Support NeoGAF

[Melkezadek]

This is the point where we as Americans need to stand up and say enough is enough.

This isn't democracy. We need to be in the streets and make them hear us.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

I'm confused. What was Trump saying during his campaign about "term limits".

Thought he was talking about supreme court judges having term limits?

No he was talking about congress

 

[guek]

I'm confused. What was Trump saying during his campaign about "term limits".

Thought he was talking about supreme court judges having term limits?

He was talking about congress

 

[NimbusD]

Welp. First time republicans were able to come together for something.

Tbh the justice could be worse that they're shoving down our throats, but killing the rule is the real horror here.

 

[Cymbal Head]

Yep. If invoking the filibuster once (or at least, the first time in decades) can lead to its elimination, then there was never really a filibuster in the first place.

Uh...

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Uh...

he's referring to the judicial filibuster

 

[Maxim726X]

That is the fear for the next nomination, possibly under Trump also.

There is no successful outcome during this administration.

If they didn't invoke the nuclear option now, they would have done it later. Bipartisanship is dead.

 

[Metroidvania]

Well, that's that, I guess.

Somewhat related sidenote for curiosity....what happens to Gorsuch if/when evidence of treason by Trump and co. does surface? Theoretically, would that affect Gorsuch at all?

IIRC there isn't any sort of precedent I can think of, but I'm not overly familiar with the intricacies of such a topic.

 

[fredrancour]

Yep. If invoking the filibuster once (or at least, the first time in decades) can lead to its elimination, then there was never really a filibuster in the first place.

the filibuster changed from being the dramatic Mr Smith Goes To Washington thing in the senate a while ago. It's been used frequently in its current form of "you just need extra votes to bring a bill up for a real vote."

 

[Swass]

McCain going to McCain.. republicans are trash and this first 77 days they have really been unhinged and don't seem to care about hiding it anymore.. really hope (D) Jon Ossoff wins the Georgia special election to put the fear in these republican clowns.

 

[BronsonLee]

Well, that's that, I guess.

Somewhat related sidenote for curiosity....what happens to Gorsuch if/when evidence of treason by Trump and co. does surface? Theoretically, would that affect Gorsuch at all?

IIRC there isn't any sort of precedent I can think of, but I'm not overly familiar with the intricacies of such a topic.

He's probably fine

RE: them going nuclear, that just screws them over when power swaps back because even if they implement it again, they already took the cat out of the bag

 

[_woLf]

The entire republican party are a bunch of fucking scum.

All of them. Every single one.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Well, that's that, I guess.

Somewhat related sidenote for curiosity....what happens to Gorsuch if/when evidence of treason by Trump and co. does surface? Theoretically, would that affect Gorsuch at all?

IIRC there isn't any sort of precedent I can think of, but I'm not overly familiar with the intricacies of such a topic.

Nothing legally. But hoo boy is that a weight to carry around.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Well, that's that, I guess.

Somewhat related sidenote for curiosity....what happens to Gorsuch if/when evidence of treason by Trump and co. does surface? Theoretically, would that affect Gorsuch at all?

Sometimes this comes up with, for example, incorrectly-made recess appointments, but in general the fall of a president would not impact any of his lifetime or fixed term appointees.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Bleah.

Well, all the more reason to keep fighting into 2018 and beyond.

 

[plagiarize]

I really hope to live to see the day that the GOP regret what they did here.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Nothing legally. But hoo boy is that a weight to carry around.

I don't think any of the Nixon appointees were affected?

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

No he was talking about congress

He was talking about congress

Thanks.

I think SCOTUS should have term limits. Isn't it just replicating other nations that have a sole leader for 50 years?

 

[The Last Wizard]

This is the point where we as Americans need to stand up and say enough is enough.

This isn't democracy. We need to be in the streets and make them hear us.

We're complacent though, no one is stirring us. The "new media" isn't outraged they go with the flow cause the people behind the scenes are want it so. We need a leader or sort of guide.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I really hope to live to see the day that the GOP regret what they did here.

Hopefully sooner rather than later if this, among other things, energizes Dems to show up in 2018 and 2020.

 

[TankRizzo]

The game is the game.

McConnell probably realizes the president is a disaster and SC judges are just about the only wins he'll get over the next 4 years.

The game's the same. Just got mo fierce

 

[Manmademan]

Thanks.

I think SCOTUS should have term limits. Isn't it just replicating other nations that have a sole leader for 50 years?

No, because the US doesn't have a sole leader, the Supreme Court has 9 justices that are collectively a third of government, and checks and balances exist?

 

[Jarmel]

Heading towards?

If the majority party can, at any time of their choosing, change the rules so that it is simple majority rule, then it is already majority rule.

This past year is making it obvious how fucked up our political system actually was and how all of those safeguards were really just bullshit.

 

[Cymbal Head]

he's referring to the judicial filibuster

My point is, we've been headed down this path for a while. This isn't even the first 'nuclear option' this decade.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Thanks.

I think SCOTUS should have term limits. Isn't it just replicating other nations that have a sole leader for 50 years?

SCOTUS isn't all powerful. And SCOTUS judges SHOULD be as apolitical as possible, that is certainly not the case now but it's about to get much much worse now that Republicans (and democrats in the future) can just push through any nomination they see fit without having to appease the middle.

 

[jett]

What's the point of the filibuster if it can just be nuked. And from this point forward, what's the point of Democrat senators even showing up? What does the Republican majority need them for?

 

[ahoyhoy]

The game's the same. Just got mo fierce

Slim Charles needs to be the Minority Leader in the Senate.

He already has Roberts Rules of Order down.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

What's the point of the filibuster if it can just be nuked. And from this point forward, what's the point of Democrat senators even showing up? What does the Republican majority need them for?

This applies only to judicial filibusters. Legislative ones are still intact.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

Good thoughts.

 

[plagiarize]

So Mitch accused the Democrats of trying to prevent conservatives from being put on the supreme court.

Well no shit Mitch. Why shouldn't they do that?

Then this:

This isn't really about the nominee anyway. The opposition to this particular nominee is more about the man who nominated him and the party he represents than the nominee himself.

Jesus Christ the lack of perspective he has. If you'd read this quote six months ago, you'd have thought it was a Democrat talking about what the GOP were doing to Garland and Obama.

 

[Swass]

This applies only to judicial filibusters. Legislative ones are still intact.

For now..

 

[jett]

This applies only to judicial filibusters. Legislative ones are still intact.

Can those be nuked too?

 

[SolarPowered]

Hopefully this doesn't backfire for liberals...

It was going to backfire no matter what. Republicans would nuke the filibuster in a split second if it meant replacing RBG before 2020. At least this way we no longer have to pretend that bipartisanship matters.

 

[O_Atoll]

Why are they against Gorsich?

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Can those be nuked too?

Yes but not even Republicans would go that far. They know the shoe will be on the other foot eventually. They're only willing to do this now because it secures them a lifetime appointment on the court.

 

[Maxim726X]

Heading towards?

If the majority party can, at any time of their choosing, change the rules so that it is simple majority rule, then it is already majority rule.

Right, but the fact that we never got to this point does speak to the fact that we at least tried to respect the minority voice in this country.

I'm still not convinced that the Senate will end the filibuster, because that has been a very useful for tool for Repubs and McConnell in particular. The shoe will be on the other foot eventually, and probably quite soon at this rate.

 

[Arttemis]

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell high fives Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn after the nuclear option goes through. Partisan.

 

[darkwing]

Yes but not even Republicans would go that far. They know the shoe will be on the other foot eventually. They're only willing to do this now because it secures them a lifetime appointment on the court.

hopefully the other justices are healthy

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

For now..

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconnell-promises-not-to-kill-filibuster-236873

”Who would be the biggest beneficiary of that right now? It would be the majority, right?" McConnell told reporters. ”There's not a single senator in the majority who thinks we ought to change the legislative filibuster. Not one."

When asked whether he would commit to not changing the legislative filibuster under his tenure as majority leader, the Kentucky Republican responded: ”Correct."

The majority party doesn't want to have to vote on politically suicidal bills the House sends it. They rely on a filibuster from the opposing party. It's not going anywhere.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Can those be nuked too?

Sure, but it's not worth it.

Republicans could probably nuke the legislative filibuster and push through the shittiest bill imaginable. After they're rightly kicked out of office for it, the Dems would just reverse everything, then add a bunch of their own stuff on top.

 

[guek]

Thanks.

I think SCOTUS should have term limits. Isn't it just replicating other nations that have a sole leader for 50 years?

SCOTUS appointments are not leaders, they're judges. They're there to interpret the constitution, not govern. Lifetime appointments were meant to prevent rapid, destabilizing changes or changes that flip flop every few years. They're not elected officials either, they're appointments. It's supposed to keep them independent. Determining the appropriate length for SCOTUS appointments is tricky because you run the risk of cycling between Dem and GOP appointments every few years or having the court overrun by one side if one party remains in power for a relatively short amount of time. I don't think anything less than 20yrs is reasonable but considering the average age of a SCOTUS appointee is in their 50s, what's the point.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

hopefully the other justices are healthy

RBG is going to be one to watch. She's 83...

Dems need to get the Senate by at least 2018. Which will be tough. And worse case 2020.

 

[RDreamer]

As long as Gorsuch instead of Garland sits on the court, it'll be a good reminder to me to never ever vote Republican.

Why are they against Gorsich?

For one: He's really far right wing, further right than Scalia on some things.

For two: He's not Merick Garland.

 

[BahamutPT]

Couldn't they just have filibustered the filibuster rule change and go into deadlock?

I know there would be even less to gain from that, but still...

 

[Blader]

Uh...

I'm talking about the judicial filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. Unless there are hundreds of filibustered SCOTUS picks I'm not aware of.

My point is, we've been headed down this path for a while. This isn't even the first 'nuclear option' this decade.

Again, it took dozens of blocked judicial and cabinet appointments for Reid to nuke that filibuster. If it only took one filibustered SCOTUS appointment to force McConnell to do the same, then the SCOTUS filibuster was not a very strong or durable rule to begin with.

 

[Supast4r]

did McCain say no and switched his vote to yes? lol

This defines McCains senate career

 

[DrMungo]

Uh...

My argument privately was that in 2008-2009, with the massive obstruction by GOP, the Dems should have been the GOP to the punch and nuke the filibuster anyway. We would have the public option and better health care because of that.

I always knew the GOP would trigger it the first chance they get. You cannot negotiate with the GOP. It will always be party over country.

Well, what goes around comes around in the future.

 

[Auto_aim1]

McConnell is smart. This is a lifetime appointment and Gorsuch is what, 50? The benefits outweigh the risks for Republicans.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Couldn't they just have filibustered the filibuster rule change and go into deadlock?

I know there would be even less to gain from that, but still...

The rule change only requires a simple majority (51 votes). Democrats had no power to block it.

 

[darkwing]

McConnell is smart. This is a lifetime appointment and Gorsuch is what, 50? The benefits outweigh the risks for Republicans.

true, and they have rolled the dice that they can appoint another in this term