• 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!

WATCH C-SPAN 2 NOW - going nuclear

Actually, I was pretty sure you would be hypocritical on the matter.

then your post was in disagreement with what you actually 'thought'

since it is you, i am not all that surprised
 
Bi-partisan result - final vote - 55 yeas and 45 nays. 3 Democrats voted with the Republicans.
 
then your post was in disagreement with what you actually 'thought'

since it is you, i am not all that surprised

:lol: Nope. If you were consistent then you would disagree with both actions, but of course you're not, so you don't.
 
Well, folks, here we are.

The Democrats just filibustered Gorsuch and voted to not invoke cloture.

Right now -- 11:33 am April, 6th, 2017 -- the Senate is voting to "reconsider the vote on cloture" which is a vote to allow a new vote on cloture.

After this passes, McConnell will state that cloture votes for SCOTUS appointments need only a simple majority to invoke cloture - going nuclear.

After his statement, the Senate will vote again on cloture and it will only take 51 votes rather than 60.

A sad day for the US. But here we are.

https://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-2

Well the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves. Trump nominated a popular and well qualified person to be on the High Court, one that the entire Senate had confirmed as a federal judge on a unanimous voice vote--zero no votes--and the Democrats decided to act like spoiled brats and deny the confirmation. So the Republicans are simply doing what Harry Reid and the Democrats did to get all those ultra liberals on the courts.

And actually it simply returns things to the way they were up to 2006 when Judge Alito, currently serving on the high court, was confirmed 58 to 42 in 2006. (Clarence Thomas, also currently serving on the high court was confirmed 52 to 48 in 1991.) So the 60 vote threshhold is a fairly new rule imposed by a Democratically controlled Senate. All the other justices were confirmed by 60 or more votes. But running into trouble with the GOP they lowered the requirement to a simple majority for federal judges. They certainly would have done the same for Obama's most recent nominee had they retained power in the Senate.

Elena Kagan: 63 to 37 (2010)
Sonia Sotomayor: 68 to 31 (2009)
Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 58 to 42 (2006)
John G. Roberts Jr.: 78 to 22 (2005)
Stephen G. Breyer: 87 to 9 (1994)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 96 to 3 (1993)
Clarence Thomas: 52 to 48 (1991)
Anthony M. Kennedy: 97 to 0 (1988)
Antonin Scalia: 98 to 0 (1986) RIP

May Neal Gorsuch be the wise and astute justice that Antonin Scalia was.
 
I disagree. The purpose of the filibuster is to require the majority to respect and gain the assistance of the minority for important Senatorial actions by requiring a 3/5ths supermajority.

I agree with that reasoning, no matter which party is in power.

Yet by constitution, confirmations only require a majority.
 
I'm torn on this.

Yes a tradition has been changed in specific instances, but Reid has already changed it in another specific instance. And we're dealing specifically with cloture here, which is itself a relatively newer specific concept put in place during WW-I under highly political maneuvering.

In a way, I'm happy that government may become more functional in terms of legislation.

Also, I'm not sure what the Dems get out of this - if anything.
 
The solution is easy. Just make the filibuster have to be an actual filibuster and not a lazy procedural thing. You gotta stand up and talk straight, Mr. Smith style. If Rand Paul can do a real filibuster than so can anyone else.

SCOTUS only needs a simple majority to confirm. So let the person wind down, being a windbag, and then vote.

That they aren't required to stand up there and actually filibuster - blocking everything in doing so - has always ticked me off.

So in one sentence : The Republicans refused Obama's lower court appointments so Reid nuked that, but kept the option for the SCOTUS. Now the Dems are trying to block a Trump SCOTUS nominee after the Repubs refused to consider an Obama SCOTUS nominee, so the Repubs are nuking that.

Okay, here we are. No more filibuster. At least we know where we stand, and there are no more tricks that can be pulled by either side for court nominees, correct?
 
Yet by constitution, confirmations only require a majority.

And, by the Constitution, the Senate has the power to set it's own rules, including the filibuster and the requirements for cloture.

Too many people seem to think that those two issues -- confirmation vote and cloture vote requirements -- are somehow mutually exclusive under the Constitution, when in fact they exist simultaneously and in harmony... or at least they did before Reid and the Democrats changed the rule in 2013.
 
That they aren't required to stand up there and actually filibuster - blocking everything in doing so - has always ticked me off.

So in one sentence : The Republicans refused Obama's lower court appointments so Reid nuked that, but kept the option for the SCOTUS. Now the Dems are trying to block a Trump SCOTUS nominee after the Repubs refused to consider an Obama SCOTUS nominee, so the Repubs are nuking that.

Okay, here we are. No more filibuster. At least we know where we stand, and there are no more tricks that can be pulled by either side for court nominees, correct?

Yup, but people can, and should, still be able to go all Mr. Smith.
 
And, by the Constitution, the Senate has the power to set it's own rules, including the filibuster and the requirements for cloture.

Too many people seem to think that those two issues -- confirmation vote and cloture vote requirements -- are somehow mutually exclusive under the Constitution, when in fact they exist simultaneously and in harmony... or at least they did before Reid and the Democrats changed the rule in 2013.

That's not a good way to rationalize things. By advocating such a point, you are claiming the senate can make rules to disregard large parts of the constitution.

Very slippery slope in my view.
 
That's not a good way to rationalize things. By advocating such a point, you are claiming the senate can make rules to disregard large parts of the constitution.

Very slippery slope in my view.

In what way have I advocated such a thing?
 
Judge Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Yes 54

No 45

Thank you President Trump for nominating Neil Gorsuch an excellent choice
and well qualified for the Supreme Court vacancy.
 
I'm torn on this.

Yes a tradition has been changed in specific instances, but Reid has already changed it in another specific instance. And we're dealing specifically with cloture here, which is itself a relatively newer specific concept put in place during WW-I under highly political maneuvering.

In a way, I'm happy that government may become more functional in terms of legislation.

Also, I'm not sure what the Dems get out of this - if anything.

They plan on campaigning in 2018 on a "THE GOP NUKED THE SENATE" to carry the day. I'm sure it's going to work "wonders" for their chances.
 
Back
Top Bottom