Senate Republicans Deploy ‘Nuclear Option’ to Clear Path for Gorsuch
74 replies, posted
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans changed longstanding rules on Thursday to clear the way for the confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court, bypassing a precedent-breaking Democratic filibuster by allowing the nomination to go forward on a simple majority vote.
In deploying the so-called nuclear option, lawmakers are fundamentally altering the way the Senate operates — a sign of the body’s creeping rancor in recent years after decades of at least relative bipartisanship on Supreme Court matters. Both parties have likewise warned of sweeping effects on the future of the court, predicting that the shift will lead to the elevation of more ideologically extreme judges if only a majority is required for confirmation.
Senate Democrats in 2013 first changed the rules of the Senate to block Republican filibusters of presidential nominees to lower courts and to government positions, but they left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees, an acknowledgement of the sacrosanct nature of the high court. That last pillar was knocked down on a party-line vote, with all 52 Republicans voting to overrule Senate precedent and all 48 Democrats and liberal-leaning independents voting to keep it.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html"]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html[/URL]
Oh boy, this is really big isn't it?
they didn't like the outcome so they just changed the rules?
Can a candidate for political appointment like a Supreme Court Justice, just decline the post? Because if I was Gorsuch, I would to set a precedent to politicians trying to use a bipartisan system for partisan gain.
Good job, Republicans.
You [I]know[/I] this is going to weaken democracy and continue to push the nation towards one-party rule. [I]But you did it anyway because it's keeping you from doing what you want today[/I].
From now on, any use of the filibuster in Congress is going to restart this Prisoners' Dilemma and the filibuster [I]will[/I] lose until it's eliminated from federal procedure and the ruling party is capable of unilateral rule.
One-party rule caused the Ukranian revolution and the invasion of Crimea. One-party rule is what's going on in Venezuela right now, effectively. I'm sure everyone else can think of charismatic populists who caused great atrocities after consolidating power. America's future doesn't look bright at all unless it manages to defy historical precedent.
[QUOTE=nulls;52067293]they didn't like the outcome so they just changed the rules?[/QUOTE]
That's what congress does when it's overly partisan. That's what it's been doing for years.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52067309]Can a candidate for political appointment like a Supreme Court Justice, just decline the post? Because if I was Gorsuch, I would to set a precedent to politicians trying to use a bipartisan system for partisan gain.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they could.
He won't.
Republicans are hungry to grab and keep power now that they control two of the three branches of the government and can choose one of their own to tip the balance of the third. They've changed the rules to remove the filibuster in order to get what they want. They don't care that they're driving the two sides of the country further apart and weakening the checks and balances on the democratic system. Party comes before duty, now.
they will deeply, deeply regret this in the future
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52067337]I'm sure they could.
He won't.
Republicans are hungry to grab and keep power now that they control two of the three branches of the government and can choose one of their own to tip the balance of the third. They've changed the rules to remove the filibuster in order to get what they want. They don't care that they're driving the two sides of the country further apart and weakening the checks and balances on the democratic system. Party comes before duty, now.[/QUOTE]
As corrupt as this is, and the terrible precedent it sets, it's really just replacing the recently assas- I mean untimely deceased Scalia
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52067337]I'm sure they could.
He won't.
Republicans are hungry to grab and keep power now that they control two of the three branches of the government and can choose one of their own to tip the balance of the third. They've changed the rules to remove the filibuster in order to get what they want. They don't care that they're driving the two sides of the country further apart and weakening the checks and balances on the democratic system. Party comes before duty, now.[/QUOTE]
Gorsuch doesn't tip the balance of the supreme court, it keeps the balance.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067355]Gorsuch doesn't tip the balance of the supreme court, it keeps the balance.[/QUOTE]
and what about when the next judge croaks?
Bunch of fucking deplorables. Party before country. Way to weaken our democracy.
[QUOTE=Judas;52067368]and what about when the next judge croaks?[/QUOTE]
If it's a liberal, I think Garland would be perfect. If it's a conservative, we should replace them with another conservative.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067377]If it's a liberal, I think Garland would be perfect. If it's a conservative, we should replace them with another conservative.[/QUOTE]
do you genuinley think that they'll put a liberal on the stand with a republican majority in the house, senate, and trump making the nomination?
[QUOTE=PyromanDan;52067353]As corrupt as this is, and the terrible precedent it sets, it's really just replacing the recently assas- I mean untimely deceased Scalia[/QUOTE]
It's replacing Scalia with a unilateral decision, which is the exact opposite of how the government's supposed to work. The precedent it sets is [I]devastating[/I]. The SCOTUS is now a politicized entity, whether it wants to be or not, because the enmity in Congress has become so severe that SCOTUS appointments are now seen as a critical element of locking the "other side" out of interfering with your party's long-term agenda.
Dems want to increase taxes, grant equal rights to minority classes, hand more money to corporate interests, and try and make things a bit more fair for all Americans.
GOP want to decrease taxes, undo equal rights for minority classes, hand more money to corporate interests, and make things better for the Americans that [I]count[/I].
Supreme Court rulings are seen as just another battlefield to alter in your favour to help your side's chances of winning when it comes time to ram your agenda through. Obama tried to compromise instead of ramming his agenda through, and the result was eight years of an obstructionist Congress and a President prevented from doing fuckall.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067355]Gorsuch doesn't tip the balance of the supreme court, it keeps the balance.[/QUOTE]
Aren't other Justices expected to need replacing pretty soon? Killing the filibuster doesn't just benefit the Gorsuch nomination, but any others the GOP replaces before they get kicked out of power -- which could be as soon as a surprise upset in the 2018 midterms or as late as 2025 if the DNC continues to think the American people all look like a suitcase of cash on a boardroom table and that the problem with Hillary's campaign was something other than Hillary not even trying to campaign.
[QUOTE=Judas;52067391]do you genuinley think that they'll put a liberal on the stand with a republican majority in the house, senate, and trump making the nomination?[/QUOTE]
Depends on if the republicans can hold congress, which I see as not likely.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52067396]Aren't other Justices expected to need replacing pretty soon? Killing the filibuster doesn't just benefit the Gorsuch nomination, but any others the GOP replaces before they get kicked out of power -- which could be as soon as a surprise upset in the 2018 midterms or as late as 2025 if the DNC continues to think the American people all look like a suitcase of cash on a boardroom table and that the problem with Hillary's campaign was something other than Hillary not even trying to campaign.[/QUOTE]
The thing is we don't know when the next one will need replacing, or how politics will be at that point. But at this point, I don't see the GOP being in power much longer. Power USUALLY bounces back and fourth.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067425]Depends on if the republicans can hold congress, which I see as not likely.
The thing is we don't know when the next one will need replacing, or how politics will be at that point. But at this point, I don't see the GOP being in power much longer. Power USUALLY bounces back and fourth.[/QUOTE]
what if a justice croaks between now and 2018? if they put a young judge on the bench after gorsuch, the supreme court will lean conservative for decades
[QUOTE=Judas;52067429]what if a justice croaks between now and 2018? if they put a young judge on the bench after gorsuch, the supreme court will lean conservative for decades[/QUOTE]
Not for decades. 2 judges are in their 80s and one in their late 70s. We're not going to have to wait "decades" for a new spot.
Something tells me you wouldn't have had a problem with Garland making the court lean liberal for decades.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067461]Not for decades. 2 judges are in their 80s and one in their late 70s. We're not going to have to wait "decades" for a new spot.
Something tells me you wouldn't have had a problem with Garland making the court lean liberal for decades.[/QUOTE]
You're trying to make it a nonstarter by saying "well it probably won't happen". But it might, and this is a question you need to answer. Do you really think they care about maintaining balance? Do you think they wouldn't stack the court if they got the chance?
This kind of move only serves to weaken our institutions against the threat of preying partisans. It's a shame that it had to come to this.
[QUOTE=Tigster;52067472]You're trying to make it a nonstarter by saying "well it probably won't happen". But it might, and this is a question you need to answer. Do you really think they care about maintaining balance? Do you think they wouldn't stack the court if they got the chance?[/QUOTE]
Of course they would. And the democrats would stack it liberal given the chance. That's like asking if a kid would have ice cream for breakfast given the chance.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067494]Of course they would. And the democrats would stack it liberal given the chance. That's like asking if a kid would have ice cream for breakfast given the chance.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for finally answering the question
[QUOTE=Chonch;52067482]This kind of move only serves to weaken our institutions against the threat of preying partisans. It's a shame that it had to come to this.[/QUOTE]
But it didn't have to come to this.
So as I understand it basically this is the thing that republicans were like 'Dems don't do this it's seriously a bad idea for the country i know u can do it but plz don't' so the dems didn't do it.
Then [I]they[/I] went and did it. And every fucking one of them voted for it too. Including people like McCain who [I]continued[/I] to say it's a bad idea.
Wow what a fucking party.
If it were my say people who vote in favor of this kind of thing, democrat or republican, would be kicked out of politics and barred from ever participating in state or federal political processes again outside of fucking voting but oh well.
[QUOTE=froztshock;52067532]So as I understand it basically this is the thing that republicans were like 'Dems don't do this it's seriously a bad idea for the country i know u can do it but plz don't' so the dems didn't do it.
Then [I]they[/I] went and did it. And every fucking one of them voted for it too. Including people like McCain who [I]continued[/I] to say it's a bad idea.
Wow what a fucking party.
If it were my say people who vote in favor of this kind of thing, democrat or republican, would be kicked out of politics and barred from ever participating in state or federal political processes again outside of fucking voting but oh well.[/QUOTE]
No, the Dems did this under Obama to push forward other judges without having to pass the 60 vote threshold when repubs were being obstructionist, but are now complaining when the republicans do it because they are being obstructionist.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067536]No, the Dems did this under Obama to push forward other judges without having to pass the 60 vote threshold when repubs were being obstructionist, but are now complaining when the republicans do it because they are being obstructionist.[/QUOTE]
Not on the supreme court though?
Gorsuch will be one of a decently large number of regrettable people to hold any form of power in a branch of the US government.
[QUOTE=froztshock;52067539]Not on the supreme court though?[/QUOTE]
Federal and circuit judges, which also have life tenure.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067543]Federal and circuit judges, which also have life tenure.[/QUOTE]
Fuuuck politicians.
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;52067541]Gorsuch will be one of a decently large number of regrettable people to hold any form of power in a branch of the US government.[/QUOTE]
Still one to many, and a Supreme Court position is [I]very-fucking-powerful.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.