McConnell hints against nuke option to kill Dem filibusters

Vigilante

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
51,329
Reaction score
18,065
Points
2,290
Location
Waiting on the Cowardly Dante!!
But Mitchell, the Bitch. it was OK for Dirty Harry Reid to do it, especially to pass Obozocare....This turd must be sent to the showers permanently...part of America's problem!

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hinted Wednesday that he doesn’t support the controversial idea of changing Senate rules to kill Democratic filibusters, and instead indicated that this move might be seen as an overreach by Republicans.

When Democrats ran the Senate, they changed the rules to allow for simple majority votes for judicial nominees, but not Supreme Court nominees, which can still be filibustered. But despite speculation that Republicans will take this next step, McConnell indicated some resistance to it when asked.

He said “overreaching after an election, generally speaking, is a mistake.” And when pressed on McConnell’s approach to working with Democrats in the new Senate, McConnell said the way the chamber is structured requires “some Democratic participation and cooperation.” …

Read more atwashingtonexaminer.com ...
 

ShootSpeeders

Gold Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
20,232
Reaction score
2,344
Points
280
If they ditch the filibuster, the repubs can do whatever they wish. Hopefully the repubs will at least THREATEN to end the filibuster - that by itself should keep dems from being too obstructive.
 

paulitician

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
38,401
Reaction score
4,161
Points
1,130
Milquetoast wuss. Gotta dump him and Ryan as soon as possible. You don't whip Democrat ass being a milquetoast wuss. Donald Trump proved that. You gotta get down and dirty to beat em. You're dealing with ruthless corrupt thugs. Being nice ain't gonna cut it. They'll eat you alive.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Turnabout is fair play, right?
The Republicans set a new precedent when they denied the right of a president, with a year left in office - to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. They did so because they claimed it was an "election year" and that the "people" needed to "speak". However the people spoke, when they elected him to serve his term. That's a dangerous new precedent. It makes it ironic to talk about "turnabout" and such. Why SHOULDN'T the Dems fillabuster given what the Republicans did?

That's the problem with precedents.

And each one will just get worse I suppose but I don't see how we can be any more disfuctional.
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
44,572
Reaction score
9,154
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
The Republicans set a new precedent when they denied the right of a president, with a year left in office - to appoint a Supreme Court Justice
Actually, Congress is using its constitutional rights to "deny him" his right as president to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The words "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" are present in Article II of the US Constitution for a reason. No advice, no consent, no justice.
 
Last edited:

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
44,572
Reaction score
9,154
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
They did so because they claimed it was an "election year" and that the "people" needed to "speak".
And the people spoke. For the record, on November 21, 2013, Democrats enacted the nuclear option to override Republican filibusters in the Senate regarding judicial nominees.

So, yeah, Democrats set the precedent here.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
The Republicans set a new precedent when they denied the right of a president, with a year left in office - to appoint a Supreme Court Justice
Actually, Congress is using it's constitutional rights to "deny him" his right as president to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The words "by and with the advise and consent of the Senate" are present in Article II of the US Constitution for a reason. No advice, no consent, no justice.

Well that is the claim isn't it? Then...I suppose, I suppose the Dems are simply exercising their rights too. In the future I predict that no justices will be appointed because it's all locked up in perceived constitutional rights that are nothing more than excuses for partisan selections. Somehow, prior administrations were able to get their justices heard and confirmed or denied. What's wrong with this picture?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
They did so because they claimed it was an "election year" and that the "people" needed to "speak".
And the people spoke. For the record, on November 21, 2013, Democrats enacted the nuclear option to override Republican filibusters in the Senate regarding judicial nominees.

So, yeah, Democrats set the precedent here.
Yeah. Everyone is setting precedents.

For the record. The people spoke and Obama was elected to a 4 year term ending at the end of this year. Shortening that term to 3 years is yet another precedent.

See any maturity in the future? I don't.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
If they ditch the filibuster, the repubs can do whatever they wish. Hopefully the repubs will at least THREATEN to end the filibuster - that by itself should keep dems from being too obstructive.
They could end it.

