They’re only getting rid of it for supreme court nominees, following in the footsteps of Harry Reid getting rid of it for all the lower court nominees for Obama. This is EXACTLY what people in Reids own party warned him would happen when he opened the nuclear option pandora’s box. If the obstruction continues at this level I wouldn’t be surprised to see filibuster eliminated entirely at some point in the future. If they can’t confirm Gorsuch, a great nominee to anyone other than the hopelessly partisan blinders crowd, they’re not going to confirm anyone Trump picks. Might as well go nuclear and move on. The smart move would have been to confirm Gorsuch, by a slim margin after much debate to show your “protest”, and save the filibuster for the next nominee. By using the filibuster in such a stupid and petty way they won’t even be able to drum up much condemnation for the republicans going nuclear.
I think this is a political move for the midterms. Sacrifice the history of the senate so you can run ads in the midterms of “if we don’t take the senate, Trump can nominate anyone by simple majority rule”.
Aside from what led up to this, getting rid of the filibuster gives me a really bad feeling. So now we will start to see SC Justices that are much further to either end of the political spectrum. No one is going to win with this.
Sotomayor is pretty damn far to the left, and I don’t think anyone can argue that Scalia was pretty damn far to the right. Not to mention of the 5 Sotomayer cases that got reviewed by the Supreme Court she was overturned 60% of the time. What I’m getting at is historically the minority party has simply gone along with a president’s nominees so I don’t think it’s going to make that big a difference. Eliminating the filibuster basically restores the status quo.
Sorry guys, but the hype on both sides of this is ridiculous. If you have a moment read this senate testimony about the history of the filibuster: The History of the Filibuster | Brookings
One can make the argument that dumping the filibuster actually promotes debate and compromise as opposed to limiting it. But I have memes to get to, and don’t have time to argue about a senate “rule” created by accident
Okay read, but my comment isn’t related to either ‘side’ in particular. Not to mention, if what @JayS stated is correct, it’s only for SC nominations. The article speaks about the filibuster rules in general.
All that I’m stating is that with such polarization in current politics, it could lead to the minority party getting shit on for a generation depending on how many justices retire/pass during either parties control of the WH/Senate. Is that not true?
Filibuster is not only for SC nominations, but using the nuclear option will remove it as an option from any future SC nominations. It will still exist as an option for other senate matters.
But no, I don’t see it as the minority party getting shit on anymore than they have in the past. Ginsburg is probably the farthest left in the history of the SC and got through with the filibuster intact. Scalia was probably the farthest right in the history of the court and also passed a senate nomination when filibuster was an option. Both of them came through at a time when politicians weren’t such petty assholes though. Basically filibuster has to go away because a child like Schumer can’t play nice with his toys and now no one will get to have them.
That’s the kicker. Hopefully this doesn’t change much going forward.
It certainly seems like they are taking the wrong political stance. Gorsuch isn’t a bad nominee especially when considering it’s to replace Scalia’s seat. The Democratic party is just hell bent on retaliation after Garland didn’t even get a confirmation hearing.
Honest question; Can someone help me understand the reasoning behind republicans refusing to confirm Garland? (Without the bullshit McConnell was spewing please)
What I really don’t like about all of this is that, it’s not congress’ job to choose who gets in. It’s the President’s right. Congress should simply check-the-box to say “yes this person is qualified”. Not, " No, because this person doesn’t share the same opinions as us".
Garland should have been confirmed. Dick move by Republicans to obstruct. Now Dems are playing the “2 wrongs make a right” game.
I think this is extreme. You’d have to assume that another justice dies in the next two years and the Republicans hold or grow their already minor hold on the Senate in the next election. Republican’s don’t even have 2/3rds now, that’s why they’re doing what they’re doing to begin with. You’d also have to assume all justices vote the way the party that nominated them wants, which certainly isn’t the case. (See justice Roberts Obama Care ruling.)
First, Garland should have been allowed a vote. I didn’t want Obama to get 3 seats on the court, especially after Sotomayor, but it was his right.
But why did they do it? Because they could and it was a brilliant political move. Replacing Scalia, the far right lion of the court, with an Obama pick would fundamentally change the court. They tied the supreme court pick to the presidential election and in a close race I bet it helped drive a lot of conservatives who were on the fence about Trump to the polls and ultimately hand Trump the election.
Again, I didn’t say anything about Republicans or Democrats. Just the minority party at the time. I’m talking long term and I realize it’s just hypothetical. It would be a good thing if the lack of a filibuster has little to no effect on future SC rulings.
If we truly consider the long term, any minority claiming to be outraged by this is being disingenuous. What’s not a hypothetical is that eventually the minority will be in the majority and will be able to use the same tool.
So there was an established precedent to not make SC nominations in election years. Sounds like they were trying to seize the opportunity to make a more liberal SC. Thanks for the vid. :tup:
So yesterday Trump shoved 59 cruise missiles up Assad’s ass, showing the world that Obama’s red line actually means something now, and Putin is all pissed since Assad is his little bestie. Still think Trump is a Russian puppet? Oh, and this morning we’re finding out there were Russians at the base we hit, though we did give Russia the heads up that the strike was coming as per our operational agreement for the area.
EDIT:
Almost forgot. Tillerson, the guy the left said was another Russian plant/puppet, made a statement saying Russia was either complicit or incompetent in the chemical weapons deal.
Those are some seriously misbehaving puppets. Can’t wait to see how the left tries to sell the Russian narrative now. Should we expect another Trump pussy grabbing victim to emerge by the weekend?
nah i was thinking the same thing when this went down. clearly this is a Trump / Pence / Tillerson action and clearly it is aggressive toward Syria and therefore anti-Russian in about the most anti-Russian way… by missling your allies.
i’d hope to see a pull-back of the rhetoric of Russia and Trump after this and get back to real politics.
Honestly, I hope so too. But the current investigation should be what decides whether or not there are ties behind the scenes. Not either sides actions in the meantime.
To the topic at hand, good on Trump for going forward on this. This was something Obama faltered on for way too long. Reports are saying that there were no Russian casualties either which is an added bonus.
