Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
He's not supposed to be up for a vote. This is the only thing Dems can possibly do to note for posterity that they refuse to normalize the GOP's actions towards Garland.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democrats filibuster Gorsuch nomination, GOP triggers "nuclear option"
- Thread starter DOWN
- Start date
- Status
He's not supposed to be up for a vote. This is the only thing Dems can possibly do to note for posterity that they refuse to normalize the GOP's actions towards Garland.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
I don't think this is true at all. I think that democrats just completely failed to make this an issue in their campaigns. They should have been screaming about this in every speech and every ad they ran but they were largely silent on the issue. Democrats dropped the ball.
metalslimer
Member
No just no party actually wants to because it's insurance
I understand, but looking at Gorsuch as a judge, he is qualified. Even if we don't agree with everything he's done. And either way he's getting the seat.
It's time for the government to work in a bipartisan manner.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Gorsich is fucking terrible. And Trump isn't going to appoint anyone else that's more human if another goes down anyway.
Please tell me how the Dems have fared by trying to compromise, work with the GOP, be reasonable, etc.? Tell me how it's worked out.
Best option is to force the GOP into more fuckery and hope Dems can get a majority next time around so they can ram through as many nominees as possible without grovelling to the GOP for nothing yet again.
It's a reasonable reaction to the total lack of respect shown to Obama and Garland in the last year of his presidency. GOP exists to destroy.
Please tell me how the Dems have fared by trying to compromise, work with the GOP, be reasonable, etc.? Tell me how it's worked out.
Best option is to force the GOP into more fuckery and hope Dems can get a majority next time around so they can ram through as many nominees as possible without grovelling to the GOP for nothing yet again.
It's a reasonable reaction to the total lack of respect shown to Obama and Garland in the last year of his presidency. GOP exists to destroy.
Gotdatmoney
Member
What battles do you think republicans will compromise with Democrats on when they have 100% power? Do you guys know the Republican party or are you just trying to be optimistic for no reason?
In the sense that Republicans absolutely refused to even meet Garland. Of course, come voting day, dems should appear and do everything they can to not allow him get the seat.
fredrancour
Member
if it turns out the GOP are willing to destroy the fillibuster, then there is no point in saving it.
1. if Dems refuse to use it now because it might be killed, and then try to use it later, and it gets killed, then saving it amounted to nothing.
2. if dems try to save it for later and it turns out the GOP won't kill it, then they conceded however many votes for no reason before calling the bluff.
if dems aren't willing to call the bluff, the filibuster is already dead. the past 8 years have kind of shown us that there are no republicans who value bipartisanship left in congress.
saving the filibuster is only useful if you believe there's any chance that a future appointee would be radical enough to turn a handful of republicans against the party. I believe that such an appointee doesn't exist and and the senate will fall in line with anything trump/pence/ryan/a future speaker/whoever survives the fallout of the russian investigation would put up over the next 4 years. Therefore, there is zero merit to saving the thing.
JetBlackPanda
Member
Agreed. if they were to get on board with this what does that say? Go ahead and fucking block another Garland and then we will just bend over?
sorry.
Lord Frieza
Member
I don't care what party he's part of, but that frozen trucker case is enough to disgust me. And his education ruling that got overturned by the sitting SC 8-0 was pretty bad from the way I understood.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Memories of goldfish.
Tranqueris
Banned
Good, also Dems should be asking the Republicans which thing they want more, Gorsuch as a judge or a really valuable procedural option that tends to really only help Republicans in the long run.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
okay, but i think "democrats shouldn't do this because hypothetically if they didn't do this, hypothetically republicans might have to pay a political cost at some point years from now if democrats thread the needle just right and make it a major issue and nothing else distracts the electorate, and also we can't really determine what the cost would be in terms of magnitude, oh and for some reason republicans won't pay the cost this time because gorsuch is good even though there is no evidence the public knows what's good or not and gorsuch has plenty of wingnut beliefs that could be attacked even if he is qualified, oh and whether they filibuster this time or not, republicans still get this seat and the next seat anyway so it's not like we can do anything except bleed a senate seat at the margin after they fill the seat" is a pretty weak basis for being mad that democrats are filibustering now
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Disappointed that we are heading towards simple majority rule
Both parties are at fault
GOP for Garland
Democrats for going nuclear for judges below Supreme Court
I hope we can eventually have a candidate that brings parties together
Both parties are at fault
GOP for Garland
Democrats for going nuclear for judges below Supreme Court
I hope we can eventually have a candidate that brings parties together
Its like people forgot what happened between 2009-2011.
The GOP absolutely refused to work with Democrats. And in Garland's case neglected their duties to the American public and the fabric of the Senate by refusing to hold hearings. They broke the process and so reap the whirlwind. Of course, Democrats are still playing by the rules. But the GOP will continue to circumvent the rules by ridding themselves of the filibuster.
And yet some continue to blame the Democrats. Maddening.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
This mysteriously seems to be the plea after every Democratic screwing
Also an empty platitude
JetBlackPanda
Member
Schattenjäger;233474513 said:
Dude at the time the GOP was holding up something like 70 different positions.
They'll get in anyway when republicans threaten again. This just removes the gun from the heads of the dems. It was a rule modern republicans have no interest in honoring because they're a bunch of hypocrites. Now republicans own this pick 100%. They've removed a weapon for themselves when they lose control. They will lose control because that's what always happens. One side gets control, reaches to far for good or bad, and there is a backlash and get punished for it. The number of seats that separate control in both houses is actually pretty small when you look at it. So it wouldn't take much for things to flip. When one side is clearly responsible for bad shit that happens or is about to happen it will make it easier.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
Oh yeah absolutely I have no problems with the filibuster here.
Believing government work can be bipartisan in this current era is why Democrats will continue to lose.
A Serious Man
Member
This was inevitable. The GOP made it clear it would never allow a Democrat nominee to go through and if the Senate was flipped, they would be filibustering right now and Dems would be nuking the filibuster. It's sad but when one party refuses to let any nominee other than their own onto the court, what do you do? At least in this situation McConnell will be the one with blood on his hands.
Shhh. We're both sides-ing.
Emulated Hype
Member
It didn't backfire for the GOP when they did it last year.
Somehow it is always the Democrats that have to bend over for bipartisanship.
balladofwindfishes
Member
There is no difference in how Gorsuch will vote compared to any other conservative. There is no one worse than Gorsuch, they are all identical and vote in lockstep
The Supreme Court is a rigidly partisan institute, all that matters is the letter next to their name, it doesn't matter who the person is.
The Albatross
Member
It's not "what do you have to gain by not using it" it's "what do you gain by using it," and the answer is nothing. You gain nothing by using it. And what do you lose? Everything, any semblance of power that a minority party has in senate (which is a lot -- the senate is not the house) is lost; you lose any ability to force compromise on conservative house bills that come over to the senate for at least 22 more months but probably 46 more months. Trump appoints another justice who is more conservative and has less judicial prudence and experience than Gorsuch, and McConnell dissolves the fillibuster as Trump and the House set to move on a tax plan and any other conservative legislation.
What else do they stand to lose? The structure of the senate. The ability for a minority party to have a legislative voice in the senate. Democrats are unlikely to gain a senate majority in 2 years, they have too many seats up to be lost in red states, and not enough to gain in blue states.
So many partisans are so short sighted on this and forget that Senators actually have to pass legislation, not just have political fights. "Well you prevented us from getting our guy so we're gonna prevent you from getting your guy!" And they think, "Well now it's even." Sure, now it's even in this baby size childlike mentality of tit for tat, but in the real world Republicans lost nothing from stonewalling Obama's nominee and they effectively gained a Supreme Court pick that they shouldn't have had. Republicans had a lot to gain and legitimately had nothing to lose a year ago when Obama nominated Merrick Garland (a nominee who many Republicans would have been fine with if he was on the bench too) because they controlled the House and Senate and likely would still control the house and senate after November, and they could go on the gamble that some slim chance of them winning the White House... which of course, they did.
Democrats have nothing to gain and much more to lose. So many people are looking at losing the fillibuster and thinking "well it's not like Trumps agenda wouldn't pass eventually." This is true, but it's brain-dead stupid. The point of the 60-seat majority in the Senate is that it forges compromise on bills. There's a reason why Trump's health care proposals would have been killed in the senate, because building a 60-seat majority to pass that would have been impossible. It was that requirement for compromise that ended up getting the Freedom Caucus in the house to kill the bill before it even came to a vote: THe compromises required on that bill for it to pass the senate made the bill not acceptable to far-right conservatives in the house. Without that need for compromise in the senate, it becomes much easier for the house to not consider compromise on bills and just send conservative bills over to the senate, which they can then pass with a 52-48 majority, and then it goes to King Trump and he signs it.
There's no brightside for Democrats on this. Saying that McConnell would have killed the fillibuster once it got to the next nominee is a stupid argument because you also lose all of that legislative compromise between now and whenever the next nominee comes along. Further, when the next Supreme Court nominee comes along from Trump there wouldn't have to be any effort to come up with a nominee with any judicial credibility (which Gorsuch has, which is why many liberals and Democrats were relieved when Trump appointed Gorsuch ~2 months ago... We were all expecting the Betsy Devos of nominees, no experience, extremely far right, beholden to special interests, beholden to Trump Inc., and... Gorsuch wasn't, and then Gorsuch even criticized the President days later). The next nominee can be whoever Trump wants.
Republicans actually had something to gain in opposing Garland, as wrong as it was. Democrats have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
My fellow liberals, though, don't want to hear this. They want to stick their fingers in their ears and scream "They did it to us we should do it to them!!!"
You're not "supporting" Gorsuch. You still vote against him. I think in this hyper-partisan ideological purity death match people think that not obstructing the legislative process means endorsing conservative agenda. It doesn't. You can still vote against him.
He's a highly conservative constitution hardliner judge, how does he at all match up with progressive ideals? Garland was also qualified by your logic, so why weren't the GOP getting more flack for what they did? This is dems doing the job they were voted in to office for, the people with progressive and liberal ideals want to be represented in the government. When GOP does shit like this its politics like normal and what can you do, when dems do it is "theatrics" and they need to roll over and take it because of a hypothetical next time we will take them seriously for sure??? This is such bullshit. It's like the kid that always does everything for everyone and constantly rolls over but the one time they decide to stand up for themselves they are assholes for it.
Autoignition
Member
Everyone all like, "we should've just let them have Gorsuch" can fuck right off the edge of my ladydick. Are we really that determined to be the party that stands for nothing? We can't keep rolling over for the GOP and letting them be the party of assholes while we flounder around as the party of tired adults trying to babysit a shitty toddler.
The GOP are going to bully and strongarm and propaganda their way into getting whatever the fuck they want no matter what we do. The very least we can do in response is not make it easy for them -- the very least we can do is try.
The GOP are going to bully and strongarm and propaganda their way into getting whatever the fuck they want no matter what we do. The very least we can do in response is not make it easy for them -- the very least we can do is try.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
This logic never made sense at all. If Gorsuch isn't the "worst" option and Republicans are willing to kill the filibuster in order to get him, there is no reason to think they wouldn't do the same with someone that even more aligns with their beliefs.
GoldenEye 007
Member
GOP is not interested in this. Did you miss Paul Ryan's press conference? He admitted the GOP has not been interested in governing for at least 10 years. How do you engagement someone not interested in playing.Schattenjäger;233474513 said:
Obama was wildly popular and they refused to work with him for the most part. They wanted to block anything and everything no matter the cost. They chose to challenge whether or not he was a citizen instead.
Your option would have led to even more vacancies in the federal court system.
Blaming the Democrats here is baffling given the very clear motives of the GOP and the fact they wanted everything brought to a screetching halt.
The idea that letting gorsuch though, the GOP will be reasonable and negotiate if a liberal seat opens up is absurd foolish optimisim on a scale I haven't seen yet.
Also the GOP is not suicidal enough to remove the filibuster on legislation. Legilation doesn't have lifetime tenure, and can easily be overturned by a dem Majority.
Also the GOP is not suicidal enough to remove the filibuster on legislation. Legilation doesn't have lifetime tenure, and can easily be overturned by a dem Majority.
Swass
Member
Democrats change the rules because republicans where trying to block Obama from doing anything including several lower court appointees and this is "the dems fault."
Republicans put forth a nominee without consulting dems, dems don't like him so they filibuster, republicans change the rules to push him through anyway, and it's "the dems fault."
Seems to me republicans are as bad as Trump and can't take the blame for their own actions.
Republicans put forth a nominee without consulting dems, dems don't like him so they filibuster, republicans change the rules to push him through anyway, and it's "the dems fault."
Seems to me republicans are as bad as Trump and can't take the blame for their own actions.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Why did you write a bunch of shit about the legislative filibuster that has nothing to do with this and has been explicitly removed from all future consideration by the Senate Majority leader
I didn't get why passing bills was mixed in with appointing judges.
Yeah. Republicans were always going to change the rules the first moment the Democrats ever decided to exercise filibuster power, whether now or later. So all of their judicial nominees were going to pass no matter what Democrats did. The filibuster being gone is actually good for Democrats, because now there's the actual upside that Democratic judicial appointments can't be filibustered in the future.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The Democratic base is demanding energetic and enthusiastic opposition to Trump, even when it is futile. What they have to gain is enthusiasm of the base.
You lose this anyway, since the seat swings the median vote, and so McConnell would just nuke the filibuster then. Note that nuking the filibuster for judicial nominees may well lead to nuking the filibuster for routine legislation, but that's not what's being discussed right now, and also if they want to do that, they can do it whether the Democrats are filibustering this nomination or not.
You wrote a lot of words, but most of them were just assertions. Why do you think a) McConnell will currently kill the legislative filibuster; b) he would not have done so without Democrats filibustering Gorsuch? If you really believe the senate majority leader will nuke the legislative filibuster because of this, why wouldn't he just nuke the legislative filibuster when the tax plan comes up? Why do you think there'd be a period of peace between Gorsuch and some future trigger? If he's willing to do it now, why is he not willing to do it now?
GoldenEye 007
Member
This applies to only judges, not legislation.
The Repulicans are the ones killing the filibuster, not Democrats.
Democrats don't have the votes to kill the filibuster. It's impossible for them to do it. Only the GOP can.
LegendofLex
Member
They gain legitimacy among their constituents, who are demanding that a Supreme Court seat that was stolen from them should not just be conceded. Disaffected Democrats want legislators who will stand up for their principles using all the political tools at their disposal, rather than constantly concede victories to Republicans.
Ending the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees wouldn't do this. It wouldn't affect legislation at all.
sturgboski
Member
When did they compromise over the last 8 years? The republicans are the reason people think the government is broken. And look no further than the HC vote when the republicans who control everything couldn't get shit done.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Wow.
You posted all that.
Yet didn't even bother to learn what a judicial filibuster is.
Bravo.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked