Democrats: What would the politics be behind a Gorsuch filibuster?

[MarcATL]

So is the filibuster on or not? Any updates?

who cares, Gorsuch will be confirmed. If the dems filibuster, they only make themselves look more stupid than they already do. So go for it, dems.

They already did.

You repeating this old, and already known fact from days ago only illustrates how butthurt you are over their move. Deal with it snowflake.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

A line in the sand. McConnell will cross it, and the Senate will be changed forever. The Nuclear Action is an attack on democracy itself, and one more nail in the coffin following the conservative plan to create a Plutocracy in America.

This statement ^^^ will be too abstract for most of Trump's supporters, and for those who actually believe conservatives and Republicans can actually govern, and will morally and honestly represent all of our citizens.

They will not, it is not in their best interests, and as everyone knows but few admit, a member of Congress' first priority is their own job, not yours.

 

[Wry Catcher]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal. SCOTUS would uphold it.

 

[Polishprince]

Stop moving goal posts, we are talking about refusal of open hearing, not EVEN vote.

There wasn't a chance in hell that a radical like Mr. Garland was going to be confirmed. But just because the gentleman is a radical, doesn't mean his time shouldn't be respected. Asking him to testify at a pointless hearing would have shown a lot of disrespect.

 

[rightwinger]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

A line in the sand. McConnell will cross it, and the Senate will be changed forever. The Nuclear Action is an attack on democracy itself, and one more nail in the coffin following the conservative plan to create a Plutocracy in America.

This statement ^^^ will be too abstract for most of Trump's supporters, and for those who actually believe conservatives and Republicans can actually govern, and will morally and honestly represent all of our citizens.

They will not, it is not in their best interests, and as everyone knows but few admit, a member of Congress' first priority is their own job, not yours.

Once again, Republicans obliterate a line in the sand because it is in their best interests

Filibuster used to be a tool of last resort for critical decisions. Under Obama, Republicans applied it to every piece of legislation and every judicial appointment

A President has always been allowed to make appointments during his term. Republicans decided that if an appointment would flip the court, they would delay it till the next President

A Filibuster used to mean go back and try again. Now Republicans are eliminating all filibusters for SCOTUS judges

There is no going back

 

[Redfish]

So is the filibuster on or not? Any updates?

who cares, Gorsuch will be confirmed. If the dems filibuster, they only make themselves look more stupid than they already do. So go for it, dems.

They already did.

You repeating this old, and already known fact from days ago only illustrates how butthurt you are over their move. Deal with it snowflake.

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

A line in the sand. McConnell will cross it, and the Senate will be changed forever. The Nuclear Action is an attack on democracy itself, and one more nail in the coffin following the conservative plan to create a Plutocracy in America.

This statement ^^^ will be too abstract for most of Trump's supporters, and for those who actually believe conservatives and Republicans can actually govern, and will morally and honestly represent all of our citizens.

They will not, it is not in their best interests, and as everyone knows but few admit, a member of Congress' first priority is their own job, not yours.

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

A line in the sand. McConnell will cross it, and the Senate will be changed forever. The Nuclear Action is an attack on democracy itself, and one more nail in the coffin following the conservative plan to create a Plutocracy in America.

This statement ^^^ will be too abstract for most of Trump's supporters, and for those who actually believe conservatives and Republicans can actually govern, and will morally and honestly represent all of our citizens.

They will not, it is not in their best interests, and as everyone knows but few admit, a member of Congress' first priority is their own job, not yours.

Once again, Republicans obliterate a line in the sand because it is in their best interests

Filibuster used to be a tool of last resort for critical decisions. Under Obama, Republicans applied it to every piece of legislation and every judicial appointment

A President has always been allowed to make appointments during his term. Republicans decided that if an appointment would flip the court, they would delay it till the next President

A Filibuster used to mean go back and try again. Now Republicans are eliminating all filibusters for SCOTUS judges

There is no going back

Reid and the dems started it when they rammed ACA through on dem only votes with no open discussion, debate, or amendments. Now those chickens are coming home to roost.

as obozo the great Kenyan messiah once said "elections have consequences" deal with it snowflake.

 

[Redfish]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

what's funny here is that you libs didn't say any of that when Reid used it on ACA. Why was it ok then and not now?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop moving goal posts, we are talking about refusal of open hearing, not EVEN vote.

There wasn't a chance in hell that a radical like Mr. Garland was going to be confirmed. But just because the gentleman is a radical, doesn't mean his time shouldn't be respected. Asking him to testify at a pointless hearing would have shown a lot of disrespect.

Garland was right of center, and any prick who says he was not remains a prick forever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

what's funny here is that you libs didn't say any of that when Reid used it on ACA. Why was it ok then and not now?

Really, Be specific. Give us examples from journalists saying what you are saying. Now run along.

 

[Redfish]

Stop moving goal posts, we are talking about refusal of open hearing, not EVEN vote.

There wasn't a chance in hell that a radical like Mr. Garland was going to be confirmed. But just because the gentleman is a radical, doesn't mean his time shouldn't be respected. Asking him to testify at a pointless hearing would have shown a lot of disrespect.

Garland was right of center, and any prick who says he was not remains a prick forever.

he would not have gotten 51 votes. hearings and a vote would have been a waste of time and money. as to "prick forever" you already captured that title long ago.

 

[rightwinger]

So is the filibuster on or not? Any updates?

who cares, Gorsuch will be confirmed. If the dems filibuster, they only make themselves look more stupid than they already do. So go for it, dems.

They already did.

You repeating this old, and already known fact from days ago only illustrates how butthurt you are over their move. Deal with it snowflake.

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

A line in the sand. McConnell will cross it, and the Senate will be changed forever. The Nuclear Action is an attack on democracy itself, and one more nail in the coffin following the conservative plan to create a Plutocracy in America.

This statement ^^^ will be too abstract for most of Trump's supporters, and for those who actually believe conservatives and Republicans can actually govern, and will morally and honestly represent all of our citizens.

They will not, it is not in their best interests, and as everyone knows but few admit, a member of Congress' first priority is their own job, not yours.

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

A line in the sand. McConnell will cross it, and the Senate will be changed forever. The Nuclear Action is an attack on democracy itself, and one more nail in the coffin following the conservative plan to create a Plutocracy in America.

This statement ^^^ will be too abstract for most of Trump's supporters, and for those who actually believe conservatives and Republicans can actually govern, and will morally and honestly represent all of our citizens.

They will not, it is not in their best interests, and as everyone knows but few admit, a member of Congress' first priority is their own job, not yours.

Once again, Republicans obliterate a line in the sand because it is in their best interests

Filibuster used to be a tool of last resort for critical decisions. Under Obama, Republicans applied it to every piece of legislation and every judicial appointment

A President has always been allowed to make appointments during his term. Republicans decided that if an appointment would flip the court, they would delay it till the next President

A Filibuster used to mean go back and try again. Now Republicans are eliminating all filibusters for SCOTUS judges

There is no going back

Reid and the dems started it when they rammed ACA through on dem only votes with no open discussion, debate, or amendments. Now those chickens are coming home to roost.

as obozo the great Kenyan messiah once said "elections have consequences" deal with it snowflake.

Obamacare passed with over 60% of the vote
It was refined and debated for over a year....nothing was rammed through

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop moving goal posts, we are talking about refusal of open hearing, not EVEN vote.

There wasn't a chance in hell that a radical like Mr. Garland was going to be confirmed. But just because the gentleman is a radical, doesn't mean his time shouldn't be respected. Asking him to testify at a pointless hearing would have shown a lot of disrespect.

Garland was right of center, and any prick who says he was not remains a prick forever.

he would not have gotten 51 votes. hearings and a vote would have been a waste of time and money. as to "prick forever" you already captured that title long ago.

You can kick against the pricks, Prick, and will always be wrong.

 

[Redfish]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

what's funny here is that you libs didn't say any of that when Reid used it on ACA. Why was it ok then and not now?

Really, Be specific. Give us examples from journalists saying what you are saying. Now run along.

I am talking about democrats in congress, not fake media. There was no dem outcry with Reid used it on ACA. what goes around comes around. elections have consequences, the voters put republicans in charge. Hillary lost it for you. Deal with reality for once.

 

[rightwinger]

Stop moving goal posts, we are talking about refusal of open hearing, not EVEN vote.

There wasn't a chance in hell that a radical like Mr. Garland was going to be confirmed. But just because the gentleman is a radical, doesn't mean his time shouldn't be respected. Asking him to testify at a pointless hearing would have shown a lot of disrespect.

Garland was right of center, and any prick who says he was not remains a prick forever.

he would not have gotten 51 votes. hearings and a vote would have been a waste of time and money. as to "prick forever" you already captured that title long ago.

In that case, President Obama still had time to submit another candidate over an eight month period

Republicans refused to even have a hearing

 

[Redfish]

So is the filibuster on or not? Any updates?

who cares, Gorsuch will be confirmed. If the dems filibuster, they only make themselves look more stupid than they already do. So go for it, dems.

They already did.

You repeating this old, and already known fact from days ago only illustrates how butthurt you are over their move. Deal with it snowflake.

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

A line in the sand. McConnell will cross it, and the Senate will be changed forever. The Nuclear Action is an attack on democracy itself, and one more nail in the coffin following the conservative plan to create a Plutocracy in America.

This statement ^^^ will be too abstract for most of Trump's supporters, and for those who actually believe conservatives and Republicans can actually govern, and will morally and honestly represent all of our citizens.

They will not, it is not in their best interests, and as everyone knows but few admit, a member of Congress' first priority is their own job, not yours.

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

A line in the sand. McConnell will cross it, and the Senate will be changed forever. The Nuclear Action is an attack on democracy itself, and one more nail in the coffin following the conservative plan to create a Plutocracy in America.

This statement ^^^ will be too abstract for most of Trump's supporters, and for those who actually believe conservatives and Republicans can actually govern, and will morally and honestly represent all of our citizens.

They will not, it is not in their best interests, and as everyone knows but few admit, a member of Congress' first priority is their own job, not yours.

Once again, Republicans obliterate a line in the sand because it is in their best interests

Filibuster used to be a tool of last resort for critical decisions. Under Obama, Republicans applied it to every piece of legislation and every judicial appointment

A President has always been allowed to make appointments during his term. Republicans decided that if an appointment would flip the court, they would delay it till the next President

A Filibuster used to mean go back and try again. Now Republicans are eliminating all filibusters for SCOTUS judges

There is no going back

Reid and the dems started it when they rammed ACA through on dem only votes with no open discussion, debate, or amendments. Now those chickens are coming home to roost.

as obozo the great Kenyan messiah once said "elections have consequences" deal with it snowflake.

Obamacare passed with over 60% of the vote
It was refined and debated for over a year....nothing was rammed through

ACA passed with dem votes only, not one republican voted for it. It was brought to a vote by Reid using the nuclear option. No discussion or floor debate of the bill that was passed was allowed by Reid or Pelosi. no amendments were allowed. It was rammed through.

 

[Redfish]

Stop moving goal posts, we are talking about refusal of open hearing, not EVEN vote.

There wasn't a chance in hell that a radical like Mr. Garland was going to be confirmed. But just because the gentleman is a radical, doesn't mean his time shouldn't be respected. Asking him to testify at a pointless hearing would have shown a lot of disrespect.

Garland was right of center, and any prick who says he was not remains a prick forever.

he would not have gotten 51 votes. hearings and a vote would have been a waste of time and money. as to "prick forever" you already captured that title long ago.

In that case, President Obama still had time to submit another candidate over an eight month period

Republicans refused to even have a hearing

then why didn't Obama submit Gorsuch?

what you cannot seem to deal with is that the party in power controls what comes up for vote. Reid sat on over 300 house passed bills and there was no outcry from the likes of you. more partisan hypocrisy

 

[OldLady]

because we KNOW that none of the nominees were declined an open hearing since it became normalized in 1955.

Until last year.

Concession accepted.

It was, in fact, unprecedented.

P.S. Do you think that you can one day perhaps learn how to use QUOTE tags? You are 28,000 posts into this, it's time.

I've never been able to figure out quote tags either. You want to give me a lesson?

 

[Wry Catcher]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

Which is true, and the best argument against the Nuclear Option. It assures Chaos and sure as can be that it will not make America Great Again.

Not if the previous law has embedded the 2/3 requirement specifically denying any other of legislative repeal. SCOTUS would uphold it.

A simple majority for the lifetime appointment of a member of the Supreme Court seems irresponsible. Especially when the nominee is vague in his responses and one who clearly believes we still live in the 18th Century in an agrarian nation.

 

[Polishprince]

A simple majority for the lifetime appointment of a member of the Supreme Court seems irresponsible. Especially when the nominee is vague in his responses and one who clearly believes we still live in the 18th Century in an agrarian nation.

What response of Judge Gorsuch led you to that bizarre conclusion about his views?