Senate Republicans Deploy ‘Nuclear Option’ to Clear Path for Gorsuch
74 replies, posted
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52067311]Good job, Republicans.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure you can blame this all on Republicans when this event is the result of both sides. Historically filibusters have been used to force compromise when one party has more power than the other- it allows the weaker side to take the issue to the negotiating table and find a more equitable solution.
So in the case of appointments, filibusters have traditionally been used to say 'we'll allow someone else, just not this person'. But that's not what's happened here- Democrats made it clear that they intended to prevent the appointment for as long as possible regardless of who Republicans chose.
The only options are either allow the gridlock to continue, or destroy the filibuster as a political tool. They've done the latter, and both parties had a hand in it.
In 2013 the democrats employed the so called nuclear option for the first time ever. This was after republicans filibustered 79 obama appointees.
In 2017 the republicans employed the nuclear option after 1 (edit: one THREAT of a filibuster) filibuster.
One.
src: [URL]https://twitter.com/resisterhood/status/848980552686460929[/URL]
[QUOTE=patq911;52067618]In 2013 the democrats employed the so called nuclear option for the first time ever. This was after republicans filibustered 79 obama appointees.
In 2017 the republicans employed the nuclear option after 1 (edit: one THREAT of a filibuster) filibuster.
One.
src: [URL]https://twitter.com/resisterhood/status/848980552686460929[/URL][/QUOTE]
Ooof, yeah I figured there was some kind of context I was missing. I'm curious to know what their reasoning for blocking those 79 appointees was, haha. That'd probably be a fun can of worms to open.
[QUOTE=froztshock;52067640]Ooof, yeah I figured there was some kind of context I was missing. I'm curious to know what their reasoning for blocking those 79 appointees was, haha. That'd probably be a fun can of worms to open.[/QUOTE]
Same reason the democrats blocked this one: Obstruction and partisanship. The republicans here are just more efficient at doing something about it.
So either Obama tried to appoint 79 partisan hacks or this really [i]was[/i] the republicans' fault all along because they're the ones who came up with the idea of weaponizing the filibuster against justice appointments to make the democrats look bad, and as catbarf said:
[quote]So in the case of appointments, filibusters have traditionally been used to say 'we'll allow someone else, just not this person'. But that's not what's happened here- Democrats made it clear that they intended to prevent the appointment for as long as possible regardless of who Republicans chose.[/quote]
It seems like the republicans simply cannot play fair with the courts. SAD!
[editline]6th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067650]Same reason the democrats blocked this one: Obstruction and partisanship. The republicans here are just more efficient at doing something about it.[/QUOTE]
They're the ones who started it though lmao. You're trying to make this out as if the democrats caused this when in reality it's the republicans trying to fuck up our government for petty partisan reasons that opened this can of worms in the first fucking place.
[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]
You don't get the rules rewritten for you if they think you're going to be ethical.
TBF I figure that the republicans could've done worse than Gorsuch but like... Wow, the lengths to which that party will go to get what they want, no matter the cost, is absolutely staggering. It's like an entire bloc of the government that behaves as a whiny foot-dragging child when things don't go its way, and then turns around and blames its opposition when they're forced to fight back.
[editline]6th April 2017[/editline]
It's also interesting how their supporters never hold them to this shit. I mean hell I'm not happy with the democrats right now, far from it, and I make that point known.
Seems like a lot of damage control for the republicans though... Honestly I'd love to see a movement to make both of them burn, they're practically parasites on the US political system at this point. I just hate the latter less.
[QUOTE=laserpanda;52067676]You don't get the rules rewritten for you if they think you're going to be ethical.[/QUOTE]
Hey, let me blindly hope for a politician who isn't an invertebrate thank you very much. :v:
[QUOTE=froztshock;52067659]So either Obama tried to appoint 79 partisan hacks or this really [I]was[/I] the republicans' fault all along because they're the ones who came up with the idea of weaponizing the filibuster against justice appointments to make the democrats look bad, and as catbarf said:
It seems like the republicans simply cannot play fair with the courts. SAD!
[editline]6th April 2017[/editline]
They're the ones who started it though lmao. You're trying to make this out as if the democrats caused this when in reality it's the republicans trying to fuck up our government for petty partisan reasons that opened this can of worms in the first fucking place.[/QUOTE]
If you want to go with 'but they started it' then I guess that's accurate, but I don't see it as particularly redeeming. Saying 'I can't wait to have my turn to do the terrible thing you were doing' doesn't give you any moral high ground in my book.
In this case Democrats have been very clear about saying they're filibuster anyone the Republicans try to appoint. Why should they even bother waiting for it to actually happen? Why bother continuing to try if Democrats have made their intentions clear? Would trying 78 appointments before using the nuclear option be unacceptable, but once they hit 80 and beat the previous high score then it's justified because now the other guys are being worse? If the outcome is inevitable, why not skip the bullshit and just do it now?
I don't defend Republicans when they're doing shitty, exploitative things and I think this is a step in the wrong direction, but I don't think it's at all fair to pin it all on Republicans. It's completely brushing off the instrumental part Democrats had in creating this situation using the schoolyard justification of 'they did it first'. Using the nuclear option in the face of clear obstruction was justified, but turning around and promising to use the same tactics to 'get even' rather than seek compromise is embodying the same behavior they previously condemned.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52067713]If you want to go with 'but they started it' then I guess that's accurate, but I don't see it as particularly redeeming. Saying 'I can't wait to have my turn to do the terrible thing you were doing' doesn't give you any moral high ground in my book.
In this case Democrats have been very clear about saying they're filibuster anyone the Republicans try to appoint. Why should they even bother waiting for it to actually happen? Why bother continuing to try if Democrats have made their intentions clear? Would trying 78 appointments before using the nuclear option be unacceptable, but once they hit 80 and beat the previous high score then it's justified because now the other guys are being worse? If the outcome is inevitable, why not skip the bullshit and just do it now?
I don't defend Republicans when they're doing shitty, exploitative things and I think this is a step in the wrong direction, but I don't think it's at all fair to pin it all on Republicans. It's completely brushing off the instrumental part Democrats had in creating this situation using the schoolyard justification of 'they did it first'. Using the nuclear option in the face of clear obstruction was justified, but turning around and promising to use the same tactics to 'get even' rather than seek compromise is embodying the same behavior they previously condemned.[/QUOTE]
It's a fucked situation. Garland was robbed of that seat (or at least a VOTE). so the dem leaders decided they would only be ok with garland.
In a different situation I could see some dems filibustering only the people they think should be filibustered (as justices have been blocked before for reasons). Or even some conservative dems not filibustering at all.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52067713]If you want to go with 'but they started it' then I guess that's accurate, but I don't see it as particularly redeeming. Saying 'I can't wait to have my turn to do the terrible thing you were doing' doesn't give you any moral high ground in my book.
In this case Democrats have been very clear about saying they're filibuster anyone the Republicans try to appoint. Why should they even bother waiting for it to actually happen? Why bother continuing to try if Democrats have made their intentions clear? Would trying 78 appointments before using the nuclear option be unacceptable, but once they hit 80 and beat the previous high score then it's justified because now the other guys are being worse? If the outcome is inevitable, why not skip the bullshit and just do it now?
I don't defend Republicans when they're doing shitty, exploitative things and I think this is a step in the wrong direction, but I don't think it's at all fair to pin it all on Republicans. It's completely brushing off the instrumental part Democrats had in creating this situation using the schoolyard justification of 'they did it first'. Using the nuclear option in the face of clear obstruction was justified, but turning around and promising to use the same tactics to 'get even' rather than seek compromise is embodying the same behavior they previously condemned.[/QUOTE]
What's the alternative then? Let Republicans stonewall them while they're in power, then roll over and let Republicans do whatever they want once they're not?
If they didn't answer in kind then Republicans would just keep pulling this shit forever. There's no choice but to escalate the situation.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067650]Same reason the democrats blocked this one: Obstruction and partisanship. The republicans here are just more efficient at doing something about it.[/QUOTE]
riddle me this.
we know that the republicans have forced through an act that removes a lot of right of privacies from the internet.
say it was back in the house, and the democrats were to fillerbuster and "obstruct" the republicans from removing the internet privacy protections.
who would you support?
[QUOTE=catbarf;52067713]If you want to go with 'but they started it' then I guess that's accurate, but I don't see it as particularly redeeming. Saying 'I can't wait to have my turn to do the terrible thing you were doing' doesn't give you any moral high ground in my book.
In this case Democrats have been very clear about saying they're filibuster anyone the Republicans try to appoint. Why should they even bother waiting for it to actually happen? Why bother continuing to try if Democrats have made their intentions clear? Would trying 78 appointments before using the nuclear option be unacceptable, but once they hit 80 and beat the previous high score then it's justified because now the other guys are being worse? If the outcome is inevitable, why not skip the bullshit and just do it now?
I don't defend Republicans when they're doing shitty, exploitative things and I think this is a step in the wrong direction, but I don't think it's at all fair to pin it all on Republicans. It's completely brushing off the instrumental part Democrats had in creating this situation using the schoolyard justification of 'they did it first'. Using the nuclear option in the face of clear obstruction was justified, but turning around and promising to use the same tactics to 'get even' rather than seek compromise is embodying the same behavior they previously condemned.[/QUOTE]
So what are they supposed to do if, for every attempt at compromise, for every attempt at finding common ground, the republicans just shove their fingers in their ears and scream "nananana" like a bunch of children? Are they supposed to just sit by and let every one of their terms of power in the goverment to be eroded in comparison to more powerful republican terms because they decided to be good little boys and girls and just take it?
How do you deal with a bloc in government that's made dirty obstruction their primary mode of operation, that whipped their base into an affirmative frenzy over these shite tactics with their own pet news organizations so that they'll thank them for being shitty politicians, and simultaneously not take advantage of the tactics they're using to get ahead of you?
I agree that I'd rather not see the democrats do this filibuster shit but I almost can't blame them. My fear is that if republican opposition "plays nice" and republicans continue to play dirty in spite of that, we're not going to [i]be[/i] a country with more than one political party eventually.
[editline]6th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52067740]What's the alternative then? Let Republicans stonewall them while they're in power, then roll over and let Republicans do whatever they want once they're not?
If they didn't answer in kind then Republicans would just keep pulling this shit forever. There's no choice but to escalate the situation.[/QUOTE]
Basically this. The republicans declared war when they decided that Obama was the devil and beelzebub combined, and it seems that there's nothing that will get them off the war path besides some massive political reorganization of this country. I think the playground analogy is inaccurate, this is real life and the republicans opened fire. It seems like anyone opposed only has the option of either shooting back or proudly declaring themselves pacifists before being mowed down.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52067333]That's what congress does when it's overly partisan. That's what it's been doing for years.[/QUOTE]
You know very well why, and how this is different
[editline]6th April 2017[/editline]
I honestly don't get why people have supported the republican et al since 2008 when they made it clear they were going to be as partisan, as obstructionist, as useless as humanely possible.
This mentality that people like Mitch Mcconnel literally embody hasn't changed. it's only gotten more radical.
Yet people on the republican side as we can see in this thread won't hold them accountable for that.
If you ever wonder why things are getting worse it's because of shit like that.
Garland was never even given a hearing with almost a year of Obama's presidency still left, the president's campaign is under investigation, and Gorsuch is not moderate enough for many Dems. Democrats did the right thing.
It was on Republicans to get to 60. They should've compromised, otherwise what's the point to there even being a filibuster if they were going to force their nominee onto America no matter what.
Just a bunch of power hungry reactionaries.
[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]
Except Obama nominated a pretty moderate dude that was actually recommended by a republican as a compromise.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52069355]Hey guys, take a look. [url]https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2017/04/04/flashback-media-loved-dems-nuclear-option-13[/url][/QUOTE]
This justifies the actions of the republicans how
Hey guys, take a look. [url]https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2017/04/04/flashback-media-loved-dems-nuclear-option-13[/url]
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52069355]Hey guys, take a look. [url]https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2017/04/04/flashback-media-loved-dems-nuclear-option-13[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Over on CNN, political analyst Paul Begala hailed the nakedly partisan maneuver by Reid as necessary, whining that Republicans had “so abused” the filibuster that Democrats “can’t take it anymore.”[/QUOTE]
Let's remember some context from 2013.
[QUOTE=patq911;52067618]In 2013 the democrats employed the so called nuclear option for the first time ever. This was after republicans filibustered 79 obama appointees.
In 2017 the republicans employed the nuclear option after 1 (edit: one THREAT of a filibuster) filibuster.
One.
src: [URL]https://twitter.com/resisterhood/status/848980552686460929[/URL][/QUOTE]
Both sides are at fault but you don't get to pretend the Republicans have been even slightly reasonable.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52069395]Let's remember some context from 2013.
Both sides are at fault but you don't get to pretend the Republicans have been even slightly reasonable.[/QUOTE]
So the republicans are more enthusiastic to get things done..? Do you think it would be smarter for them to wait for 79 filibusters and then do it? This isn't unprecedented and the media/liberals pissing and whining are just hypocrites.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52069591]So the republicans are more enthusiastic to get things done..? Do you think it would be smarter for them to wait for 79 filibusters and then do it? This isn't unprecedented and the media/liberals pissing and whining are just hypocrites.[/QUOTE]
I think it would be smarter not to do it at all.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52069603]I think it would be smarter not to do it at all.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the democrats that set the precedent in 2013??
I was reading an interesting opinion in the New York Times the other day, about how this would usher in an era of supermajority politics.
I don't think Gorsuch is really a total disaster, and he likely will be no more of an issue for Democrats than Scalia was. But I don't doubt we'll see the rules for the legislative filibuster changed to mirror these, because the GOP knows nobody can stop them right now. I know the big Republican mouthpieces are saying otherwise, but it's the party of saying one thing and voting another.
Really, the big problem with the filibuster now is that you can just walk in and say "We're filibustering. Now you need 60 votes." The erasure of the Talking Filibuster in 1975 really started all this, because it became too easy to overuse it.
[editline]6th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52069730]Tell that to the democrats that set the precedent in 2013??[/QUOTE]
The Republicans came up with the idea of the Nuclear Option back in 2005. Everyone's to blame here. This is the erosion of democracy as a whole, and while that isn't a partisan issue, the willingness with which it is being done is firmly the responsibility of the GOP.
[QUOTE=El Periodista;52069787]I was reading an interesting opinion in the New York Times the other day, about how this would usher in an era of supermajority politics.
I don't think Gorsuch is really a total disaster, and he likely will be no more of an issue for Democrats than Scalia was. But I don't doubt we'll see the rules for the legislative filibuster changed to mirror these, because the GOP knows nobody can stop them right now. I know the big Republican mouthpieces are saying otherwise, but it's the party of saying one thing and voting another.
Really, the big problem with the filibuster now is that you can just walk in and say "We're filibustering. Now you need 60 votes." The erasure of the Talking Filibuster in 1975 really started all this, because it became too easy to overuse it.
[editline]6th April 2017[/editline]
The Republicans came up with the idea of the Nuclear Option back in 2005. Everyone's to blame here. This is the erosion of democracy as a whole, and while that isn't a partisan issue, the willingness with which it is being done is firmly the responsibility of the GOP.[/QUOTE]
I don't get how democracy is falling apart... but one undeniable fact is that trump is creating jobs and that benefits all of America.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52070076]I don't get how democracy is falling apart... but one undeniable fact is that trump is creating jobs and that benefits all of America.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to deny that. Jobs are being created, but that's largely the result of having clawed our way out of the eight-year recession we were in. The market's been in an upswing for a while, the jobs growth we're seeing is likely only tangentially related to Trump's campaign promises.
I don't exactly expect that to be continue if we enter into a trade war with China (our top trading partner), which seems likely if we start focusing on internal manufacturing. Goods have to go somewhere, and the shipping industry is already hemorrhaging billions of dollars a year. [I](that one's not our fault. Maersk, the Danish conglomerate that operates the Triple-E, started a dangerous trend of supermassive shipbuilding that has crippled that industry. We can still make it worse, though.)[/I] That makes up roughly 17% of our economy, which means if we're not bringing goods in and sending goods out, a lot of Americans in the shipping business, and the supporting industries, lose their jobs. And internal manufacturing still doesn't solve the issues of automation, which is necessary if you don't want your goods to be priced at real value because we have a minimum wage here, but is also killing manufacturing jobs for precisely that reason.
You could write a book about the dangers of de-globalizing industry. Everything's kind of held in a very fine, unstable balance, and changing or removing any part can have cascading effects elsewhere. It's one of the major areas where the promises of nationalism don't hold up.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52070076]I don't get how democracy is falling apart... but one undeniable fact is that trump is creating jobs and that benefits all of America.[/QUOTE]
Here's how democracy is falling apart: The Republicans changing the rules because they couldn't round up enough votes to overcome a filibuster that would prevent their SCOTUS nomination from being approved is called [I]one-party rule[/I]. You know what isn't democratic? One-party countries. North Korea is effectively a one-party country; there are a number of opposition parties but they are subservient to the Kim regime and the elections are a sham. Russia is another good example.
If you don't understand how this is eroding the checks and balances inherent in the federal government, I don't think you understand what you are discussing. If the party in power in Congress, which is currently the GOP but could be the Dems as soon as 2018, wants to ram a nominee of any kind through that the other side doesn't like, [I]they now can[/I].
The next time anyone threatens to filibuster something, you can count on the nuclear option being used on it, too -- because you can't close that Pandora's Box. Eventually there won't be any concept of the filibuster at all, and whichever party is in power will be able to do what they want no matter what the opposition, or the tens/hundreds of millions of Americans who voted for them, thinks.
But, hey, keep wearing that MAGA hat and giving Trump credit for every increase in jobs. We'll see how things are going in a year.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52070203]Here's how democracy is falling apart: The Republicans changing the rules because they couldn't round up enough votes to overcome a filibuster that would prevent their SCOTUS nomination from being approved is called [I]one-party rule[/I]. You know what isn't democratic? One-party countries. North Korea is effectively a one-party country; there are a number of opposition parties but they are subservient to the Kim regime and the elections are a sham. Russia is another good example.
If you don't understand how this is eroding the checks and balances inherent in the federal government, I don't think you understand what you are discussing. If the party in power in Congress, which is currently the GOP but could be the Dems as soon as 2018, wants to ram a nominee of any kind through that the other side doesn't like, [I]they now can[/I].
The next time anyone threatens to filibuster something, you can count on the nuclear option being used on it, too -- because you can't close that Pandora's Box. Eventually there won't be any concept of the filibuster at all, and whichever party is in power will be able to do what they want no matter what the opposition, or the tens/hundreds of millions of Americans who voted for them, thinks.
But, hey, keep wearing that MAGA hat and giving Trump credit for every increase in jobs. We'll see how things are going in a year.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so blame the democrats for setting the precedent in 2013? Did you not read the posts above? Also, about checks and balances, the courts have overstepped their bounds. Tell me how it is okay for some judge to block the potus from enacting clearly policy? The potus has the right to deny people access to this country and that Ian his power, it is not something the courts should decide.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52070234]Okay, so blame the democrats for setting the precedent in 2013? [B]Did you not read the posts above?[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=El Periodista;52069787]The Republicans came up with the idea of the Nuclear Option back in 2005. Everyone's to blame here. This is the erosion of democracy as a whole, and while that isn't a partisan issue, the willingness with which it is being done is firmly the responsibility of the GOP.[/QUOTE]
:goodjob:
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52070234]Also, about checks and balances, the courts have overstepped their bounds. Tell me how it is okay for some judge to block the potus from enacting clearly policy? The potus has the right to deny people access to this country and that Ian his power, it is not something the courts should decide.[/QUOTE]
Because the President's policy was an unconstitutional ban on a religious group? And he made clear public statements that he would enact an executive order to that effect on multiple occasions before he was elected? And then he was elected and one of the first things he did was enact an executive order discriminating against muslims, including legal green card holders?
The President does not have the right to disregard the Constitution. That is not one of his powers.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52070295]:goodjob:
Because the President's policy was an unconstitutional ban on a religious group? And he made clear public statements that he would enact an executive order to that effect on multiple occasions before he was elected? And then he was elected and one of the first things he did was enact an executive order banning discriminating against muslims, including legal green card holders?
The President does not have the right to disregard the Constitution. That is not one of his powers.[/QUOTE]
He attempted to ban entry from countries of islamic radical terrorism, that the Obama administration had done itself?? It's okay when Obama does it but clearly not okay when Trump does it right?
Makes sense, so much for a non partisan judicial branch.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option"]
Also, there wasn't use of the nuclear option in 2005.[/URL]
:goodjob:
[QUOTE]The nuclear option has only been used in practice twice — in 2013 and 2017, however the threat to use it dates back at least to 1917, in opinions related to reform of the Senate's filibuster rules. Subsequently, an opinion written by Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957 concluded that the U.S. Constitution grants the presiding officer the authority to override existing Senate rules.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52070076]but one undeniable fact is that trump is creating jobs and that benefits all of America.[/QUOTE]
What exactly does this have to do with anything in this thread so far.
[editline]7th April 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52070500]He attempted to ban entry from countries of islamic radical terrorism, that the Obama administration had done itself?? It's okay when Obama does it but clearly not okay when Trump does it right?[/QUOTE]
Because Obama only banned visas from one country for 6 months and never made a campaign promise to institute a Muslim ban.
You're just strawmanning random shit instead of actually making an argument. None of this shit even has anything to do with the current discussion other than you going "B-b-b-b-but Obama!".
[QUOTE=Anderan;52070544]What exactly does this have to do with anything in this thread so far.
[editline]7th April 2017[/editline]
Because Obama only banned visas from one country for 6 months and never made a campaign promise to institute a Muslim ban.
You're just strawmanning random shit instead of actually making an argument. None of this shit even has anything to do with the current discussion other than you going "B-b-b-b-but Obama!".[/QUOTE]
Well you guys are all pissing and moaning about something that the democrats and Obama precedented?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.