Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee - Polidicks

[quote] Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to fill the current vacancy. With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate. “This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.” It’s a move that will prompt a massive partisan battle over Trump’s nominee and could lead to an unraveling of the Senate rules if Merkley is able to get 41 Democrats to join him in a filibuster. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also reminded her Twitter followers on Sunday night that Supreme Court nominees can still be blocked by the Senate minority, unlike all other executive and judicial nominees. [/Quote] [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368"]Politico[/URL]

Well, the Republicans refused to even consider Obama's pick. Tit for tat. As unproductive as it is.

It could be called hypocritical, but when your enemy uses a dirty tactic to stop you from doing something and you allow them to get exactly what they wanted as a result of said dirty tactic, you're validating it. I almost feel as though this is a better way of saying "Try this shit and nobody is going to get what they want."

I'm OK with this. They threw tantrums when Obama was in the President's office, now they can whistle in the wind for as long as the Dems can prevent a Republican leaning judge to get into the SCOTUS.

I'm personally up for another 8 ½ hour Bernie Sanders filibuster.

If it's a moderate, I think they should let him in, be the more mature people than the republicans were. But if it's another scalia yeah god speed with that fillibuster.

"In a fit of desperation for filibuster material, Senator Bernie Sanders starts a D&D campaign."

I'd at least want to know who the nominee was first, not that I would expect much.

Good. Do it until they give Garland the job or some other moderate. Fuck these scumbags.

This sounds awfully familiar. I guess politicians are all just as incorrigible no matter what side of the aisle they're on. Fuck all these scumbags.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51751415]If it's a moderate, I think they should let him in, be the more mature people than the republicans were. But if it's another scalia yeah god speed with that fillibuster.[/QUOTE] It's probably going to be some conspiracy theorist nutjob at this rate. [editline]30th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Chonch;51751476]This sounds awfully familiar. I guess politicians are all just as incorrigible no matter what side of the aisle they're on.[/QUOTE] Oh well, Obama had a mandate last year to fill that seat from the election he won and they refused to even consider the guy. Guess we need a real true mandate because the monkey in the White House certainly did not get one.

A simple majority vote can easily change senate rules I believe. They can then elect to stick that into a bill as a carry on to avoid a filibusterer. Which could then lead to another government shutdown down to road if the Democrats keep on filibustering.

[QUOTE=1239the;51751424]"In a fit of desperation for filibuster material, Senator Bernie Sanders starts a D&D campaign."[/QUOTE] That shit better be televised.

[QUOTE=Huggy;51751508]A simple majority vote can easily change senate rules I believe. They can then elect to stick that into a bill as a carry on to avoid a filibusterer. Which could then lead to another government shutdown down to road if the Democrats keep on filibustering.[/QUOTE] Has to happen at the beginning of the session which was a few weeks ago. Too late. [editline]30th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;51751511]That shit better be televised.[/QUOTE] CSPAN is your friend. The President of the Senate or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrin_Hatch"]President Pro Tempore of the Senate[/URL] can shut it off and then you know who to yell at. Its probably going to be the latter.

[QUOTE=Huggy;51751508]A simple majority vote can easily change senate rules I believe. They can then elect to stick that into a bill as a carry on to avoid a filibusterer. Which could then lead to another government shutdown down to road if the Democrats keep on filibustering.[/QUOTE] The republicans will just use the "nuclear option" like the Democrats did.

Democrats should block the nomination for one day short of however long Garland was denied.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51751592]Democrats should block the nomination for one day short of however long Garland was denied.[/QUOTE] So, until the end of his term? Until proven otherwise, any choice he puts forward is going to be utter shit and unqualified.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51751524]The republicans will just use the "nuclear option" like the Democrats did.[/QUOTE] Its called the nuclear option for a reason. There is no going back. McConnel, when he used the nuclear option, explicitly excluded the Supreme Court. once you include it, there is no going back.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51751524]The republicans will just use the "nuclear option" like the Democrats did.[/QUOTE] Democrats won't be able to block any judicial nominees below the supreme court. They could of blocked his cabinet nominees but decided to change the rules back in 2013.

Just remember, if one party does it, it means it's fair game for the other to do it later. The US system is a game of tit-for-tat.

[QUOTE=Huggy;51751607]Democrats won't be able to block any judicial nominees below the supreme court. They could of blocked his cabinet nominees but decided to change the rules back in 2013.[/QUOTE] This still requires them to actually give enough of a fuck to nominate people to those positions. Last time I checked, the executive branch still has somewhere around 1300 positions that need to be filled still. [editline]30th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lone_Star94;51751610]Just remember, if one party does it, it means it's fair game for the other to do it later. The US system is a game of tit-for-tat.[/QUOTE] The game has changed. It is now a game of Look at the party who has total control and can't even function properly!

[QUOTE=Flameon;51751597]Its called the nuclear option for a reason. There is no going back. McConnel, when he used the nuclear option, explicitly excluded the Supreme Court. once you include it, there is no going back.[/QUOTE] The seat would of already been filled had he not excluded it.

[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;51751610]Just remember, if one party does it, it means it's fair game for the other to do it later. The US system is a game of tit-for-tat.[/QUOTE] the republicans are going to continue to pull shit like this whether the democrats do it or not.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51751524]The republicans will just use the "nuclear option" like the Democrats did.[/QUOTE] I'm not too versed in politics that well. Can you explain what "the nuclear option" is?

[QUOTE=xxfalconxx;51751670]I'm not too versed in politics that well. Can you explain what "the nuclear option" is?[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-trump-cabinet-senate/513782/[/url] Doesn't apply to the supreme court.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51751415]If it's a moderate, I think they should let him in, be the more mature people than the republicans were. But if it's another scalia yeah god speed with that fillibuster.[/QUOTE] That was their original plan. They said they would allow a moderate or better but that idea is looking very slim.

[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;51751610]Just remember, if one party does it, it means it's fair game for the other to do it later. The US system is a game of tit-for-tat.[/QUOTE] Not really, you gotta remember, as tactics, these things ARE valid and aren't petty bullshit. What we instead need to be talking about and criticizing is what exactly they're trying to block.

Anyone saying "Democrats are hypocrites for complaining about Fillibuster then doing it themselves!" I'm sorry, but Republicans don't deserve to be on fair grounds for the amount of damaging policy and pure sociopathy that's within their party. If more of them were like McCain and less like the likes of Ted Cruz I'd be fine with the party and wouldn't support roadblocking them at every turn, but I am afraid for whatever absolute vile sewage of policy goes through the house and we need democrats to stop as much of the awfulness as possible. Anything damaging abortion rights, LGBT rights, health care, social security and welfare, and worker's rights needs to be battled at every turn. Especially Obamacare. Obamacare has done almost nothing but good when it comes to consumer healthcare rights and has greatly slowed the growth rate of premiums. [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-premium-growth-slowed-after-obamacare/[/url] [url]http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/228890-study-premium-growth-slowed-after-obamacare[/url] Healthcare premiums were skyrocketing before ACA enactments began. They were always rising and still are, but Obamacare had greatly slowed them down and have given more and more people the ability to have insurance. The medicaid expansion policies of them gave even more people insurance. 30 million people gained health insurance through Obamacare and if they outright repeal it there's going to be a lot of angry and potentially dead people. Republicans would be committing political suicide if they did so. As much as I want to see the death of the party, I'd rather not be at the expense of a massive cost of life like that. Paul Ryan's suggested replacement for people with pre-existing conditions involves a high risk pool where people who already have health problems have to pay insane out of pocket premiums. It would show a lower cost of premiums for healthy people but the people who need healthcare the most will paying crippling rates. As someone with a pre-existing condition I'd rather not be forced into that.