
 
Erod said:
I think those cows have left the barn. The far left will morph into the next terrorist organization in the US. Kind of like Bill Ayers, but with more angst and determination. It's already budding, and it seems they're starting to want to out-do each other.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but you can probably defuse it with an olive branch that, in reality, helps everyone in the long run.
 
jmotivator said:
Maybe, but you can probably defuse it with an olive branch that, in reality, helps everyone in the long run.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is not supposed to be an olive branch item.

I don't want conservatives and liberals. I want strict originalists. I don't expect to personally love every decision, but I expect every decision to be based on Constitutional merit.

The lower courts are wrought with nothing but politicians as judges. The Supreme Court needs to check and balance that.

When decisions are always 5-4, that's not Constitutionalism. That's just political football.
 
The Dumbos are filibustering because he's a Trump pick. That's the only reason and everyone knows it.

This will blow up in their faces.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I wish we could elect adults, instead of children pretending to be adults. Let's see if I can sum this up:

McConnell should not trigger the so-called nuclear option.
Democrats shouldn't filibuster Gorsuch for no good reason.
Republicans shouldn't have refused to hold a hearing for Garland for no good reason.
Democrats shouldn't have triggered the so-called nuclear option years back for other appointees (2013?).
Republicans shouldn't have engaged in record filibustering tactics.


All in all, if we insisted on more adults, rather than children, our country could run more smoothly. But that doesn't seem to be the direction we're headed anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Well said, top to bottom.
 
Absentglare said:
We'll see if McConnell is going to risk undermining minority power or if he's going to go full turtle and abandon his own promise (again).
Click to expand...

he has no other choice. there is no reason that he should be filibustered. he is more than qualified and received unanimous vote from both parties for the appeals court.
all they need is 2 democrats to flip and flip they should.
 
Erod said:
The Constitution is not supposed to be an olive branch item.

I don't want conservatives and liberals. I want strict originalists. I don't expect to personally love every decision, but I expect every decision to be based on Constitutional merit.

The lower courts are wrought with nothing but politicians as judges. The Supreme Court needs to check and balance that.

When decisions are always 5-4, that's not Constitutionalism. That's just political football.
Click to expand...

I never said that the Constitution is an olive branch item. I am arguing, and have argued from the beginning, that the filibuster is an essential part of the checks and balances of a limited government even if it means that you or I don't get what we want sometimes because of it. The olive branch is showing the Democrats and the country that Republicans are the party of limited government, and that they are willing to give up power even if it means reinstating the filibuster permanently while they are in power. It would pay off in perpetuity when Democrats control Congress and the White house and are denied the blank check of a filibuster free legislature because, as you and I know, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the Democrats would ever offer to reinstate the filibuster when they are in power.

And quite frankly, and a conservative, I don't think anyone can be trusted with such unchecked power. I don't want the Republicans to have it any more than I want the Democrats to have it.
 
ludin said:
he has no other choice. there is no reason that he should be filibustered. he is more than qualified and received unanimous vote from both parties for the appeals court.
all they need is 2 democrats to flip and flip they should.
Click to expand...

Lol why should they flip?

The right refused to hold a hearing for Garland. That was inexcusable and underscores the fact that this is purely a vehicle to plant a partisan on the SCOTUS. Garland was a great pick, a moderate, NOT a democratic shill by any means.

Gorsuch refuses to acknowledge that the settlement of Roe v Wade is law. He is a coward who has no place on a court he fails to respect.
 
jmotivator said:
I never said that the Constitution is an olive branch item. I am arguing, and have argued from the beginning, that the filibuster is an essential part of the checks and balances of a limited government even if it means that you or I don't get what we want sometimes because of it. The olive branch is showing the Democrats and the country that Republicans are the party of limited government, and that they are willing to give up power even if it means reinstating the filibuster permanently while they are in power. It would pay off in perpetuity when Democrats control Congress and the White house and are denied the blank check of a filibuster free legislature because, as you and I know, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the Democrats would ever offer to reinstate the filibuster when they are in power.

And quite frankly, and a conservative, I don't think anyone can be trusted with such unchecked power. I don't want the Republicans to have it any more than I want the Democrats to have it.
Click to expand...

I agreed with that several years ago, but now we see Schumer and his ilk completely cratering to the wacky far left of their party. I don't want those SJWs running this country. Ever.
 
Erod said:
I agreed with that several years ago, but now we see Schumer and his ilk completely cratering to the wacky far left of their party. I don't want those SJWs running this country. Ever.
Click to expand...

They will get another shot, they always do. The goal should be to lock down the government and make it as tyranny proof as possible before that happens. The obstacle is that to accomplish that the Republicans have to be willing to give up power while they have it in order to deny it to the left later.
 
jmotivator said:
Because Reid already sawed off the right foot.
Click to expand...

tis but a scratch.

in any event there is a bad precedent and it only applies to nominations not actual laws.
however there is no reason than childish behavior to filibuster the guy.

however they need 2 democrats to swing the other direction. right now they only have 41 votes from what I understand.
there are some democrats that are voting for him and breaking rank.

they need to find 2 more conservative democrats to lead the way.
 
ludin said:
tis but a scratch.

in any event there is a bad precedent and it only applies to nominations not actual laws.
however there is no reason than childish behavior to filibuster the guy.

however they need 2 democrats to swing the other direction. right now they only have 41 votes from what I understand.
there are some democrats that are voting for him and breaking rank.

they need to find 2 more conservative democrats to lead the way.
Click to expand...

It's not even worth doing the math. I don't think anyone is trying to scrounge up the votes at this point since doing so would be to protect the ghost of the filibuster. It's not worth pretending it is still alive. What is worth considering is how to go about resurrecting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom