• 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!

Judiciary Committee Approves Gorsuch Along Party Line. Will Senate Confirm Him?

Will the Senate Confirm Gorsuch?

  • Total voters
    27
Captain Adverse

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
20,268
Reaction score
28,068
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So...

The Senate Judiciary Committee, in a party-line, 11-to-9 vote, sent the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court to the full Senate for consideration.

Democrats now seem to have the votes to filibuster Judge Gorsuch’s nomination.

Republicans will most likely vote to change Senate practices later in the week so that Judge Gorsuch could be approved with a simple majority vote.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/us/politics/gorsuch-confirmation.html?_r=0

Well, it goes to the full Senate now.

I predict this will end up with a confirmation well-before mid-terms although the Democrats will do what they can to delay it.

I expect the Republicans will elect the Nuclear Option, as even those who dislike Trump himself have no problem with this nomination.

Do you think he will be confirmed?
 
Captain Adverse said:
So...



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/us/politics/gorsuch-confirmation.html?_r=0

Well, it goes to the full Senate now.

I predict this will end up with a confirmation well-before mid-terms although the Democrats will do what they can to delay it.

I expect the Republicans will elect the Nuclear Option, as even those who dislike Trump himself have no problem with this nomination.

Do you think he will be confirmed?
Click to expand...

We all know how this is going to end.
 
Yep. Dems will filibuster and the Reps will nuke.
 
For those who know, is it possible for them to change the rules (nuclear option) then change them back at a future time? If so, what would stop them from doing it?
 
azgreg said:
For those who know, is it possible for them to change the rules (nuclear option) then change them back at a future time? If so, what would stop them from doing it?
Click to expand...

The next party that takes over wouldn't be stupid, and they'd just do away with the filibuster again.
 
Cardinal said:
The next party that takes over wouldn't be stupid, and they'd just do away with the filibuster again.
Click to expand...

My question is in reference to senate rules or law not on the intelligence level of the members.
 
I don't know if its been mentioned but no SCOTUS candidate has ever been filibustered. Just the threat of its use been enough to get some candidates to remove their name from contention. Others were simply voted down.
 
azgreg said:
My question is in reference to senate rules or law not on the intelligence level of the members.
Click to expand...

Okay, so in a simple majority vote, the Republicans change the rules and get rid of the filibuster. Then in 2018 it's a rout, and Democrats sweep the Republicans out of power in both houses...but they don't get a filibuster-proof majority. So the Republicans, knowing they're going to be in the minority again, quickly vote to bring the filibuster back before January rolls around. So the question is, can the Democrats just say "Yeah, I don't think so" and vote to get rid of the filibuster again once they take over the Congress? And the answer to that is yes, they absolutely can, and they absolutely will.

The whole thing about the filibuster is that it's not a law and it's not in the constitution. It was always just a gentlemen's agreement. And if one side plays dirty in the way that you're suggesting, then that gentlemen's agreement would be null and void.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Okay, so in a simple majority vote, the Republicans change the rules and get rid of the filibuster. Then in 2018 it's a rout, and Democrats sweep the Republicans out of power in both houses...but they don't get a filibuster-proof majority. So the Republicans, knowing they're going to be in the minority again, quickly vote to bring the filibuster back before January rolls around. So the question is, can the Democrats just say "Yeah, I don't think so" and vote to get rid of the filibuster again once they take over the Congress? And the answer to that is yes, they absolutely can, and they absolutely will.

The whole thing about the filibuster is that it's not a law and it's not in the constitution. It was always just a gentlemen's agreement. And if one side plays dirty in the way that you're suggesting, then that the gentlemen's agreement would be null and void.
Click to expand...

So, we're relying on their good nature to do the right thing. For some reason I'm not getting that warm fuzzy feeling inside.
 
azgreg said:
So, we're relying on their good nature to do the right thing. For some reason I'm not getting that warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Click to expand...

That is correct. The time for warm fuzzy feelings is over. There's a reason it's called the "nuclear" option and not the "forgetting to put the napkin in your lap before eating" option.

Once the nuke option is used, there's no turning back. The filibuster is gone. Forever.
 
Captain Adverse said:
So...



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/us/politics/gorsuch-confirmation.html?_r=0

Well, it goes to the full Senate now.

I predict this will end up with a confirmation well-before mid-terms although the Democrats will do what they can to delay it.

I expect the Republicans will elect the Nuclear Option, as even those who dislike Trump himself have no problem with this nomination.

Do you think he will be confirmed?
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Mitch McConnell with utilize the Senator Harry M. Reid Nuclear Option. I don't think Reid even thought about the long term consequences when he set the precedence of actually using the nuclear option. Remember, almost every Democrat cheered when Reid used it, first introduced it. If McConnell follows in Reid's footsteps, doing exactly, identically, the same thing Reid did, there should be no howls from the Democrats. They have only themselves to blame.
 
azgreg said:
So, we're relying on their good nature to do the right thing. For some reason I'm not getting that warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Click to expand...

I will just say, by the way, that all of us are kind of complicit in this. We're all treating the nuclear option as an inevitability which only serves to give Congress permission to use it. If the public did not accept this outcome as a done deal, and tied up their offices' phone lines and town halls instead to protest this, they would be unlikely to use the nuclear option.

This worked for Trumpcare because it was a tangible thing that could easily be demonstrated to be bad for everybody regardless of their political orientations. The filibuster, unfortunately, is exclusively a political tribal issue, and therefore Senators' offices would get support for the nuclear option proportionate to the political orientations of their constituencies.
 
Perotista said:
I think you're right. Mitch McConnell with utilize the Senator Harry M. Reid Nuclear Option. I don't think Reid even thought about the long term consequences when he set the precedence of actually using the nuclear option. Remember, almost every Democrat cheered when Reid used it, first introduced it. If McConnell follows in Reid's footsteps, doing exactly, identically, the same thing Reid did, there should be no howls from the Democrats. They have only themselves to blame.
Click to expand...

Even if Democrats do cry foul it will be not different than anything else that has happened during this process. This entire process should show everyone what a sham both parties have been, but I know it won't, which is sad.
 
Cardinal said:
I will just say, by the way, that all of us are kind of complicit in this. We're all treating the nuclear option as an inevitability which only serves to give Congress permission to use it. If the public did not accept this outcome as a done deal, and tied up their offices' phone lines and town halls instead to protest this, they would be unlikely to use the nuclear option.

This worked for Trumpcare because it was a tangible thing that could easily be demonstrated to be bad for everybody regardless of their political orientations. The filibuster, unfortunately, is exclusively a political tribal issue, and therefore Senators' offices would get support for the nuclear option proportionate to the political orientations of their constituencies.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the modern filibuster in the first place. I think you should still have to do it the traditional Mr. Smith Goes To Washington way.
 
tres borrachos said:
Not giving Garland a hearing was a disgrace. I posted that many times last year.
Click to expand...
He didn't get a hearing because the constituents across this country, evidently outside your New Hampshire bubble was not aware of because the rest of fly over country let their representatives know that they did not want Garland to replace Scalia. So are you calling all these active voters disgusting?



No.............. not giving Garland a vote was not a disgrace. And if you were an ounce honest or educated to facts that Joe Biden and others in the past dems claimed the same actions during Bush. Ask Biden...... And further back there was a resolution in the Senate passed during Eisenhower by the Dems declaring another jurist pick by Eiesenhower during an election year was not acceptable.

So please spare all of us the faux outrage as it was we the people who held our representatives' feet to the fire to not even consider holding a hearing on Garland.

And furthermore there is no damn Constitutional reason why they should have to. The Supreme Court started out with just 6 jurists. It wasn't like an empty seat for a few months during an election year was going to make everything fall apart especially when you consider the presidence the friggin Dems put forth in the last 60 years to not want a jurist selected during a primary was underway.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Even if Democrats do cry foul it will be not different than anything else that has happened during this process. This entire process should show everyone what a sham both parties have been, but I know it won't, which is sad.
Click to expand...

A sham is one way to put it. But I tend to look at it as political expediency, short term political gain at the expense of sound political judgement, common sense and a look toward the future. The constitution gives each chamber to form their own rules the House and senate will abide by. So it is more by tradition of the senate that the filibuster has remained.
 
azgreg said:
For those who know, is it possible for them to change the rules (nuclear option) then change them back at a future time? If so, what would stop them from doing it?
Click to expand...

It would be pointless since a future dem majority that's short of supermajority would just vote to change it right back. That's what will happen once the floodgate opens

A lot of people have always despised the filibuster, and then others see it as a check on extremism. But when you only need 50 votes to change the rules, the only thing stopping simple majority rules is fear of the future. This heavily partisan crap will lead to extremist judges on both sides, and no appointments possible when the party with the presidency holds less than 50 seats (like Obama experienced for an entire year)

My main regret though is the dems didn't go 'nuclear' when health care reform was on the table. Should've never let lieberman block the public option
 
coldjoint said:
Then the Biden Rule is a disgrace. Payback is Hell.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Biden rule is a disgrace. I'm not a big fan of "payback" when the matter being discussed is something as vital as the confirmation of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional right to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the court.
 
vesper said:
He didn't get a hearing because the constituents across this country, evidently outside your New Hampshire bubble was not aware of because the rest of fly over country let their representatives know that they did not want Garland to replace Scalia. So are you calling all these active voters disgusting?



No.............. not giving Garland a vote was not a disgrace. And if you were an ounce honest or educated to facts that Joe Biden and others in the past dems claimed the same actions during Bush. Ask Biden...... And further back there was a resolution in the Senate passed during Eisenhower by the Dems declaring another jurist pick by Eiesenhower during an election year was not acceptable.

So please spare all of us the faux outrage as it was we the people who held our representatives' feet to the fire to not even consider holding a hearing on Garland.

And furthermore there is no damn Constitutional reason why they should have to. The Supreme Court started out with just 6 jurists. It wasn't like an empty seat for a few months during an election year was going to make everything fall apart especially when you consider the presidence the friggin Dems put forth in the last 60 years to not want a jurist selected during a primary was underway.
Click to expand...

My "New Hampshire bubble"? My "faux outrage"? I'm not honest or educated? Calling people "disgusting"? (by the way, I missed the part in my post where I used the word disgusting or made any reference to voters).

If you want to post to me, post like an adult and not a screaming banshee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom