America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 weeks ago by frankj1. 38 replies replies.
Republicans Go Nuclear
frombeyondthegrave Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2017
Posts: 42
Gorsuch vote 7PM on Friday. Expect him to be confirmed, 52 - 48.
burnem2 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 12-23-2009
Posts: 384
This really pinpoints just how partisan the left is playing. Most Senators, Dems included, think Gorsuch would be a great SCJ but they won't vote outside party policy on this one. Probably have to have a lot more rammed down their throats as I don't see them playing ball anytime soon.
Speyside Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 3,233
Burnem, I agree that the Democrats are not going to do anything other than vote against the Republicans, but why should they. For 8 years the Republicans only voted against the Democrats.
delta1 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,070
The GOP may regret this move down the road. It lowers the number of votes needed to approve and pass all kinds of stuff in the Senate from the traditional 60 votes, meaning most things required bipartisan support...until now...Dems now have a lower bar to get stuff done, should they ever get a majority back...

As for Gorsuch, there were at least 4 Dems who were going to support him, but the GOP needed 8 to get to 60 up votes...

Ironic that the GOP, the Party of NO, is complaining that the Dems are not working with them to get their agenda done...
SmokeMonkey Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 04-05-2015
Posts: 2,930
I would assume that the left will give the same level of support they received during the past administration.

That said, the GOP is certainly within their rights to go this route. I did see a quote from one afterwards that read: some day we'll regret what we did here today.

I'll wager that those supporting this measure will be sorely unhappy when the Dems pull it in the future.

DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
I think Trump plans to whack a couple more Justices before his term is up tho.. The Supreme Court will be stacked in our favor soon.. Mellow
ZRX1200 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 45,346
The left will regret this, I bet the next SCJ won't be so milktoast.

Oh, and I find the outrage humorous as Dirty Harry Reid started this......where was the left when he was changing rules and historic traditions?
SmokeMonkey Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 04-05-2015
Posts: 2,930
Personally, I was chagrined. But seeing as almost all national representatives from my state are GOP my influence is very small. It's shouldn't be about party, it should be about what is right for successfully governing ourselves. That was lost a long time ago, unfortunately.
TMCTLT Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 18,511
ZRX1200 wrote:
The left will regret this, I bet the next SCJ won't be so milktoast.

Oh, and I find the outrage humorous as Dirty Harry Reid started this......where was the left when he was changing rules and historic traditions?




THIS ^^^

Dirty F'n Harry....where do the Dems keep finding these truly DEPLORABLE people they keep re-electing and moreover...WHY????
gummy jones Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 4,658
#7
tonygraz Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 8,254
#8
frankj1 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
burnem2 wrote:
This really pinpoints just how partisan the left is playing. Most Senators, Dems included, think Gorsuch would be a great SCJ but they won't vote outside party policy on this one. Probably have to have a lot more rammed down their throats as I don't see them playing ball anytime soon.

maybe even more thought the same of Obama's nominee, but I can't seem to find how many votes he garnered from the nonpartisan GOP.

snopesed it...there was no vote. Why? Not due to nonpartisan politics, nope, no way. HA!

It's legitimate to complain, it's hypocritical to complain when one has done the same.
gummy jones Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 4,658
#10
frankj1 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
gummy jones wrote:
#10

funny!
ZRX1200 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 45,346
Yet the left complains about no vote for Obama''s nominee when AGAIN THEY set that precedent....
DrafterX Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
Biden's rule... dems went nuclar in 2013 also... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
ZRX1200 wrote:
Yet the left complains about no vote for Obama''s nominee when AGAIN THEY set that precedent....

copying what you say is wrong might also be hypocritical, and going Nuclear is the new precedent
ZRX1200 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 45,346
https://www.myheritage.org/news/harry-reid-tries-to-change-senate-rules-to-advance-liberal-policies/

When has a SCJ nominee been fillibustered?

He's completely qualified and is nowhere near the political firebrand Soetamayor (sp?) was/is.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/harry-reid-defends-senate-rule-change-what-was-fair-president-obama-fair

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/
ZRX1200 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 45,346
FWIW, I didn't support the change then or now.

But they're behavior is beneath the dignity of public office. If they had any decency they would be ashamed.

So now people like me who didn't vote for Trump but are tired of this sheet show will just laugh at those trying to have their cake and eat it too while asking us to ignore their poopy pants.

I hope the next SCJ nominee is Scalia to the third power just to stick it to them.
frankj1 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
I don't even have to read the links as I realized when I hit "post" my point was being dragged into a "he hit me first" thing...and someone with time could go back and forth proving politically nefarious moves by others over the decades.

I've said the same here dozens of times before when righties get all puffed up and actually start to believe their own story: that they are morally superior group blah blah blah. No side owns morality. if the lefties have done this before, well hey, if your wife has an affair, and then you do the same, well you had an affair... and it wasn't less egregious. Just don't claim to be a better person than her.
ZRX1200 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 45,346
Except the wife is pretending she didn't do it......so where we sit now it's a false equivalent.
frankj1 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
ZRX1200 wrote:
Except the wife is pretending she didn't do it......so where we sit now it's a false equivalent.

I honestly was not aiming at you, ya gotta believe me. it was just an easy morality analogy.
MACS Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 59,623
ZRX1200 wrote:
The left will regret this, I bet the next SCJ won't be so milktoast.

Oh, and I find the outrage humorous as Dirty Harry Reid started this......where was the left when he was changing rules and historic traditions?


Truth.
Mr. Jones Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 8,262
I HEARD
MITCH MCCONNELL
Got a barium enema today...

THE NUCLEAR OPTION
Mr. Jones Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 8,262
I HEARD
MITCH MCCONNELL
Got a barium enema today...

THE NUCLEAR OPTION
Gene363 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 22,356

Get the guy approved and let him get to work.

It's all BS drama and rep/democrap kabuki dancing nonsense.
frombeyondthegrave Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2017
Posts: 42
Gorsuch confirmed. 54 to 45. 3 Dems from Trump states, concerned about their re-election chances, joined the Reps. One Rep was absent, and therefore, did not vote.

Wait for the next one. There is now nothing the Dems can do to stop whoever the President picks. I'm predicting an ultra right winger, who never would have had a chance otherwise, and the Dems have no one to blame but themselves.
frankj1 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
frombeyondthegrave wrote:
Gorsuch confirmed. 54 to 45. 3 Dems from Trump states, concerned about their re-election chances, joined the Reps. One Rep was absent, and therefore, did not vote.

Wait for the next one. There is now nothing the Dems can do to stop whoever the President picks. I'm predicting an ultra right winger, who never would have had a chance otherwise, and the Dems have no one to blame but themselves.

glad it's over, to be honest. but many surprises have happened over the decades in the Court.

I don't really believe Trump is truly as ultra as many would like him to be though. Another president (Cruz type maybe?) and I'd agree with your prediction...but this guy needs love so much he just might try to throw a bone to moderates. After all, he was a Dem not all that long ago, but opportunity knocked and he opened the door.

But yes, I agree and keep telling my shocked lib friends that it's their own fault.
delta1 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,070
The GOP criticized Harry Reid when he used the nuclear option in the face of GOP obstructionism in 2013, when none of Obama's nominees for executive positions and federal court vacancies were moving forward because the GOP refused to grant hearings or take votes. They were entrenched in obstructionism.

The right now praises McConnell, who complained the loudest about Reid's use of the nuclear option then, but he led the GOP obstructionism that forced Reid's hand. Chicken or egg? What seems clear is that a pattern has emerged: when one side tries to obstruct the other, the nuclear option will be used by the side with a slim majority.

Is it only OK for the GOP to obstruct?

The absence of a super majority (60 votes) vote for Senate approval will weaken that body. It will increase partisanship because with a bare majority, one side won't have to win anyone over from the other side. Watch how much money will be funneled into tight Senate races in the future.

Another brick in the wall separating the average American citizen from the federal government...and a departure from the intent of the Constitution...
Abrignac Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 12,717
delta1 wrote:


Another brick in the wall separating the average American citizen from the federal government...and a departure from the intent of the Constitution...


I'm aware of nothing at all in the Constitution which states there must be a 60 vote majority to win Senate confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee.

I didn't like it when Reid did it and I don't like it that McConnell did it. But, lets call a spade a spade. Gorsuch was as mainstream as any justice now sitting on the court. The Dems were pissed that the GOP didn't grant Garland a hearing.

But lest we forget history:

[i]Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) who, while serving in 1992 as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered a sprawling, 90-minute floor address that included a call for halting action on Supreme Court nominees in an election year.

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Biden, as vice president, has called in recent days for the Senate to take up the nomination Obama promises to make to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who was found dead Feb. 13 in Texas.[/h]


Of course when he was Vice-President he attempted to walk back his words.

“To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, ‘God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we’re not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half,’ ” he told Minnesota Public Radio on Thursday.

Biden said Monday in a statement that the 1992 speech pertained to “a hypothetical vacancy” and that the excerpt Republicans highlighted was “not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”


It's a shame that one forgets what one's own party did in the past while condemning the actions of a party with which one disagrees.

Boo hoo! Boo hoo! Boo hoo!
delta1 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,070
You do know that his statement was never tested...and was widely criticized, until the GOP found themselves in that position and DID obstruct...

Biden's words were just that: words that had no effect, just one senator's opinion/speculation. Note that he said "seriously consider"...all part of advise and consent... Who knows what would've happened had there been a circumstance...he may not have been able to persuade enough of his colleagues...but the GOP did so when it suited them...
Abrignac Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 12,717
delta1 wrote:
You do know that his statement was never tested...and was widely criticized, until the GOP found themselves in that position and DID obstruct...

Biden's words were just that: words that had no effect, just one senator's opinion/speculation. Note that he said "seriously consider"...all part of advise and consent... Who knows what would've happened had there been a circumstance...he may not have been able to persuade enough of his colleagues...but the GOP did so when it suited them...


He advocated for it. Taken at face value means he supported that position. Supporting a position and voting on it are the same. Otherwise he was pandering.
tonygraz Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 8,254
Like Trump's 2013 position on Syrian chemical weapons use ?
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 74,241
I didn't know Trump was a politician back then... Think
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
he wasn't but the GOP congress was and they were against it. i know that folks now admire and desire a power grabbing Prez, but I seriously doubt there would have been a standing O for Prez O had he ignored congress at that time.
delta1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 10,070
it's funny how shoes that look ugly on someone else miraculously fit when you try them on...old Chinese proverb
frankj1 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
lib though I may be, I lean toward fair. I'm pointing out that no one owns morality, yet it just keeps popping up here that one side does.
frankj1 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 15,212
delta1 wrote:
it's funny how shoes that look ugly on someone else miraculously fit when you try them on...old Chinese proverb

even OJ's ugly azz shoes?
Users browsing this topic
Guest