• 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!

If the Democrats try to Filibuster Gorsuch what should the GOP do

If Gorsuch is filibustered, what should the GOP do

  • Invoke the Nuclear Option and confirm him

    Votes: 33 56.9%

  • Try to convince some Democrats in purple states to vote for him

    Votes: 8 13.8%

  • Withdraw his nomination and find someone more left wing

    Votes: 9 15.5%

  • Try to reach a deal involving other issues

    Votes: 3 5.2%

  • Other-explain

    Votes: 5 8.6%
  • Total voters
    58
NIMBY said:
The fact that GOPs had the senate during Clinton's last two years only means McConnell duplicated what Lott did 16 years later. GOPs broke the senate .
Click to expand...

when the majority doesn't vote on a candidate that is not a filibuster a filibuster is when the minority obstructs the majority from voting against what the minority wants
 
Winston said:
Withdraw his nomination and pick someone else.

Going nuclear assumes you're always going to have a Senate majority. Down the road when the Democrats control the Senate again, are Republicans going to bitch if Democrats want to go nuclear? Or, will the Republicans just shame the Democrats for something they engaged in when they were in power?
Click to expand...

When McConnell finishes breaking the senate next week, we'll see how well he does keeping the government open when he tries to pay for trump's unpopular wall .
 
TurtleDude said:
when the majority doesn't vote on a candidate that is not a filibuster a filibuster is when the minority obstructs the majority from voting against what the minority wants
Click to expand...

You've changed your tune since last year. McConnell will blow up the senate this time or next time .
 
TurtleDude said:
when the majority doesn't vote on a candidate that is not a filibuster a filibuster is when the minority obstructs the majority from voting against what the minority wants
Click to expand...

McConnell = Frist = Lott = breaking the senate
 
 
I am Anti-Republican and the question is set up in such a way that I cannot answer, however I can make a scratch remark of my own.

I believe since there are some legitimate concerns about the Russia-Trump connections and his conduct as President that anything related to Trump should be put on hold.
 
In a move OPPOSITE with Garland, Gorsuch is refusing meetings with Democratic Senators .
 
Inalisist said:
I am Anti-Republican and the question is set up in such a way that I cannot answer, however I can make a scratch remark of my own.

I believe since there are some legitimate concerns about the Russia-Trump connections and his conduct as President that anything related to Trump should be put on hold.
Click to expand...

LOL, if hillary was elected, I doubt you would be claiming the same thing despite far more investigations of her

things have become poisonous. Right now it appears to be war. The GOP needs to do what it needs to do to win.

the russian nonsense is nothing more than the obstructionist dems trying to derail the winning administration because they are mad they lost
 
To be honest Gorsuch had non-answers during the meeting I watched. I don't think anyone heard legitimate answers from him when he was asked a serious question.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL, if hillary was elected, I doubt you would be claiming the same thing despite far more investigations of her

things have become poisonous. Right now it appears to be war. The GOP needs to do what it needs to do to win.

the russian nonsense is nothing more than the obstructionist dems trying to derail the winning administration because they are mad they lost
Click to expand...

I don't like any of the nominated candidates. I suppose you would be correct anyway, the result would have less damage in my opinion. I should say what I always say though, that I believe the current structure of the government is crap in comparison to what it could be.
 
Last edited:
Inalisist said:
To be honest Gorsuch had non-answers during the meeting I watched. I don't think anyone heard legitimate answers from him when he was asked a serious question.
Click to expand...
That's been the norm for a very, very long time.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
That's been the norm for a very, very long time.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Remember during the Garland fiasco when GOPosters were arguing for 8 justices by falling back on the fact that we had 6 in the beginning ?
 
Inalisist said:
I bet. I'm young so I wouldn't know.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that explains much. Nominees cannot answer any question that might suggest how they might rule on a future case. its SOP
 
NIMBY said:
Remember during the Garland fiasco when GOPosters were arguing for 8 justices by falling back on the fact that we had 6 in the beginning ?
Click to expand...

LOL remember when FDR didn't like his blatantly unconstitutional crap being shot down so he threatened packing the court until he *****whipped the justices into completely reversing course and allowing his malignant nonsense to remain?
 
TurtleDude said:
Hmm, that explains much. Nominees cannot answer any question that might suggest how they might rule on a future case. its SOP
Click to expand...

They can answer questions on what they previously ruled on since it is public.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL remember when FDR didn't like his blatantly unconstitutional crap being shot down so he threatened packing the court until he *****whipped the justices into completely reversing course and allowing his malignant nonsense to remain?
Click to expand...

Think SIX in the 1790s, since GOPs love the FFs .
 
Inalisist said:
They can answer questions on what they previously ruled on since it is public.
Click to expand...

yep and since they were subordinate judges its usually based on existing precedent
 
NIMBY said:
Think SIX in the 1790s, since GOPs love the FFs .
Click to expand...

I can go for that. Get rid of the last two seated That means

Breyer Ginsburg, Kennedy, THomas, Roberts and Alito.

I suspect Ginsburg will be the first gone of that group and then either Kennedy or Breyer before Trumps 4 years are up.
 
TurtleDude said:
I can go for that. Get rid of the last two seated That means

Breyer Ginsburg, Kennedy, THomas, Roberts and Alito.

I suspect Ginsburg will be the first gone of that group and then either Kennedy or Breyer before Trumps 4 years are up.
Click to expand...

I'd settle for 7, since Democrats actually like to govern, compared to GOPs.

You're assuming trump will make 4 years. In what order do you think the players will go down first? Looks like Flynn and then Nunes to me. Though the Intel launderers is a new one.

trump/Bannon bros only have themselves to blame for 71 days of lies, corruption and incompetence.

Can't wait to see the April 1st tweets .
 
Well if republicans think they can stay in power forever then sure, by all means, launch the nukes.
 
TurtleDude said:
Gorsuch's nomination has upset the Dems who are mad that Merrick Garland was not given a vote. Some are threatening a filibuster because he apparently has more than enough votes to be confirmed. So what should the GOP do?
Click to expand...

Who cares? It's a stolen seat, and nothing the Dems can do approaches anything the GOOPers pulled to deny Garland. So let 'em do whatever they want. The "rules" no longer exist.
 
If the Schumer wing insists on filibustering a nominee as generally-acceptable as Gorsuch, they'll get the filibuster nuked, and will have no ability to stop any future nominee who might be REALLY objectionable.

So they're being stupidly short-sighted, entirely and completely out of childish spite. Last I heard, childish spite is why Trump is so unbearable.
 
TurtleDude said:
I agree-I should have had an option of giving it say 2 weeks to get some purple state or even red state Dem senators to change and then drop the Nuke. I think getting a few Dems to flip is the best choice but only if that is done quickly. That is why I vote Other
Click to expand...

I am with you so long as during those two weeks Dems are forced to actually filibuster--as in stand there all day every day and talk. I think there is only so much patience in the public for that kind of childish obstructionism. They don't need to end the filibuster, they need to bring it back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom