• 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!

Filibuster Court Nominee

I

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
281
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Filibuster Republican Supreme CourtNominee:


The Republican Party’s Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and their judiciary committee members deliberately prevented the U.S. Senate from discussing and voting upon the Democratic president’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court while a Democratic president was in office. If this was inthe best interests of our nation, then surely Democratic Senators should behave no less patriotically. Until at least the year 2021, Democrats should filibuster any discussion or vote for a seatupon the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.

At very least the Democrats shouldinsist that Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republican Party lead the passage of a vote for his own censure and publicly apologize for their undermining the reputation of the U.S. Senate; I do not believe the Democrats should insist upon McConnell’s resignation (if he wishes to remain in the U.S.Senate).

Until such a public Republican apology,it’s Democrats patriotic duty to filibuster any discussion or vote for a the U.S. Supreme Court nominee while a Republican President is in office.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Filibuster Republican Supreme CourtNominee:


The Republican Party’s Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and their judiciary committee members deliberately prevented the U.S. Senate from discussing and voting upon the Democratic president’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court while a Democratic president was in office. If this was inthe best interests of our nation, then surely Democratic Senators should behave no less patriotically. Until at least the year 2021, Democrats should filibuster any discussion or vote for a seatupon the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.

At very least the Democrats shouldinsist that Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republican Party lead the passage of a vote for his own censure and publicly apologize for their undermining the reputation of the U.S. Senate; I do not believe the Democrats should insist upon McConnell’s resignation (if he wishes to remain in the U.S.Senate).

Until such a public Republican apology,it’s Democrats patriotic duty to filibuster any discussion or vote for a the U.S. Supreme Court nominee while a Republican President is in office.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the nuclear option?
 
I'm Supposn said:
Filibuster Republican Supreme CourtNominee:


The Republican Party’s Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and their judiciary committee members deliberately prevented the U.S. Senate from discussing and voting upon the Democratic president’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court while a Democratic president was in office. If this was inthe best interests of our nation, then surely Democratic Senators should behave no less patriotically. Until at least the year 2021, Democrats should filibuster any discussion or vote for a seatupon the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.

At very least the Democrats shouldinsist that Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republican Party lead the passage of a vote for his own censure and publicly apologize for their undermining the reputation of the U.S. Senate; I do not believe the Democrats should insist upon McConnell’s resignation (if he wishes to remain in the U.S.Senate).

Until such a public Republican apology,it’s Democrats patriotic duty to filibuster any discussion or vote for a the U.S. Supreme Court nominee while a Republican President is in office.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Republicans did what their base wanted them to do THEN, and they'll do it NOW.

Elections have consequences.
 
Guess you're gonna have to filibuster on the sidewalk outside the Capitol building. There won't be any of that going on in the Senate.
 
MaggieD said:
Republicans did what their base wanted them to do THEN, and they'll do it NOW.

Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...


Was a pretty bold move when the GOP iced Garland. They ended up pulling it off without a whole lot of flak or blowback.

I was surprised it worked out for them that smoothly.
 
pragmatic said:
Was a pretty bold move when the GOP iced Garland. They ended up pulling it off without a whole lot of flak or blowback.

I was surprised it worked out for them that smoothly.
Click to expand...

Well... that particular narrative is nowhere near complete...
unless you think that the GOP will remain in control of the Senate forever.

They poisoned the well with their refusal to perform their constitutionally-defined duties. The ramifications will reverberate for a long time.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Filibuster Republican Supreme CourtNominee:


The Republican Party’s Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and their judiciary committee members deliberately prevented the U.S. Senate from discussing and voting upon the Democratic president’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court while a Democratic president was in office. If this was inthe best interests of our nation, then surely Democratic Senators should behave no less patriotically. Until at least the year 2021, Democrats should filibuster any discussion or vote for a seatupon the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.

At very least the Democrats shouldinsist that Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republican Party lead the passage of a vote for his own censure and publicly apologize for their undermining the reputation of the U.S. Senate; I do not believe the Democrats should insist upon McConnell’s resignation (if he wishes to remain in the U.S.Senate).

Until such a public Republican apology,it’s Democrats patriotic duty to filibuster any discussion or vote for a the U.S. Supreme Court nominee while a Republican President is in office.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Am guessing the Democrats will make the confirmation hearings as ugly as possible for Gorsuch. But would be very surprised if they tried a filibuster. Because it would be pointless and would work against them in the future.

The GOP would simply adjust rules (as Harry Reid did) and then confirm Gorsuch anyway.


Love him or hate him, Trump is a bit of a loose cannon at the moment. The Democrats don't want to do anything to put a negative spotlight on themselves. They want the focus on Trump during all these headline consuming activities coming out of the White House.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Well... that particular narrative is nowhere near complete...
unless you think that the GOP will remain in control of the Senate forever.

They poisoned the well with their refusal to perform their constitutionally-defined duties. The ramifications will reverberate for a long time.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The Democrats have pulled similar stunts in the past. And held similar positions. It's all politics and memories tend to be short among the voting public.

Just the way it is.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Filibuster Republican Supreme CourtNominee:


The Republican Party’s Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and their judiciary committee members deliberately prevented the U.S. Senate from discussing and voting upon the Democratic president’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court while a Democratic president was in office. If this was inthe best interests of our nation, then surely Democratic Senators should behave no less patriotically. Until at least the year 2021, Democrats should filibuster any discussion or vote for a seatupon the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.

At very least the Democrats shouldinsist that Senator McConnell on behalf of the Republican Party lead the passage of a vote for his own censure and publicly apologize for their undermining the reputation of the U.S. Senate; I do not believe the Democrats should insist upon McConnell’s resignation (if he wishes to remain in the U.S.Senate).

Until such a public Republican apology,it’s Democrats patriotic duty to filibuster any discussion or vote for a the U.S. Supreme Court nominee while a Republican President is in office.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

The issue I have with your post is it is speculation on your part.

Example: "If Republicans behaved contrary to our nation’s best interests, their behavior should not be rewarded to encourage similar or worse occurrences in future senate sessions.
". Would you say the same for Democrats?

How does holding up filling the SC position for four years benefit the American people? If anything the way the Democrats are acting, it is pushing me towards supporting the Republicans more and more. The do nothing Congress (House and Senate) has got to stop. Congress needs to work for the people not the party interest.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Well... that particular narrative is nowhere near complete...
unless you think that the GOP will remain in control of the Senate forever.

They poisoned the well with their refusal to perform their constitutionally-defined duties. The ramifications will reverberate for a long time.
Click to expand...

This nominee is a done deal. And, if they're really clever, before the midterms they'll change the filibuster rule back again... just in case.
 
pragmatic said:
Was a pretty bold move when the GOP iced Garland. They ended up pulling it off without a whole lot of flak or blowback.

I was surprised it worked out for them that smoothly.
Click to expand...

Of course there was no blowback while it was going on. Right up until the night of November 8th it was all just a political stunt and EVERYBODY knew that.
 
Lutherf said:
Of course there was no blowback while it was going on. Right up until the night of November 8th it was all just a political stunt and EVERYBODY knew that.
Click to expand...

By the time the election rolled around most had forgotten the issue. Hillary was destined to win and it was going to be a moot point.

Not too many expected Trump to pull of a victory. I myself was pretty stunned by it.
 
Mitch McConnell gambled and beat the Dems badly. He'll go on beating them until they improve their game.
 
pragmatic said:
Not exactly. The Democrats have pulled similar stunts in the past. And held similar positions. It's all politics and memories tend to be short among the voting public.

Just the way it is.
Click to expand...

When have the Democrats, acting by themselves as the majority party in the Senate, refused to hold a confirmation hearing for a presidential SCOTUS selection?*






*hint: NEVER. it was an unprecedented refusal to discharge their constitutional duties.
 
MaggieD said:
This nominee is a done deal. And, if they're really clever, before the midterms they'll change the filibuster rule back again... just in case.
Click to expand...

And? The Democrats will simply do the same thing when they are in power.
The GOP started the nation's descent down this particular slippery slope.
 
RickJames3000 said:
And? The Democrats will simply do the same thing when they are in power.
The GOP started the nation's descent down this particular slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Only if they have a majority, right? The GOP didn't start this. The Dems started it, if I recall.
 
RickJames3000 said:
When have the Democrats, acting by themselves as the majority party in the Senate, refused to hold a confirmation hearing for a presidential SCOTUS selection?*






*hint: NEVER. it was an unprecedented refusal to discharge their constitutional duties.
Click to expand...


Not going to get into a "link war" with you. Joe Biden, Schumer and others are on record in the past holding similar positions.

If your position is that "nothing exactly the same as this" has ever happened before, you can declare a win.
 
MaggieD said:
Only if they have a majority, right? The GOP didn't start this. The Dems started it, if I recall.
Click to expand...

RickJames3000 said:
When have the Democrats, acting by themselves as the majority party in the Senate, refused to hold a confirmation hearing for a presidential SCOTUS selection?*






*hint: NEVER. it was an unprecedented refusal to discharge their constitutional duties.
Click to expand...


See above.
 
RickJames3000 said:
And? The Democrats will simply do the same thing when they are in power.
The GOP started the nation's descent down this particular slippery slope.
Click to expand...


No. Actually Harry Reid was the most recent. And he is in the other party.
 
pragmatic said:
Not going to get into a "link war" with you. Joe Biden, Schumer and others are on record in the past holding similar positions.

If your position is that "nothing exactly the same as this" has ever happened before, you can declare a win.
Click to expand...

Where did I post a link? If you end up in a "link war" it will be because you started one.

But sure... I'll accept your concession.
 
RickJames3000 said:
See above.
Click to expand...

Rick, they acted in full accord with Senate rules. Obama had already appointed two SC justices without a hitch. A third? The Republicans were bound by duty to stop that. The Democrats would have done the EXACT same thing. Hell, now the Democrats aren't even SHOWING UP to try to enforce their objective. They all do what they can do. The Repubs have the upper hand right now. One cannot blame them for taking advantage of it just exactly as their counterparts have done and will do again.
 
pragmatic said:
Am guessing the Democrats will make the confirmation hearings as ugly as possible for Gorsuch. But would be very surprised if they tried a filibuster. Because it would be pointless and would work against them in the future.

The GOP would simply adjust rules (as Harry Reid did) and then confirm Gorsuch anyway.


Love him or hate him, Trump is a bit of a loose cannon at the moment. The Democrats don't want to do anything to put a negative spotlight on themselves. They want the focus on Trump during all these headline consuming activities coming out of the White House.
Click to expand...

They would be stupid to filibuster a replacement for Scalia, imo. If they want to throw the Repubs into nuke mode wait for the next one where the balance will really swing.

Then the repubs go nuke, the demos regain control someday and stuff the court with 4 more justices, ala what FDR tried. When you start throwing away rules and abusing power, hell is where you end up.

I'm sick of these politicians (both sides) and their idiotic "bases" that let them get away with anything.
 
MaggieD said:
Obama had already appointed two SC justices without a hitch. A third? The Republicans were bound by duty to stop that.
Click to expand...

No.
They were bound by the Constitution to give Obama's SCOTUS pick a confirmation hearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom