Support NeoGAF

[Doc Holliday]

Ugh 2010 & 2014 elections fucked this country so hard

 

[Steejee]

Thank god Dems weren't stupid enough to believe them. The next seat to open up is likely a liberal justice's seat. You don't think the GOP would swiftly kill the filibuster if Ginsberbg seat were to open up in 2019, for example? No 'gentleman's' agreement in the world would stop the GOP from going nuclear if that were the case.

Agreed. The GOP was going to nuke the filibuster as soon as they needed to for a confirmation. If it hadn't been now it would have been the next judge.

"Don't block this judge and we pinky swear we won't go nuclear next time!" is especially unconvincing when they went in ready to do it with Gorsuch the moment it was clear they didn't have 60. No hesitation. It took a lot of blocked Federal Judges before the Dems killed the federal judge filibuster.

The only silver lining I see here is that Gorsuch, while being a choice i dislike, is still a step up Scalia. Hopefully the others (save Thomas) can hold on until the GOP loses the Senate majority.

 

[davepoobond]

it was inevitable in this political climate

 

[Chococat]

You can stay bitter, or you can actually do something.

And by the way, those protections aren't going way. Unless you haven't been following the news or are just willfully ignorant.

Your avatar has it right. Resist.

Don't relent.

I'm bitter. But I am still writing my congress critters daily. I go to rally/protests to network. I vote at all levels. I do what I can.

 

[Fancyarcher]

I don't think anyone's really surprised.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

The reason it never happened is not only because of the blowback FDR experienced, but because the mostly-Hoover/Coolidge-appointed Supreme Court saw the threat for what it was and backed off of their systematic attempt to dismantle the New Deal.

A right-wing supreme court that makes some wrongheaded decisions on abortion or gay rights is very disagreeable, but not a threat to Democracy. A right-wing supreme court that can reliably shoot down any attempt at progressive legislation based on some loophole or other is a threat to the very state and would have to be amended.

But folks like John Roberts are smart enough to get where the line is that i suspect we won't get to that point even if Trump does get to appoint a replacement for RBG. Roberts' weird reasoning in his decision to preserve the individual mandate of the ACA was, to me, a clear sign that he didn't think the Court should be used the way the GOP was trying to use it, as a backdoor to annul any legislation they don't like.

Um

Laws that impact bodily autonomy and equality for all ARE a threat to democracy.

 

[AstroNut325]

Ugh 2010 & 2014 elections fucked this country so hard

Yup. And it was largely due to BS lies peddled by the right wing/GOP.

They are masters at messaging and outreach.

 

[commedieu]

I don't think anyone's really surprised.

No one is asking you to be surprised.

The country is going to shit, but at least people can find solace in the fact that it wasn't a surprise.

Cool.

 

[XMonkey]

I'm ok with the legislative filibuster going at this point.

 

[slit]

This changes nothing on the court from before Scalia's death. The next one is where we need to worry. I hope Ginsberg can hold on.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Democrats will not have any of that type of power for quite some time. They will not make any gains in 2018.

Republicans get the win today and the rules are going to benefit them as they continue and will continue to control congress.

A new health care bill will be on the table in the next couple weeks and it's probably going to go through.

Please explain in graphic detail how the bolded is even legally viable.

 

[btrboyev]

Yup. And it was largely due to BS lies peddled by the right wing/GOP.

They are masters at messaging and outreach.

It also couldn't be the fact the south is still the R parties bread and butter. The fact that they are moving into the white collar liberal states should scare people, because the south isn't changing anytime soon.

MN, probably one of the most liberal states in the country is barely hanging on to that claim. They lost a lot of dem house seats.

 

[btrboyev]

Please explain in graphic detail how the bolded is even legally viable.

Because this past week, we have had the Vice President set up meetings to get it done. There is talk about a new bill removing stuff like pre-excusing conditions to get the freedom caucus people on board.

It's not viable, but it doesn't mean they aren't going to try.

 

[btrboyev]

This changes nothing on the court from before Scalia's death. The next one is where we need to worry. I hope Ginsberg can hold on.

Which is why the Dems should not have filibuster this time. They were foolish to do so. They better hope that the cards change in 2018, or nobody dies or retires in the next 4 years.

 

[slit]

Because this past week, we have had the Vice President set up meetings to get it done. There is talk about a new bill removing stuff like pre-excusing conditions to get the freedom caucus people on board.

It's not viable, but it doesn't mean they aren't going to try.

Then it dies in the Senate. See how the GOP is between a rock and a hard place? You said it would go through. Do you just mean the House? Because that won't change anything.

 

[LiK]

This changes nothing on the court from before Scalia's death. The next one is where we need to worry. I hope Ginsberg can hold on.

Pretty much. He's replacing Scalia who's like the most hardcore conservative. It's all the other more liberal Justices that I'm worried about.

 

[JP_]

Which is why the Dems should not have filibuster this time. They were foolish to do so. They better hope that the cards change in 2018, or nobody dies or retires in the next 4 years.

It's not stopping Gorsuch it wouldn't have stopped the next one. Republicans were never going to put up a moderate.

At least this way, dems keep up the momentum and maintain an activated opposition against the GOP amongst the public.

 

[slit]

Which is why the Dems should not have filibuster this time. They were foolish to do so. They better hope that the cards change in 2018, or nobody dies or retires in the next 4 years.

What sense does that make? So they let Gorsuch though and then next time, what? The GOP backs down from the filibuster threat? I don't think so.

 

[kaskade]

This was probably bound to happen sooner or later. Haven't the dems been hurt more by the filibuster in recent years anyway?

 

[Sirpopopop]

Pretty sure that's been tried before and was rightfully shot down. FDR I think? The public pretty quickly saw it for what it was and sided against him.

Fake edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

I wouldn't say "switch in time saves nine" is as broadly discredited as Wiki states it is...


I think a court packing bill in 2021 would be worth it to expose the absurdity of the constitution as presently constituted.

 

[guek]

Ugh 2010 & 2014 elections fucked this country so hard

Thanks Obama -_-;

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Hey, now legislation will be passed based on a popularity contest and not through an actual democratic process. That's not short sided at all, right Republicans?

 

[btrboyev]

It's not stopping Gorsuch it wouldn't have stopped the next one. Republicans were never going to put up a moderate.

At least this way, dems keep up the momentum and maintain an activated opposition against the GOP amongst the public.

I'm saying in the chance that 2018/2020, the house or senate changes enough.

 

[slit]

Hey, now legislation will be passed based on a popularity contest and not through an actual democratic process. That's not short sided at all, right Republicans?

This doesn't effect filibuster on legislation, although now the GOP has to explain to its base why they won't trigger the nuclear option on legislation when they did on the SCOTUS pick.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Because this past week, we have had the Vice President set up meetings to get it done. There is talk about a new bill removing stuff like pre-excusing conditions to get the freedom caucus people on board.

It's not viable, but it doesn't mean they aren't going to try.

Just because they're trying again, doesn't mean it has any better chance. This is Muslim 2.0 Ban all over again.

They have 3 weeks to introduce a bill, have it CBO graded, court the freedom caucus (after publicly ridiculing them), pass the house, and THEN pass the senate.

Paul Ryan was not exaggerating when he said that Obamacare is the law of the land for the foreseeable future. They blew their one honest shot, and are likely going to lose ground in the 2018 midterms, making killing Obamacare impossible unless another republican president wins and they take back the house. Not happening.

 

[Vixdean]

Good lord, the lack of knowledge about our political and legislative processes on display in this thread is astounding. No wonder Bernie had so many supporters, it's "Fisher Price's My First Congress" up in here.

 

[Woorloog]

Does this cover filibuster as a whole or just when it comes to SC nominations?

EDIT Oh, only SC nominations. Nevermind me.

 

[NewFresh]

Expected. Glad the Dems finally followed through.

 

[Trey]

Yup. And it was largely due to BS lies peddled by the right wing/GOP.

They are masters at messaging and outreach.

It's far easier being the opposition party when it comes to messaging. This has always been true.

 

[RDreamer]

This doesn't effect filibuster on legislation, although now the GOP has to explain to its base why they won't trigger the nuclear option on legislation when they did on the SCOTUS pick.

Yeah, this should be interesting. Now they can use the democrats' filibuster as cover when the House sends them a flaming turd, but the cat's kind of out of the bag if they're willing to get rid of it for this...

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

I think a court packing bill in 2021 would be worth it to expose the absurdity of the constitution as presently constituted.

You say that, but when the GOP is back in power and does the same thing to stack the court? You may as well just abolish it at that point.

 

[Elaugaufein]

pretty sure the regulations on justices sitting for life are in the constitution. there is no way trump ravages the country so badly that there's enough political will for the dems to pass a constitutional amendment resetting the supreme court.

You can remove Supreme Court members via impeachment and conviction too but the political will required is only slightly less (it's far more realistically enactable though and that's saying something since it's never happened before).

 

[IrishNinja]

I hate the word choice that the Democrats are "killing" the filibuster that I keep hearing on the news.

No, the Democrats are *using* the filibuster.

seriously - a weapon you won't use is already lost. we really need to get out there next year, folks

 

[innervision961]

They REALLY wanted Gorsuch, makes you wonder.

 

[Exile20]

This was probably bound to happen sooner or later. Haven't the dems been hurt more by the filibuster in recent years anyway?

Even if the dems went along with Neil, if they are in power next time. The Repubs will probably fillibuster and dems would nuclear anyway.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Ugh 2010 & 2014 elections fucked this country so hard

This is why the citizens united case is a huge deal. You got rich people just targeting specific district and flooding them with money, even when they don't even live in the same state as the district. It also effects the local state elections.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Well, no, because there's no reason to anymore. I mean, you could theoretically restore the 60-vote threshold again, but then it would appear especially pointless because of how it easily it was nuked in the first place.

No I mean the GOP had decided to block Hillary's nominee for the SC before the election, and in such a situation, if she had won and Dems had the senate, they would have used the nuclear option, right? If the other side is going to block anyway and you have a senate majority, there's like no point in not using the nuclear option. Which is what happened here and what would have happened under a president Hillary. So basically the partisanship has reached such a level that the majority party can easily confirm any extreme nominee now if there's a vacancy. So if Dems win the presidency and senate in 2020 and there's a vacancy, they would have gone for the nuclear option because the Republicans would vote no. So I don't think there's any severe consequences for the Republican party for doing this right now. If Trump can get two more SC judges approved, it's going to be a big problem for the Dems.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

is it a done deal and is gorsuch a judge now?

 

[plagiarize]

is it a done deal and is gorsuch a judge now?

He's not a judge yet, but he's definitely going to be, and the judicial filibuster is 100% officially dead.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Which is why the Dems should not have filibuster this time. They were foolish to do so. They better hope that the cards change in 2018, or nobody dies or retires in the next 4 years.

Doesn't matter, republicans would just use the nuclear option then instead of now. It's a game of tic tac toe when your enemy has 2 ways they can win.

 

[RDreamer]

Which is why the Dems should not have filibuster this time. They were foolish to do so. They better hope that the cards change in 2018, or nobody dies or retires in the next 4 years.

You think they wouldn't just remove it then? Seriously, that's some naive shit.

Maybe that would have changed some of the politics of it, but clearly the American people don't give a fuck about the politics of the Supreme Court since republicans stole an appointment from Obama without blinking and they didn't care.

 

[Fenderputty]

Which is why the Dems should not have filibuster this time. They were foolish to do so. They better hope that the cards change in 2018, or nobody dies or retires in the next 4 years.

I feel like this tweet should be posted at the top of every page so your post isn't repeated ad nauseam.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/850035553357713408

They would nuke it to replace RGB with someone conservative as well.

 

[Brinbe]

The GOP won.... They wanted to break government and they have. There's no way it can function as it was intended at this point.

Better off starting over at this point.

 

[Buckle]

I fucking hate this.

Is there any way Obama when he was still in power could have forced Garland through like they're doing with Gorsuch?

I am so goddamn sick of the republican party. Fucking toxic cancer on the ass of America.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yup. And it was largely due to BS lies peddled by the right wing/GOP.

They are masters at messaging and outreach.

Didn't help that many dems ran away from the ACA instead of defending it.

I fucking hate this.

Is there anyway Obama when he was still in power could have forced Garland through like they're doing with Gorsuch?

I am so goddamn sick of the republican party. Fucking toxic cancer on the ass of America.

Only if he had the Senate majority.

PS when did Chris Cilizza become a CNN opinion writer? I feel like he;s in every headline. He's perfect for them lol

 

[Anoregon]

I fucking hate this.

Is there anyway Obama when he was still in power could have forced Garland through like they're doing with Gorsuch?

No, because Republicans were still the majority party.

 

[NewFresh]

I fucking hate this.

Is there anyway Obama when he was still in power could have forced Garland through like they're doing with Gorsuch?

I am so goddamn sick of the republican party. Fucking toxic cancer on the ass of America.

Nope. R's had the majority then too.

 

[plagiarize]

Didn't help that many dems ran away from the ACA instead of defending it.



Only if he had the Senate majority.

And pretty much all the dems who wouldn't support it in order to save their seats... failed to save their seats. If I'm remembering right anyways.

 

[frogger]

Did any democrat senator voted for him? I want to know who.

 

[Game Guru]

No, because Republicans were still the majority party.

Indeed... It also means that if there is a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, the Senate can just block any Supreme Court nomination just like the Republicans did with Garland.