Dems gather enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch confirmation

[TitanTiger 20,510]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dems-hit-gorsuch-filibuster-threshold-moving-gop-closer-nuclear-option-n741991

Not that it will change the end result.  The Republicans will invoke the so-caled "nuclear option" and he'll be confirmed.  Most likely with around 58-59 votes.

The Democrats will bemoan the breaking of the filibuster in this fashion, though they had no qualms with it in 2013 when they used it to break the GOP filibuster of federal judicial nominees.  And I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that had they had a Senate majority last year when Garland was nominated, they'd have used it to swing the SCOTUS by putting a more liberal judge in to replace Scalia.

Such is politics I guess.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dems-hit-gorsuch-filibuster-threshold-moving-gop-closer-nuclear-option-n741991

Not that it will change the end result.  The Republicans will invoke the so-caled "nuclear option" and he'll be confirmed.  Most likely with around 58-59 votes.

The Democrats will bemoan the breaking of the filibuster in this fashion, though they had no qualms with it in 2013 when they used it to break the GOP filibuster of federal judicial nominees.  And I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that had they had a Senate majority last year when Garland was nominated, they'd have used it to swing the SCOTUS by putting a more liberal judge in to replace Scalia.

Such is politics I guess.

Garland would have least gotten a vote. Mitch the Turtle has destroyed the Senate.

[AuburnNTexas 7,171]

On 4/3/2017 at 6:57 PM, TexasTiger said:

Garland would have least gotten a vote. Mitch the Turtle has destroyed the Senate.

Mitch the turtle learned from Harry Reid the fox.  One year ago Schumer said that you should never filibuster a supreme court nominee.  Both parties are hypocrites. The problem is they are professional politicians.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

23 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Mitch the turtle learned from Harry Reid the fox.  One year ago Schumer said that you should never filibuster a supreme court nominee.  Both parties are hypocrites. The problem is they are professional politicians.

What Mitch did was unprecedented and blew up the Senate. We're screwed.

[RunInRed 16,486]

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,171]

On 4/4/2017 at 8:39 PM, TexasTiger said:

What Mitch did was unprecedented and blew up the Senate. We're screwed.

So according to you when the Democrats are in charge and do something it is OK. The Democrats were the first one to do the nuclear option but if the Republicans do the same thing it is unprecedented and were screwed.

We may be screwed but it is by both sides.

Now that both sides have not backed down the Democrats filibustered and the Republicans went nuclear on them ala Harry Reid. The shoe was on the other foot and both sides have decided that opposition is more important than working together.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

15 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

So according to you when the Democrats are in charge and do something it is OK. The Democrats were the first one to do the nuclear option but if the Republicans do the same thing it is unprecedented and were screwed.

We may be screwed but it is by both sides.

Now that both sides have not backed down the Democrats filibustered and the Republicans went nuclear on them ala Harry Reid. The shoe was on the other foot and both sides have decided that opposition is more important than working together.

Do your homework-- Rs threatened to go nuclear in 2005-- we'll keep the filibuster, as long as you promise not to use it. Republican obstruction of Obama was almost total and unprecedented. But the SCt was retained. Then they don't even allow a debate on Garland. Declare them equal all you want, but the facts dispute you.

[wareagle13 88]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Do your homework-- Rs threatened to go nuclear in 2005-- we'll keep the filibuster, as long as you promise not to use it. Republican obstruction of Obama was almost total and unprecedented. But the SCt was retained. Then they don't even allow a debate on Garland. Declare them equal all you want, but the facts dispute you.

You're correct in that Republicans shoulder much of the blame for Merrick Garland and now the current fiasco. But here's the thing as I view it, Republicans went petty and bet on hoping to win the White House in order to keep the Supreme Court "balanced." What they did was fool-hearty and improper but they did it anyways look so be damned. Now in 2017, democrats had the opportunity to bridge a gap and not resort to the same pettiness they saw during their time in control with Obama in office and majority in the senate. BUT they didn't, they fell right in line with party line ideology and attempted to railroad highly qualified individual. The only people suffering are their constituents, not themselves, and the suffering will continue until we as americans demand that we ascend beyond petty partyline politics.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

The real nuclear option should be to clean house with all of Congress. 

[AuburnArch13 185]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

So according to you when the Democrats are in charge and do something it is OK. The Democrats were the first one to do the nuclear option but if the Republicans do the same thing it is unprecedented and were screwed.

We may be screwed but it is by both sides.

Now that both sides have not backed down the Democrats filibustered and the Republicans went nuclear on them ala Harry Reid. The shoe was on the other foot and both sides have decided that opposition is more important than working together.

I think you're drawing a false equivalency here. Without supporting or condemning what Reid did during the Obama administration, I feel the need to point out some pretty big differences between what Reid did and what Mitch is doing now. Reid didn't enact the "nuclear option" until after Senate Republican had filibusters over 80 federal judicial appointees, effectively crippling the judicial branch of government for a substantial amount of time. It became clear that the filibusters were not about problems with any of the judges individually, but rather to stop the process entirely. If NG was the third or forth appointment that the Dems had filibustered, then maybe the comparison would be more apt, but right now it's apples and oranges. 

Why Republicans didn't just vote on Garland like they were constitutionally obligated to, I'll never understand. It's not like they couldn't have voted to just not confirm him. If they would have just done that they'd probably be seen it a lot better light right now.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

[DKW 86 7,440]

Garland should have gotten his vote. Elections mean things. Obama was President and he should have gotten his nominee.

This hasnt happened before where a sitting President didnt get his nominee has it?

[AuburnArch13 185]

1 minute ago, DKW 86 said:

Garland should have gotten his vote. Elections mean things. Obama was President and he should have gotten his nominee.

This hasnt happened before where a sitting President didnt get his nominee has it?

It has not.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

1 hour ago, wareagle13 said:

You're correct in that Republicans shoulder much of the blame for Merrick Garland and now the current fiasco. But here's the thing as I view it, Republicans went petty and bet on hoping to win the White House in order to keep the Supreme Court "balanced." What they did was fool-hearty and improper but they did it anyways look so be damned. Now in 2017, democrats had the opportunity to bridge a gap and not resort to the same pettiness they saw during their time in control with Obama in office and majority in the senate. BUT they didn't, they fell right in line with party line ideology and attempted to railroad highly qualified individual. The only people suffering are their constituents, not themselves, and the suffering will continue until we as americans demand that we ascend beyond petty partyline politics.

You can say the Dems were petty in refusing to sanction an unprecedented, destructive practice. Rs could have voted down Garland-- who was the very guy they said Obama should appoint to encourage bipartisanship, and then get their guy. At least give him a vote- they stopped that. Ds couldn't stop this vote. They could only take a principled stance-- not the principle you preferred, but a valid principled position. The Rs went nuclear on the SC last year. Today was just fallout. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,171]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Do your homework-- Rs threatened to go nuclear in 2005-- we'll keep the filibuster, as long as you promise not to use it. Republican obstruction of Obama was almost total and unprecedented. But the SCt was retained. Then they don't even allow a debate on Garland. Declare them equal all you want, but the facts dispute you.

Threatening to go nuclear and going nuclear are different things. I agree they should have had a debate on Garland. But your argument is basically because the other guys did something wrong we have to do something wrong. Saying a Justice is out of the mainstream is subjective. If you are a die hard liberal Gorusch is out of the mainstream. If you are a die hard conservative Kagen was out of the mainstream. The republicans didn't filibuster any of Obama's nominees unless you count Garland and none other than Joe Biden himself a democratic Vice President said that no Supreme court Justice should be approved in the year of an election. 

What we are seeing is hypocrisy on both sides. Unlike you I don't blame just one side I blame both. Partisanship is a two way street the Republicans have done it as have the Democrats. You blame everything on one party and can't be intellectually honest enough to see there is blame on both sides of the aisle.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

3 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Threatening to go nuclear and going nuclear are different things. I agree they should have had a debate on Garland. But your argument is basically because the other guys did something wrong we have to do something wrong. Saying a Justice is out of the mainstream is subjective. If you are a die hard liberal Gorusch is out of the mainstream. If you are a die hard conservative Kagen was out of the mainstream. The republicans didn't filibuster any of Obama's nominees unless you count Garland and none other than Joe Biden himself a democratic Vice President said that no Supreme court Justice should be approved in the year of an election. 

What we are seeing is hypocrisy on both sides. Unlike you I don't blame just one side I blame both. Partisanship is a two way street the Republicans have done it as have the Democrats. You blame everything on one party and can't be intellectually honest enough to see there is blame on both sides of the aisle.

The point is, they would have gone nuclear 12 years ago so the filibuster has been dead ever since. This was just the funeral. The Biden thing is a ruse. This has not happened before. The last year of the Presidency counts. The Rs ignored the Constitution they claim they want appointees to revere.

[AuburnNTexas 7,171]

11 minutes ago, AuburnArch13 said:

I think you're drawing a false equivalency here. Without supporting or condemning what Reid did during the Obama administration, I feel the need to point out some pretty big differences between what Reid did and what Mitch is doing now. Reid didn't enact the "nuclear option" until after Senate Republican had filibusters over 80 federal judicial appointees, effectively crippling the judicial branch of government for a substantial amount of time. It became clear that the filibusters were not about problems with any of the judges individually, but rather to stop the process entirely. If NG was the third or forth appointment that the Dems had filibustered, then maybe the comparison would be more apt, but right now it's apples and oranges. 

Why Republicans didn't just vote on Garland like they were constitutionally obligated to, I'll never understand. It's not like they couldn't have voted to just not confirm him. If they would have just done that they'd probably be seen it a lot better light right now.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

I personally would have wanted Garland to get a vote and as he was qualified I would have thought he should have been selected. If he had been given a vote and turned down the Democrats would still have been mad and would have taken it out on Gorusch. As I remember the only times a Presidents candidate was not selected was when the Democrats turned them down. Bork comes to mind and they also tried to stop Alito. 

[homersapien 11,439]

19 hours ago, AuburnArch13 said:

I think you're drawing a false equivalency here. Without supporting or condemning what Reid did during the Obama administration, I feel the need to point out some pretty big differences between what Reid did and what Mitch is doing now.

Reid didn't enact the "nuclear option" until after Senate Republican had filibusters over 80 federal judicial appointees, effectively crippling the judicial branch of government for a substantial amount of time. It became clear that the filibusters were not about problems with any of the judges individually, but rather to stop the process entirely. If NG was the third or forth appointment that the Dems had filibustered, then maybe the comparison would be more apt, but right now it's apples and oranges. 

Why Republicans didn't just vote on Garland like they were constitutionally obligated to, I'll never understand. It's not like they couldn't have voted to just not confirm him. If they would have just done that they'd probably be seen it a lot better light right now.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

The truth.

And here's another perspective:  Congress aside, if you look at the electorate, the Republicans are a minority party.  Their grip on power is based largely on gerrymandering.  

And it's likely that the progressive vote will continue to grow with time.  Sooner or later, the Democrats will regain power in Congress.  It is not in Republicans best interest longer term to destroy the most important tool of the minority - the filibuster.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Gorsuch has been confirmed:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/gorsuch-confirmation-live/index.html

Vote was 54-45.

[RunInRed 16,486]

So now that the Senate has become a simple majority rule, how's it any different than the House?  Not how our Founders envisioned ...

[homersapien 11,439]

19 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Threatening to go nuclear and going nuclear are different things. I agree they should have had a debate on Garland. But your argument is basically because the other guys did something wrong we have to do something wrong. Saying a Justice is out of the mainstream is subjective. If you are a die hard liberal Gorusch is out of the mainstream. If you are a die hard conservative Kagen was out of the mainstream. The republicans didn't filibuster any of Obama's nominees unless you count Garland and none other than Joe Biden himself a democratic Vice President said that no Supreme court Justice should be approved in the year of an election. 

What we are seeing is hypocrisy on both sides. Unlike you I don't blame just one side I blame both. Partisanship is a two way street the Republicans have done it as have the Democrats. You blame everything on one party and can't be intellectually honest enough to see there is blame on both sides of the aisle.

Are you saying the Democrats deciding to filibuster Gorsuch was wrong?

Why?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

1 minute ago, RunInRed said:

So now that the Senate has become a simple majority rule, how's it any different than the House?  Not how our Founders envisioned ...

Not on legislation-- yet.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

So now that the Senate has become a simple majority rule, how's it any different than the House?  Not how our Founders envisioned ...

I don't know...when did the 60 vote filibuster rule come into being?  If I'm not mistaken, Senate Rule 22 (setting the 60 vote threshold for invoking cloture) only came into being in 1917.  Can we really say that changing a rule that didn't exist for the fist 130 years of the country's existence is going against the vision of the Founders?

[RunInRed 16,486]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't know...when did the 60 vote filibuster rule come into being?  If I'm not mistaken, Senate Rule 22 (setting the 60 vote threshold for invoking cloture) only came into being in 1917.  Can we really say that changing a rule that didn't exist for the fist 130 years of the country's existence is going against the vision of the Founders?

Actually, the Senate has a long history of using the filibuster--a term dating back to the 1850s in the United States--to delay debate or block legislation. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until the aforementioned rule change in 1917 --- at the time, the new rule required 2/3 (67 votes) majority to for cloture. In 1975, the Senate reduced it to 3/5 (60 votes).

I guess my question is, are we on a path to 1/2 (50 votes).

I don't like the trend ... I always have viewed the Senate as the upper legislative body, where the "adults" were forced to get bills to consensus.  To me, this erosion of procedures over time is leading us to more radical legislation from both sides and less and less middle ground.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, RunInRed said:

Actually, the Senate has a long history of using the filibuster--a term dating back to the 1850s in the United States--to delay debate or block legislation. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until the aforementioned rule change in 1917 --- at the time, the new rule required 2/3 (67 votes) majority to for cloture. In 1975, the Senate reduced it to 3/5 (60 votes).

I guess my question is, are we on a path to 1/2 (50 votes).

I don't like the trend ... I always have viewed the Senate as the upper legislative body, where the "adults" were forced to get bills to consensus.  To me, this erosion of procedures over time is leading us to more radical legislation from both sides and less and less middle ground.

Actually, the filibuster didn't come into being until about 1806:   "In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question, which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But in 1806, former Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.^[7] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.^[7] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became possible."

So I'd still say that the minority party being able to hold votes hostage wasn't necessarily what the framers intended originally.

Now, you may be right that regardless of the Founders original intent (interesting argument coming from a liberal), it was still a good thing.  I don't know.  I can see the benefit of it.  Then again, using it just because you're pissed that the other party didn't vote on the previous nominee doesn't seem like a proper way to handle a current nomination either.  Especially when it seems to mostly be calculated at 1) appeasing your base and 2) forcing the GOP's hand so that hopefully sometime in the future you can take advantage of the nuclear option yourself.  Seems cynical rather than principled.

 

[RunInRed 16,486]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Actually, the filibuster didn't come into being until about 1806

This made me chuckle ... as if 1806 was yesterday!

Again, for me, it's less about being a constitutional purist or "not getting my way" and more about the radicalization of the Senate to the extremes positions of both parties.  Something I do think is happening.