ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Not aggressively attacking Gorsuch helps for the next nominee because Republicans will be nicer next time or something? The assumptions involved in "well, use up your political capital next time!" are fucking wild.
-
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.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Not aggressively attacking Gorsuch helps for the next nominee because Republicans will be nicer next time or something? The assumptions involved in "well, use up your political capital next time!" are fucking wild.
Good Job Bob
Member
Republicans made an actual play by obstructing Garland. Democrats have absolutely no play here by obstructing Gorsuch besides satisfying a grievance that the Republicans made a successful play.
A fillibuster is a successful f'n play.
If it gets nuked? Good.
If it stands and he gets blocked? Good.
UberTag
Member
You expected otherwise? I expected the hands over ears approach all along.
That said, once NAFTA is toast, I'm going to be cheesed if Justin gives an inch to the terrible negotiator.
We'd better get the same deal with the same rules and, if not, then it'll be time to raise hell.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
There was no justification given, that anyone bought, from the GOP. The messaging was terrible and confused and made no sense and the polling was entirely in support of Obama and Garland.
You don't need to have any argument or rationale to block a court appointment, no voter cares.
TestOfTide
Banned
Democrats need to make sure to do the following:
- Filibuster this guy
- During the hearings ask him questions about Trump's more controversial EOs
- During the hearings ask him questions about LGBTQ rights
- After asking him about "religious freedom", ask him questions about discrimination against Muslims
- Ask about Trump's conflicts of interest and if they violate the emoluments clause.
- Filibuster this guy
- During the hearings ask him questions about Trump's more controversial EOs
- During the hearings ask him questions about LGBTQ rights
- After asking him about "religious freedom", ask him questions about discrimination against Muslims
- Ask about Trump's conflicts of interest and if they violate the emoluments clause.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Right. I mean, where's the downside to a filibuster? Where's the upside to not filibustering?
CPC MP asks previous MP if she has anything to argue regarding the EO and taking additional measures for refugees.
She responds that Canadians will be unaffected and sits down.
NDP MP now rises and asks the same question, presses on Article 10 of the Safe Third Country Agreement.
She responds that the requirement of the agreements are being met, that the government is monitoring the situation and have WH assurances.
CPC Immigration critic demands addressing the topic at hand, argues for opting out of the agreement.
This is going in circles. The direction of the Trudeau government is clear as crystal: caution and don't move.
She responds that Canadians will be unaffected and sits down.
NDP MP now rises and asks the same question, presses on Article 10 of the Safe Third Country Agreement.
She responds that the requirement of the agreements are being met, that the government is monitoring the situation and have WH assurances.
CPC Immigration critic demands addressing the topic at hand, argues for opting out of the agreement.
This is going in circles. The direction of the Trudeau government is clear as crystal: caution and don't move.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Democrats let Gorsuch get through, RBG dies in 2018, McConnell nukes filibuster anyway to get a generational court advantage.
Expected? No. Trudeau can be frustratingly given to caution. I had hopes, though. I'll call my MP again with my twopence.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
See, there exists this magical quantity called "political capital" that totally exists and isn't imaginary and it's an exhaustible resource as shown by the huge price paid by Mitch McConnell for blocking everything prior to 2016 and then blocking Garland in 2016.
(Trump losing support because people think he's incompetent wouldn't be a case of using up political capital in my mind because of how political capital is defined. Political capital is defined as a thing that clearly does not exist).
Officerrob
Banned
He's Scalia lite
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It's bad for liberals if the filibuster gets nuked, because conservative run courts can do way more damage than liberal run courts can help. Conservatives love obstruction because they hate the government, and if you hate conservatives obstructing in congress, you'll really hate conservatives obstructing government progress on the supreme court with potentially decades until they can be replaced.
A court full of moderates benefits liberals way more than a court full of partisans.
well filibuster it is then although conservatives already have a 5-4 majority assuming this guy gets through. Replacing RBG, Kennedy and/or Breyer solidifies it for another 25+ years.
To think in an alternate reality it would be the Democrats solidifying a liberal majority for the first time since Johnson-Nixon. It's also interesting that Truman was the last time the Chief Justice was nominated by a Democrat.
modernlifeisANDY
Member
Lol what the fuck is this shit
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
This is exactly why they might as well filibuster now.
THE FILLIBUSTER NEEDS TO DIE.
I'm not kidding on this. It no longer works. Yes, it means R/R/R does more damage, but it also frees up D/D/D to actually get shit done. It's a necessary change to actually make governance possible.
This is win/win. You fillibuster, and put the ball in McConnell's court, knowing he doesn't want to axe it.
neurosisxeno
Member
Someone on NPR earlier calling in criticizing Yates because, as they saw it, why would the President even be allowed to sign an Executive Order that was unlawful? Just a reminder that most people don't even understand how the Government works.
TestOfTide
Banned
This. The GOP has shown that they don't give a flying fuck about tradition and standards.
Dems need to energize their base into voting in 2018, and the best way to do that is to just oppose, oppose, oppose.
Stop wasting time trying to go high. Save the high route for AFTER we win back control and AFTER we secure that control.
Dems need to focus their messaging on being about finishing the following sentence:
"We oppose the GOP's agenda because....."
Hell, I would even go so far as to say that Democrats should start employing methods to suppress deplorable votes covertly.
Except the GOP will be stuffing the court regardless of the filibuster.
If Democrats ever take back control, they can secure it by doing the following (fuck traditions):
- Nuke the Fillibuster
- Amend the Reapportionment Act of 1929 so that the limit of House seats is 800 not 435.
- Enact a national ID that is easily accessible and required by federal law to be accepted as valid ID for the purposes of voting.
- Stuff the courts in the dirtiest ways possible: Change the limits of SCOTUS seats and stuff the new seats and/or find/frame felonies on conservative judges to kick them out.
metalslimer
Member
If a liberal justice dies you better bet your ass they will nuke the filibuster to get a replacement. It honestly doesn't matter either way. You really think they will be respectful while RBGs seat is up?
CrimzonSamurai
Member
While everyone is distracted by the SCOTUS nom, this just happened:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-31-20-48-10
Guess it's time to see just how far Trump's admiration for Jackson goes....
I'm gonna be sick at the prospects here.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-31-20-48-10
Guess it's time to see just how far Trump's admiration for Jackson goes....
I'm gonna be sick at the prospects here.
Good Job Bob
Member
Why is nuking the filibuster good?
No one, including the Democratic base tbh, really cared about what was going on with Garland because everyone was super focused on the most bizarre Presidential election of our lifetime.
Because requiring a 60-vote supermajority for a functional government is insanity.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I'm betting that no one will ever care about a Supreme Court appointment. Lots of Republicans tried to make it into a campaign issue in the primary because no one trusted Trump on appointing justices and no one cared.
Good Job Bob
Member
Not when we have President Steve Bannon.
metalslimer
Member
You block until 2018 and try to win the senate even though at best it looks like a wash there. No matter what happens we are fucked
"Scalia was super conservative so the makeup of the court won't change much"
As if GOP will wait and let dems fill Ginsburg's seat if she retires during Trump's term? Good luck with that!
"They'll use the nuclear option"
As if that somehow prevents them from using it later? Gonna quote myself from the thread:
Keep in mind, this is the same GOP that was promising to block Clinton from filling the seat if she won. Turning it into a fight isn't at all guaranteed to work, but I don't see the advantage of rolling over.
I'm not holding my breath, but I think dems should block any nom in order to preserve the normal order of things and use this fight as a campaign tool. Republicans broke the system when they blocked Obama's nomination for nearly a year -- it's still broken. Republicans want to fix it and get things back to normal? Trump should nominate Garland and republicans should confirm him -- after that, someone like Gorsuch could get confirmed next time a seat opens up. If GOP goes nuclear, dems use it to campaign and make the best of it while they try to take back the government.
As if GOP will wait and let dems fill Ginsburg's seat if she retires during Trump's term? Good luck with that!
"They'll use the nuclear option"
As if that somehow prevents them from using it later? Gonna quote myself from the thread:
Keep in mind, this is the same GOP that was promising to block Clinton from filling the seat if she won. Turning it into a fight isn't at all guaranteed to work, but I don't see the advantage of rolling over.
I'm not holding my breath, but I think dems should block any nom in order to preserve the normal order of things and use this fight as a campaign tool. Republicans broke the system when they blocked Obama's nomination for nearly a year -- it's still broken. Republicans want to fix it and get things back to normal? Trump should nominate Garland and republicans should confirm him -- after that, someone like Gorsuch could get confirmed next time a seat opens up. If GOP goes nuclear, dems use it to campaign and make the best of it while they try to take back the government.
I think it comes down to whether we want to be left bleeding slowly or quickly. The country will go to shit under republican rule regardless. If they remove the filibuster it will only happen quicker. I rather we go out with our principles intact.
You can't get goddamn shit done WHEN you get power.
The point is to put into place things like the ACA that act as perpetual motion machines once you're inevitably out of power. (Hi, Private industry pressure!) Nothing lasts forever.
Nothing is keeping the GOP from nuking it except McConnell. LEVERAGE IT.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
thehypocrite
Member
Buster the fili
neurosisxeno
Member
Because the Government is broken with it. The number of filibusters each year is getting ridiculous. Yea, Democrats should be able to filibuster bullshit legislation, but it's gotten to the point where without having 60 votes in the Senate you cannot pass anything. There is no way Trump doesn't tank the Republicans in 2018 and 2020, and when the smoke clears Democrats stand to have a majority hold on the Government, maybe not a super majority, but a majority. If we let the filibuster die now, when 2020 rolls around the Democrats can actually get something done, and probably reverse all the damage Trump did within a few months or a year.
The need for 60 in the Senate leads to a "must win" attitude in Washington, and that needs to go. Nobody gives a shit about passing legislation, it's about taking political cheap shots to ensure you get re-elected. If we didn't have the filibuster, the excuse of "but it will never pass/it will just get filibustered" no longer exists.
Thequietone
Member
Shit, I know people up there protesting.
Grizzle_Dat
Banned
If it gets Nuked and RBG needs to be replaced I'll ask you how you feel then.
VendettaRed07
Member
If we aren't going to filibuster this pick .. then why are we scarred of it going away?
What's the point of having it if we don't use it
I'd rather it be gone entirely if only republicans use it and democrats don't
What's the point of having it if we don't use it
I'd rather it be gone entirely if only republicans use it and democrats don't
Dominican Power
Member
metalslimer
Member
If the republicans go completely nuclear they will have carte Blanche of whatever they want. McConnell won't do it because whatever Healthcare failure they put out will be on them
They will nuke it anyway!! It's hilarious people think they will suddenly play fair
They will nuke it anyway!! It's hilarious people think they will suddenly play fair
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Why couldn't McConnell just nuke it when RBG needs to be replaced?
If they kill it now, than they would kill it in that hypothetical situation.
Why the fuck is this so hard for people to understand? This power exists only if it's allowed to.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Doesn't the filibuster only apply to SCOTUS nominees now, though? Harry Reed tactical nuked it for executive appointments and I'm pretty sure that nuked it for legislation as well.
It has not been nuked for legislation.
Not doing so in 2009 was a gigantic error from a naive Obama.
metalslimer
Member
No there is still a filibuster for legislature. If McConnell removes it for the SC he could go completely nuclear.
This gamble relies on Democrats being able to turn people out and vote. They have failed at it consistently every single time in midterms and only a once in a lifetime candidate got it done for Pres elections.
If we're assuming dems can't get out the vote then it doesn't matter either way.
metalslimer
Member
And if we lose Trump will get what he wants anyway
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked