Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

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.

They didn't in 2006.

RRR or DDD triggers backlash waves. This has happened almost every time this has happened in the last century+. This is going to be no exception.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Is there some rule where nuking the filibuster only applies to future votes that I'm not aware of?

People are very bad at Game Theory.

Keeping the filibuster is like playing the Prisoner's Dilemma with a guy who has played "confess" for the last 15 turns and then assuming that he'll play "stay quiet" on the 16th turn.

 

[TestOfTide]

If it gets Nuked and RBG needs to be replaced I'll ask you how you feel then.

What difference does it make?

You think that RGB would EVER be replaced with a liberal when the GOP is in charge?

Nuking the filibuster is GOOD because it forces the GOP to own their shit. With the filibuster in place, the GOP can propose something that appeals only to their base (but in reality would fuck things up royally), then let democrats filibuster it and go "well we wanted to do it, but we couldn't".

With the filibuster gone, suddenly McConnell has to worry about what shit he puts up for a vote because the crazier shit could accidentally pass and then the GOP has to own their fuck up, and he can't just refuse to put it to a vote because then he would get primaried.

 

[thepotatoman]

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.

The SCOTUS filibuster is exactly what allows democrats to get shit done, because you might be able to get more moderate conservatives like Kennedy or Roberts to not obstruct you when you do get the house, senate, and white house. Having no filibuster forces you to to get D/D/D/D in order to get anything done.

If you want to argue that the republicans will force a nuke anyway once democrats do get power back, or that McConnell is bluffing, or that they will never put up a moderate justice anyway, sure. But I cannot see how anyone can argue that Democrats should be happy that the SCOTUS filibuster has to be sacrificed.

It's certainly in Democrat's best interest that legislative filibuster no longer exist, because creating new laws is what Democrats want to do, but not SCOTUS confirmation.

 

[kirblar]

The SCOTUS filibuster is exactly what allows democrats to get shit done, because you might be able to get more moderate conservatives like Kennedy or Roberts to not obstruct you when you do get the house, senate, and white house. No filibuster forces you to to get D/D/D/D in order to get anything done.

If you want to argue that the republicans will force a nuke anyway once democrats do get power back, or that McConnell is bluffing, or that they will never put up a moderate justice anyway, sure. But I cannot see how anyone can argue that Democrats should be happy that the SCOTUS filibuster has to be sacrificed.

It's certainly in Democrat's best interest that legislative filibuster no longer exist, because creating new laws is what Democrats want to do, but not SCOTUS confirmation.

Because this guy is oh, so moderate.

Give me a goddamn break. The GOP does not play by social norms. Stop going high and start low blowing them. Because it works.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

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.

2006?

They made small gains in 1998, too, despite there being a Democratic president.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Do people think that if we nuke the filibuster, then the GOP will nominate actual Satan next time?

This guy is one of the most conservative Supreme Court nominees possible, there is literally no better time to use it.

 

[whyamihere]

Yup. Good job, everyone.

@daveweigel
It's still bonkers to me that Dems spent years blaming Citizens United for what ailed America then pissed away their chance to take SCOTUS.

 

[metalslimer]

The SCOTUS filibuster is exactly what allows democrats to get shit done, because you might be able to get more moderate conservatives like Kennedy or Roberts to not obstruct you when you do get the house, senate, and white house. Having no filibuster forces you to to get D/D/D/D in order to get anything done.

If you want to argue that the republicans will force a nuke anyway once democrats do get power back, or that McConnell is bluffing, or that they will never put up a moderate justice anyway, sure. But I cannot see how anyone can argue that Democrats should be happy that the SCOTUS filibuster has to be sacrificed.

It's certainly in Democrat's best interest that legislative filibuster no longer exist, because creating new laws is what Democrats want to do, but not SCOTUS confirmation.

Republicans broke this last year when Garland didn't get anything. Garland was an actual moderate. This guy is another loon

The filibuster serves no purpose anymore

 

[sangreal]

Yup. Good job, everyone.

couldn't even be bothered to vote for feingold -- you know the guy who wrote the bill citizens united struck down

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Every Supreme Court judge has gone to Harvard or Yale now.

This is a joke.

 

[kirblar]

Yup. Good job, everyone.

GOP had congressional control when Scalia died. It wasn't a fillibuster.

 

[Grizzle_Dat]

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.

Because while McConnell will fuck you with rules but he generally always plays within them. If the Dems can come up with something in this guys past to justify a fillibuister then he would never push that button. If they obstruct for no reason and he pushes it then there is no chance to stop the next guy that may have issues .

 

[AntraxSuicide]

The first point is America does a lot of protectionism, both in and outside of manufqcturing. With manufacturing we offer massive tax cuts to companies as incentives to not move their capital. Washington, for example, cuts a bunch of special deals to keep Boeing instate. It's basically the inverse of placing tariffs.

Outside of manufacturing, we employ all sorts of policies to protect other domestic industries. Everyone was defensive about Booker's vote concerning the Klobuchar amendment because pharmaceuticals are an important part of his constituent industries, but that is just as protectionist. The whole country would be better off with cheaper drugs, right? But Booker is protecting much wealthier individuals than the manufacturers you fantasize about getting rid of. The same applies to the agricultural industries we heavily subsidize, even though making corn more expensive would make for much healthier Americans since we'd drink less soda. Part of our trade goals are to sell our subsidized corn everywhere! What about the protectionist policies to keep out foreign doctors to inflate the paychecks of our own.

This is just whataboutism, and for what it's worth, most of these interstate protection rackets should be broken up. We are not a union of 50 separate countries that are pitted against each other.

But I wasn't even talking about protectionism. Where did Hillary talk about the strong need for powerful teacher unions? I imagine teachers in Wisconsin, who have smaller paychecks so rich people pay less taxes (as an aside, though, her running mate was for right to work). Where was her vision of a massive public works administration to revive decaying urban areas like Cleveland or Detroit. When did she passionately talk about her free college plan so every American can have a decent job in the new economy? Where did she talk about price controls to radically change the cost of healthcare? What about an Alaska style public wealth find? These are all transformational ideas that the ruling class doesn't want because it would cost them money.

Do you want me to link to several speeches, rallies, and websites or can I assume you just mean "I never got the feeling that Hillary cared about white working class people." Because that's what this reads like in the face of her policy proposals.

This also ignores automation replacing doctors and lawyers but no one talks about that.

No one talks about it because it's farther down the road than the massive automation of low-skilled work. Kind of how no one would ever ask a late-stage cancer patient in their 30s "What retirement plan are you on?"

If we're talking automated service work, then we're decades beyond the point where like a third of the US workforce is automated. If we haven't cooked up a plan for displaced workers, then we'll have a lot more problems to deal with after years of so much unemployment.

Also, the messaging of "I know working class jobs are going to get automated in the next decade, but what about the doctors and lawyers?" could use some work-shopping.

I'd prefer if Democrat messaging was something like "refusing to support anyone that doesn't supports Roe v Wade" not "refusing to support anyone to get back at republicans over Garland".

Do democrats do any thinking about messaging at all? You don't always have to say what you think. Giving demands you don't think will be met will dog whistle to liberal ears about it just fine, and if they somehow actually go along with it, call it a win.

I'm fine with pundits and supporters talking about garland all they want, but elected Democrats whining this much about Garland sounds like the most petty and partisan thing ever, even if they are right.

A fillibuster is a successful f'n play.

If it gets nuked? Good.

If it stands and he gets blocked? Good.

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.

Kirblar is right. In addition to the points about how the filibuster is antithetical to a functioning democracy, from a game theory perspective, every time the GOP wants us to use it to keep their wackjob base from committing electoral suicide, they can use us to do it.

If the GOP kills the filibuster, then they have 2 options when Ryan sends the Ayn Rand Act over to the Senate; vote for it (knowing Trump is a patsy who will never veto anything if you butter him up) and lose Congress like the last time your party tried this, or you vote against it yourselves, which gets you Cantor'd.

It's a win-win for us to filibuster. Either they let us do it and we block shit or they kill it and they have to own every bill that comes out of the House, no matter how insane.

 

[kirblar]

Because while McConnell will fuck you with rules but he generally always plays within them. If the Dems can come up with something in this guys past to justify a fillibuister then he would never push that button. If they obstruct for no reason and he pushes it then there is no chance to stop the next guy that may have issues .

THE GOP WILL NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH. PERIOD.

They act in self-interest, and THAT is what you are going to have to pressure McConnell with. He does not want to bring a bunch of the crazy GOP shit to a vote that Ryan wants because they will get murdered by the AARP & co.

 

[thepotatoman]

Because this guy is oh, so moderate.

Give me a goddamn break. The GOP does not play by social norms. Stop going high and start low blowing them. Because it works.

I'm not necessarily saying to roll over on this guy at all. Protecting the filibuster means nothing if you don't use it.

I'm just saying Democrat should definitely not have a goal of making the SCOTUS filibuster go away. I'm sorry if it's sounding nit-picky since in the end we're on the same side about filibustering this guy, but I think it's a very important distinction to make right now.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Random, but I gotta admit a perfect song for the Trump Era is Nik Kershaw's Dark Glasses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6G_Z07M16k

 

[kirblar]

I'm not necessarily saying to roll over on this guy at all. Protecting the filibuster means nothing if you don't use it.

I'm just saying Democrat should definitely not have a goal of making the SCOTUS filibuster go away. I'm sorry if it's sounding nit-picky since in the end we're on the same side about filibustering this guy, but I think it's a very important distinction to make right now.

I'm saying it's an outcome we can happily live with.

 

[metalslimer]

We have 3 more justices to go in the next 5-10 years that will set the court for the next 15-20.

 

[TestOfTide]

Because while McConnell will fuck you with rules but he generally always plays within them. If the Dems can come up with something in this guys past to justify a fillibuister then he would never push that button. If they obstruct for no reason and he pushes it then there is no chance to stop the next guy that may have issues .

Are you kidding me? This is the same McConnel that just blocked Garland in an unprecedented way, blocked Obama from talking about Russia hacks during the election, filibustered Obama's cabinet right after Obama won reelection, and then turns around and says "you Dems need to not be so obstructive".

FUCK THAT. Don't give shitheads like him an INCH. He'll just keep asking for more until he has the whole fucking deck of cards.

McConnell and the GOP aren't scared of the Democrats and they aren't scared about tradition. The only thing that scares them is if they think they could lose reelection.

I'm not necessarily saying to roll over on this guy at all. Protecting the filibuster means nothing if you don't use it.

I'm just saying Democrat should definitely not have a goal of making the SCOTUS filibuster go away. I'm sorry if it's sounding nit-picky since in the end we're on the same side about filibustering this guy, but I think it's a very important distinction to make right now.

It's not THAT hard to find a reason to filibuster. And lets review the upsides and downsides:

Downsides:
- The GOP might nuke the filibuster (which is basically the same as Democrats not filibustering at all)

Upsides:
- It forces the GOP to be more careful about what they put up to a vote (ESPECIALLY if it gets nuked)
- it energizes the democratic base (which we NEED right now)
- it forces the GOP to deal with headlines about them "Going Nuclear"
- it pisses off Trump

 

[Ogodei]

Get rid of the filibuster and then a DDD line could just pack the court later on and fix this, or easily pass laws to flout the Trump Court.

 

[JP_]

Because while McConnell will fuck you with rules but he generally always plays within them.

 

[thepotatoman]

I'm saying it's an outcome we can happily live with.

And that's what I completely disagree with, but I've said my piece on it at this point.

 

[ezekial45]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006

Bush got blown the fuck out in 2006. This was also during a presidency with record high approval ratings. Trump is now one of the lowest rated presidents ever, and liberals are currently galvanized. I'm confident they'll be there next year, provided voter ID fuckery doesn't get in the way.

The reason why Obama's administration struggled during midterms was his base only showed up during the major elections. Basically, they need to put a face to the elections. Progressives have that in Trump to go out and vote against him next year.

 

[kirblar]

Get rid of the filibuster and then a DDD line could just pack the court later on and fix this, or easily pass laws to flout the Trump Court.

Ding.

Obama also had no idea how to run an election campaign that didn't get to coast on his charisma. The data stuff was great, but they let their infrastructure rot.

 

[Diablos]

Get rid of the filibuster and then a DDD line could just pack the court later on and fix this, or easily pass laws to flout the Trump Court.

This is the option Dems pursue if the court really is lost after Ginsburg and/or Kennedy go (or Breyer for that matter). It's too early to pursue this strategy and hopefully we never have to.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Bernie has literally nothing other than his stump speech on any issue.

He sounds like he knows as much about Gorsuch as he does about Afghanistan.

 

[thepotatoman]

Kirblar is right. In addition to the points about how the filibuster is antithetical to a functioning democracy, from a game theory perspective, every time the GOP wants us to use it to keep their wackjob base from committing electoral suicide, they can use us to do it.

If the GOP kills the filibuster, then they have 2 options when Ryan sends the Ayn Rand Act over to the Senate; vote for it (knowing Trump is a patsy who will never veto anything if you butter him up) and lose Congress like the last time your party tried this, or you vote against it yourselves, which gets you Cantor'd.

It's a win-win for us to filibuster. Either they let us do it and we block shit or they kill it and they have to own every bill that comes out of the House, no matter how insane.

There's a huge, huge difference from the SCOTUS filibuster and the legislative filibuster. Legislative filibuster absolutely benefits liberals, but not the SCOTUS filibuster, and if they do go nuclear you can be very sure that it will only be for SCOTUS.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Yup. Good job, everyone.

Nobody pissed it away. There were just more Republicans this time.

 

[Diablos]

Bernie would have saved the SCOTUS and defended Obama's legacy but I think he would have been a really ineffective President.
Still he would have been 100x better than Trump

 

[JP_]

Nobody pissed it away. There were just more Republicans this time.

I do think dems didn't fight hard enough about it. By election day, most people had forgotten about it. It would be much easier to resist Trump's picks if they had kept that fire going.

 

[kirblar]

Bernie would have saved the SCOTUS and defended Obama's legacy but I think he would have been a really ineffective President.
Still he would have been 100x better than Trump

We would have been slaughtered in '18/'20.

A pyrrhic Clinton victory was a definite possibility but potentially still worth it.

A pyrrhic Bernie victory would have been a guarantee.

 

[TestOfTide]

Get rid of the filibuster and then a DDD line could just pack the court later on and fix this, or easily pass laws to flout the Trump Court.

Not just that, but also:

- Amend the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to 800 House Seats instead of 435 (so that the House and EC end up leaning more D naturally)

- National ID through the USPS and SS that is easily accessible, free, and required by federal law to be accepted for the purposes of voter identification.

- Go dirty as fuck. Find/Frame felonies on the more annoying SCOTUS judges so that they can be removed.

 

[thepotatoman]

It's not THAT hard to find a reason to filibuster. And lets review the upsides and downsides:

Downsides:
- The GOP might nuke the filibuster (which is basically the same as Democrats not filibustering at all)

Upsides:
- It forces the GOP to be more careful about what they put up to a vote (ESPECIALLY if it gets nuked)
- it energizes the democratic base (which we NEED right now)
- it forces the GOP to deal with headlines about them "Going Nuclear"
- it pisses off Trump

Completely agree, but filibustering so hard that it becomes obvious that McConnell has to nuke it is also basically the same as Democrats not filibustering at all too.

That is why nuke is used as the metaphor. It's a tough balancing act.

 

[shinra-bansho]

A fillibuster is a successful f'n play.

If it gets nuked? Good.

If it stands and he gets blocked? Good.

And if it stands, he gets blocked, then it gets nuked, and instead of renominating Gorsuch it's William Pryor?

 

[Diablos]

We would have been slaughtered in '18/'20.

A pyrrhic Clinton victory was a definite possibility but potentially still worth it.

A pyrrhic Bernie victory would have been a guarantee.

Well in fairness Dems still might get slaughtered in 2018

I have no faith in the party right now

 

[Toxi]

Every Supreme Court judge has gone to Harvard or Yale now.

This is a joke.

That was how it was before Scalia died.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

And if it stands, he gets blocked, then it gets nuked, and instead of renominating Gorsuch it's William Pryor?

Does it really matter? The courts are so polarized that it doesn't matter if he's 75% Conservative or 800% Conservative, he'll vote the same way either way.

 

[kirblar]

And if it stands, he gets blocked, then it gets nuked, and instead of renominating Gorsuch it's William Pryor?

Not renominating Gorsuch would be bizarre. The scary one would be the hypothetical second.

And yeah, this is the difference between well done and charred. They're both shoe leather.

 

[Hindl]

Well in fairness Dems still might get slaughtered in 2018

I have no faith in the party right now

If they get slaughtered in 2018 then we've been doomed from the start

 

[Black Republican]

3 more hours till black history month

dont fuck it up America!

 

[smokeymicpot]

3 more hours till black history month

dont fuck it up America!

He won't even mention it.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

3 more hours till black history month

dont fuck it up America!

A 3am Tweet
"Why isn't there a white history month?"

 

[JP_]

He won't even mention it.

Nah he'll use it to talk about being tough on crime

 

[Cesare Borgia]

I really think Trump's erratic behavior and cratering approval ratings lowers the chance of the filibuster being nuked; it doesn't completely remove the chance though, of course. McConnell is smart enough to see the writing on the wall. A few more years of this behavior could easily sink the republican party, plus ending the filibuster removes a valuable excuse ("we would have done x if not for democrats/republicans obstructing us"). Do republicans want to go down with this ship and risk being the minority in a few years?

 

[smokeymicpot]

Nah he'll use it to talk about being tough on crime

True, don't fuck it up Chicago.

 

[Teggy]

Pete Buttigieg‏ @PeteButtigieg

Let's be sure the nomination of Judge Gorsuch is handled with the same fairness that Senate Republicans showed Judge Garland.
8:51 PM · Jan 31, 2017

Can we just give this guy the job already?

 

[TestOfTide]

Well in fairness Dems still might get slaughtered in 2018

I have no faith in the party right now

So many state level seats are potential pickups for Dems that if Dems don't make big gains in:

- Governor Seats
- US House Seats
- State Legislator Seats

Then Democrats were politically hopeless anyway and the focus should just be on violent 60s style resistance.

 

[kirblar]

Can we just give this guy the job already?

No. He should go run for an actual office, not an organizational role.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Woman dies because she can't get to the U.S. for medical treatment because of Trump's Muslim ban

It's these stories that can shift public opinion quickly. Democrats need to reach out to families hurt by Trump's policies & push them to the forefront

edit: already a thread in OT, good. more people that know the better