What happens when they aren't in power again?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Shortening that term to 3 years is yet another precedent.
Huh? Who did that? When?

Why would they do that?
I have no idea why they would do that - but they decided that as of February 23, 2016 his term was effectively over when it came to appointing justices.
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
44,572
Reaction score
9,154
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
In the future I predict that no justices will be appointed because it's all locked up in perceived constitutional rights that are nothing more than excuses for partisan selections.
But the case here, is that that any resistance from Democrats will be overcome by a Republican majority in the Senate who can and will trigger the nuclear option to get justices confirmed.

The Supreme Court will be decidedly conservative for a generation.
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
44,572
Reaction score
9,154
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
I have no idea why they would do that - but they decided that as of February 23, 2016 his term was effectively over when it came to appointing justices.
Oh so that's it. It's easy to circumvent the the ability of the president to make recess appointments: simply don't go into recess. That's what congress is doing, and it won't stop until Trump is sitting in the Oval Office.

For congress that's game, set, match.
 
R

rdean

Guest
This is definitely the last "angry white" election where the "angry whites" win. It's going to be a terrible four years. It will be Trump's base that suffers the most. Just like they did under Bush.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
In the future I predict that no justices will be appointed because it's all locked up in perceived constitutional rights that are nothing more than excuses for partisan selections.
But the case here, is that that any resistance from Democrats will be overcome by a Republican majority in the Senate who can and will trigger the nuclear option to get justices confirmed.

The Supreme Court will be decidedly conservative for a generation.
I'm hoping not.

He will get Scalia's spot. But the I'm hoping the Dems can obstruct enough to prevent a far right conservative, and force them to pick a more moderate choice (much as Obama did). Then there are the 2018 mid year elections. Those typically go against the party in power and could cost Republican majorities. Ironically - the Republicans were floating the idea of shrinking the SCOTUS if Clinton one. It's also possible that could come back to haunt them and a President Trump might not be able to fill vacancies in the last two years of his term due to their obstructionism.

I'm pointing this out because it's all in the Republican playbook as well.

I don't think shrinking the court is a good idea. And if moderate candidates were floated, maybe the Dems would work with the majority :dunno:
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
44,572
Reaction score
9,154
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
Shortening that term to 3 years is yet another precedent.
Huh? Who did that? When?

Why would they do that?
I have no idea why they would do that - but they decided that as of February 23, 2016 his term was effectively over when it came to appointing justices.
Moreover, I think it's puerile to suggest that "they decided ... his term was effectively over when it came to appointing justices"
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
I have no idea why they would do that - but they decided that as of February 23, 2016 his term was effectively over when it came to appointing justices.
Oh so that's it. It's easy to circumvent the the ability of the president to make recess appointments: simply don't go into recess. That's what congress is doing, and it won't stop until Trump is sitting in the Oval Office.

For congress that's game, set, match.

???? I wasn't thinking about recess appointments at all. Congress point blank refused to even hold a hearing on Obama's appointment (that's not "advise and consent" - that's flat out obstruction - you can't "advise and consent" with out first holding a hearing). In doing so, they effectively stated his term ended at Scalia's death - we had to wait a year for the "people to speak" (never mind they had already spoken).
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
44,572
Reaction score
9,154
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
He will get Scalia's spot. But the I'm hoping the Dems can obstruct enough to prevent a far right conservative, and force them to pick a more moderate choice (much as Obama did). Then there are the 2018 mid year elections.
So now you're advocating that they shorten Trump's term by obstructing his appointments in the same way Republicans are. Ma'am, and with all due respect that reeks of hypocrisy. Democrats no longer have a choice in the matter, and neither do you until the 2018 elections. But by then, it will all be said and done.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Shortening that term to 3 years is yet another precedent.
Huh? Who did that? When?

Why would they do that?
I have no idea why they would do that - but they decided that as of February 23, 2016 his term was effectively over when it came to appointing justices.
Moreover, I think it's puerile to suggest that "they decided ... his term was effectively over when it came to appointing justices"
I think it's very accurate. And it's unprecedented.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top