- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147485
some fools never learn. harry reid is the reason the republicans get the scotus pick, not mcconnell as marrider1 falsely claimed. now they want to make more changes.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-threatening-escalation-should-consider-how-that-worked-out-for-them-last-time
@mott-the-hoople said"Falsely claimed"? From your article;
some fools never learn. harry reid is the reason the republicans get the scotus pick, not mcconnell as marrider1 falsely claimed. now they want to make more changes.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-threatening-escalation-should-consider-how-that-worked-out-for-them-last-time
"and Mitch McConnell responded by eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. "
Personally, I've supported the ending of the filibuster altogether ever since Republicans started using it to block every bit of legislation they could (except those eligible for reconciliation) imposing an unconstitutional super-majority requirement for Senate action that the Framers rejected.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147485
22 Sep 20
@no1marauder saidof course mcconnell as the maj leader eliminated it. reid set the precedent , just as dems, if they follow through will set precedent if they pack the court, paving the way for repubs to do it.
"Falsely claimed"? From your article;
"and Mitch McConnell responded by eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. "
Personally, I've supported the ending of the filibuster altogether ever since Republicans started using it to block every bit of legislation they could (except those eligible for reconciliation) imposing an unconstitutional super-majority requirement for Senate action that the Framers rejected.
why do you try to make this something it isnt?
@mott-the-hoople saidThe Republicans in the 113th Congress set a record for most filibusters: Cloture votes reached a high of 218 for the two-year period under the 113th Congress (2013–2014).
of course mcconnell as the maj leader eliminated it. reid set the precedent , just as dems, if they follow through will set precedent if they pack the court, paving the way for repubs to do it.
why do you try to make this something it isnt?
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/12/05/478199/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/
The article shows that the filibuster used to be employed rather rarely but when Moscow Mitch was minority leader he used it to block every single piece of legislation and other action by this undemocratic tactic.
So arguing over "precedent" is pointless; McConnell started using the filibuster is a particularly aggressive way it had been rarely employed at before and Democratic leadership changed the rules to make it more like it had been before.
And anyway, I don't care. The filibuster should be abolished period. And the Democrats if they control Congress and the Presidency could and should increase the number of seats on the SCOTUS. If the Republicans get the chance to do so in the future and they do it, so what?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147485
22 Sep 20
@no1marauder saidwhere does it stop? 100 justices? 1000? 10,000?
The Republicans in the 113th Congress set a record for most filibusters: Cloture votes reached a high of 218 for the two-year period under the 113th Congress (2013–2014).
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/12/05/478199/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/
The article shows that the filibuster used to be employed rather rarely but when ...[text shortened]... ats on the SCOTUS. If the Republicans get the chance to do so in the future and they do it, so what?
22 Sep 20
@mott-the-hoople saidI guess we'll find out.
where does it stop? 100 justices? 1000? 10,000?
You could always propose a Constitutional amendment limiting the SCOTUS to a specific size.
22 Sep 20
@mott-the-hoople saidAnd let's face it; IF McConnell hadn't pulled that partisan stunt with the Garland nomination, there wouldn't be a serious talk about expanding the SCOTUS or any real objection to a vote on a Trump nominee before the next inauguration.
where does it stop? 100 justices? 1000? 10,000?
22 Sep 20
I know it's water under the bridge but the fiasco in 2016 happened when the administration was 38 out of 48 months complete. That's just under 80% of the term.
Ok, so that's done.
So now, there is a lot of back and forth about this.
I think that the stunt this time will create the optics that the electorate won't ignore.
I believe that McConnell believes that the GOP is going to get whacked this fall.
And the GOP will get their dream of a conservative America in place no matter what.
At the end of the day the reality will set in.
This is no longer 1950 America. We are now 20% through the 21st century.
The reality is simple.
Humanity can not be led by people who are frightened of humanity.
22 Sep 20
@mghrn55 saidMy opinion hasn't changed since 2016; while the President and the Senate are in office, they should do their jobs.
I know it's water under the bridge but the fiasco in 2016 happened when the administration was 38 out of 48 months complete. That's just under 80% of the term.
Ok, so that's done.
So now, there is a lot of back and forth about this.
I think that the stunt this time will create the optics that the electorate won't ignore.
I believe that McConnell believes that the GOP is g ...[text shortened]... entury.
The reality is simple.
Humanity can not be led by people who are frightened of humanity.
The President should nominate someone to fill the SCOTUS vacancy.
The Senate should hold hearings and an eventual vote.
The level of partisanship that now pervades judicial nominations is an unfortunate, fairly recent phenomena (even someone as ideologically extreme as Scalia was confirmed unanimously) but that is part of the package these days.
22 Sep 20
@mott-the-hoople saidVery interesting article documenting the abuses of power in the Senate by the Democrats focusing on SCOTUS nominations.
some fools never learn. harry reid is the reason the republicans get the scotus pick, not mcconnell as marrider1 falsely claimed. now they want to make more changes.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-threatening-escalation-should-consider-how-that-worked-out-for-them-last-time
It seems that our institutions are going to crumble -- and I think it is largely because the Republicans cannot concede anything at this point, and must absolutely play to win at this point.
The one strange assumption in the article that stuck out to me was this:
Democrats are once again making the mistake of thinking that they will be in the majority forever — a peculiar assumption, given that they aren’t even in the majority now.
The writer really did not consider that they are likely going to capture the government through the ongoing demographic shift in the US.
Unless the Republicans truly want to function as the mensheviks for the Democrats, they need to be fighting for their lives to end illegal immigration and reform immigration as it stands. But that is likely not going to happen.
22 Sep 20
@philokalia saidSorry that the country isn't going to remain as "white" as you desire it to be.
Very interesting article documenting the abuses of power in the Senate by the Democrats focusing on SCOTUS nominations.
It seems that our institutions are going to crumble -- and I think it is largely because the Republicans cannot concede anything at this point, and must absolutely play to win at this point.
The one strange assumption in the article that stu ...[text shortened]... end illegal immigration and reform immigration as it stands. But that is likely not going to happen.
Maybe the Republicans could try supporting policies that are actually popular rather than relying on stopping inevitable demographic changes? Nah, that would be crazy.
22 Sep 20
@no1marauder saidIt is McConnell’s fault.
And let's face it; IF McConnell hadn't pulled that partisan stunt with the Garland nomination, there wouldn't be a serious talk about expanding the SCOTUS or any real objection to a vote on a Trump nominee before the next inauguration.
The ugly turtle is a blatant hypocrite and very dangerous man.
22 Sep 20
2 edits
@mott-the-hoople saidWell they can’t just let the republicans set all the precedent’s can they.
of course mcconnell as the maj leader eliminated it. reid set the precedent , just as dems, if they follow through will set precedent if they pack the court, paving the way for repubs to do it.
why do you try to make this something it isnt?
Trump and the republicans have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are opportunistic liars.
Just keep packing the SCOTUS until it becomes unwieldy and irrelevant. Better that than an unrepresentative yoke on the shoulders of the majority.
22 Sep 20
@no1marauder saidIs this how yuo think good politics works?
Maybe the Republicans could try supporting policies that are actually popular rather than relying on stopping inevitable demographic changes? Nah, that would be crazy.
By appealing to popularity, rather than trying to be principled, and to propagate these principles among people through argument and sound reasoning..?
I act surprised but, really, this explains a lot.
22 Sep 20
@philokalia said“ By appealing to popularity, rather than trying to be principled, and to propagate these principles among people through argument and sound reasoning..? ”
Is this how yuo think good politics works?
By appealing to popularity, rather than trying to be principled, and to propagate these principles among people through argument and sound reasoning..?
I act surprised but, really, this explains a lot.
But how is that the same as gerrymandering SCOTUS into a weapon for the suppression of the majority by the minority.