Other Resources The Political Joe » SCOTUS Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2017-04-03 10:33 PM
in reply to: tuwood

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio Democrats are playing leap-frog with a unicorn. This will not end well for them. Dad always said, 'when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!'

Yep, one thing I read about yesterday was that this also effects all judicial nominations.  So it opens up the path for Trump to start stacking very conservative justices in the lower courts as well. 

Filibusters were already prevented on other federal courts.



2017-04-04 6:48 AM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Yep.  The Democrats, who will surely be feigning outrage later this week, used the "nuclear option" a few years ago so that they could easily confirm Obama's executive and judicial nominees.  The only reason they didn't expand it to the SCOTUS nominees, is because the Republicans did not filibuster Obama's SCOTUS nominees. 

2017-04-04 8:36 AM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio Democrats are playing leap-frog with a unicorn. This will not end well for them. Dad always said, 'when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!'

Yep, one thing I read about yesterday was that this also effects all judicial nominations.  So it opens up the path for Trump to start stacking very conservative justices in the lower courts as well. 

Filibusters were already prevented on other federal courts.

Didn't realize that.  Thanks

2017-04-04 11:31 AM
in reply to: Hook'em

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Hook'em

Yep.  The Democrats, who will surely be feigning outrage later this week, used the "nuclear option" a few years ago so that they could easily confirm Obama's executive and judicial nominees.  The only reason they didn't expand it to the SCOTUS nominees, is because the Republicans did not filibuster Obama's SCOTUS nominees. 

The change in the lower courts was 2013, but the whole thing goes back maybe 10 years before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

 

2017-04-04 12:57 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Just saw this one.  hah

2017-04-04 1:01 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session"


Check me if I'm wrong Sandy....but Mitch McConnell could simply declare a recess and Trump could appoint Gorsuch, right?

Extra points if you can name the movie reference.


2017-04-04 1:03 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session" Check me if I'm wrong Sandy....but Mitch McConnell could simply declare a recess and Trump could appoint Gorsuch, right? Extra points if you can name the movie reference.

Did it involve a little Cinderella story?  ;-

2017-04-04 1:21 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session" Check me if I'm wrong Sandy....but Mitch McConnell could simply declare a recess and Trump could appoint Gorsuch, right? Extra points if you can name the movie reference.

Did it involve a little Cinderella story?  ;-




It did! Nice reply without giving the answer away. Well played.
2017-04-04 2:12 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Oakville
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session" Check me if I'm wrong Sandy....but Mitch McConnell could simply declare a recess and Trump could appoint Gorsuch, right? Extra points if you can name the movie reference.

Ha, nice quote.  "We can do that... we don't even have to have a reason".

2017-04-04 4:06 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session" Check me if I'm wrong Sandy....but Mitch McConnell could simply declare a recess and Trump could appoint Gorsuch, right? Extra points if you can name the movie reference.
What good would it do if Gorsuch's appointment would expire at the end of this Senate Session.  The Senate could come back from recess and vote to confirm (same issue we have now) or Gorsuch would cease being a Supreme Court Justice at the end of the Senate Session which is Jan. 2019.  Why have a temporary Justice which could face even more trouble based upon the mid-term elections?  If the Republican gain enough seats in the Senate to make a filibuster proof majority, then Gorsuch could be renominated in the next Session, but that is a long-shot.  More likely, they would just be kicking the can down the road and be forced to use the "nuclear option" later.  Not to mention that a temporarily appointed Justice is an awful idea that flies in the face of an independent judiciary.  They're appointed for life for a good reason.

Just my thoughts.

2017-04-06 10:09 AM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
Today might be the most significant day in the Trump presidency so far if (when) Gorsuch is confirmed.

I'm still scratching my head on why the dems are forcing the rule change. It serves them no purpose that I can see. I am a political junkie and right wing hack.....but even when I watch a football game I can't help but question the calls the other team makes. The bottom line is the GOP will rule the roost for at LEAST 4 years. RBG is what? 84? It's reported she already routinely misses meetings.

People keep saying the republican will come to regret this. Really? In the mid-terms GOP stands to lose 1 seat in a state that voted for HRC, NV. The dems stand to lose up to 10 seats in seats that voted for Trump. Bottom line, the GOP will hold the Senate at least for 4 years. Even if Trump is impeached, which will never happen IMO...but even if did, Pence would take over.

So 4 years is the BEST case scenario for democrats. If the economy is doing well 4 years from now, Trump will win a second term in a landslide. All other 'issues' mean nothing when the economy is booming and people are making money and seeing their 401k's grow.

Someone please explain WTH the dems are thinking? Seriously, I've tried to put myself in their position and cannot for the life of me figure out why they think it behooves them to oppose a Scalia for a Scalia on the bench?


2017-04-06 10:29 AM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS




(nuke.gif)



Attachments
----------------
nuke.gif (534KB - 2 downloads)
2017-04-06 10:32 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
2017-04-06 11:00 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

So here's the thing.  This is the first time in a bazillion years (or ever, can't remember) that anyone has attempted to filibuster a supreme court nominee.  So the fact that it takes 60 votes to block a filibuster is kind of irrelevant because nobody's ever even tried to filibuster a nominee.
Whoever has simple majority of the Senate is who decides if a nominee gets through with or without the nuclear option and it always has been.

Senators in the past have recognized this, so they just go along and let the votes happen in the Senate.  obviously the Republicans didn't like Sotomayor or Kagan, but they let it come to a vote because they couldn't stop it anyways.

So the fear of this causing some huge precedent shift in the future is kind of silly because it still doesn't change anything no matter who gets nominated.  I think the bigger precedent is what happened last year with Merrick Garland.  In that situation you had a majority Republican Senate who would not approve the nominee of the President.  They stopped it at the committee, procedurally, but I think we can all agree he would have failed to pass the full senate as well.  So lets say the roles are reversed and Trump had a majority Democrat Senate.  Anyone other than a strong liberal would fail to get through the senate no matter what their qualifications.  To me this seems like a monumental power shift to the Senate for the Supreme court.  Essentially whatever party controls the Senate from this point forward is the direction the Supreme court will go regardless of President. 

2017-04-06 11:25 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
OMG, I am listening to the Senate and the dems are just dragging this out ad nauseam. First Schumer proposes a delay till Monday. It failed. Now he proposed a delay till 5 pm and they are voting again. Really quite disheartening to watch
2017-04-06 11:43 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by tuwood

So here's the thing.  This is the first time in a bazillion years (or ever, can't remember) that anyone has attempted to filibuster a supreme court nominee.  So the fact that it takes 60 votes to block a filibuster is kind of irrelevant because nobody's ever even tried to filibuster a nominee.
Whoever has simple majority of the Senate is who decides if a nominee gets through with or without the nuclear option and it always has been.

Senators in the past have recognized this, so they just go along and let the votes happen in the Senate.  obviously the Republicans didn't like Sotomayor or Kagan, but they let it come to a vote because they couldn't stop it anyways.

So the fear of this causing some huge precedent shift in the future is kind of silly because it still doesn't change anything no matter who gets nominated.  I think the bigger precedent is what happened last year with Merrick Garland.  In that situation you had a majority Republican Senate who would not approve the nominee of the President.  They stopped it at the committee, procedurally, but I think we can all agree he would have failed to pass the full senate as well.  So lets say the roles are reversed and Trump had a majority Democrat Senate.  Anyone other than a strong liberal would fail to get through the senate no matter what their qualifications.  To me this seems like a monumental power shift to the Senate for the Supreme court.  Essentially whatever party controls the Senate from this point forward is the direction the Supreme court will go regardless of President. 

I agree with this.  The filibuster cloture rule is not a big issue - both parties would have pulled that trigger when necessary.  The delay and refusal to let a SCOTUS nominee out of committee is a bigger issue and unprecedented (although the Democrats threatened the same in the past).  Ultimately, this will backfire on the Republicans.



2017-04-06 11:50 AM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
Originally posted by Hook'em

Originally posted by tuwood

So here's the thing.  This is the first time in a bazillion years (or ever, can't remember) that anyone has attempted to filibuster a supreme court nominee.  So the fact that it takes 60 votes to block a filibuster is kind of irrelevant because nobody's ever even tried to filibuster a nominee.
Whoever has simple majority of the Senate is who decides if a nominee gets through with or without the nuclear option and it always has been.

Senators in the past have recognized this, so they just go along and let the votes happen in the Senate.  obviously the Republicans didn't like Sotomayor or Kagan, but they let it come to a vote because they couldn't stop it anyways.

So the fear of this causing some huge precedent shift in the future is kind of silly because it still doesn't change anything no matter who gets nominated.  I think the bigger precedent is what happened last year with Merrick Garland.  In that situation you had a majority Republican Senate who would not approve the nominee of the President.  They stopped it at the committee, procedurally, but I think we can all agree he would have failed to pass the full senate as well.  So lets say the roles are reversed and Trump had a majority Democrat Senate.  Anyone other than a strong liberal would fail to get through the senate no matter what their qualifications.  To me this seems like a monumental power shift to the Senate for the Supreme court.  Essentially whatever party controls the Senate from this point forward is the direction the Supreme court will go regardless of President. 

I agree with this.  The filibuster cloture rule is not a big issue - both parties would have pulled that trigger when necessary.  The delay and refusal to let a SCOTUS nominee out of committee is a bigger issue and unprecedented (although the Democrats threatened the same in the past).  Ultimately, this will backfire on the Republicans.





I agree that what goes around, comes around but I would not call that a backfire per se. It's a calculated risk that they have accepted. How long with the GOP stay in power? How many judges can they seat during their tenure?


2017-04-06 11:51 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
Cloture just passed.
2017-04-06 11:54 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio OMG, I am listening to the Senate and the dems are just dragging this out ad nauseam. First Schumer proposes a delay till Monday. It failed. Now he proposed a delay till 5 pm and they are voting again. Really quite disheartening to watch

My understanding is that there's a new set of cases that hit the Supreme Court on Monday, so if they can delay him even through the weekend then he won't be able to be a part of those cases.  Then they'd be ruled on with the 4-4 court where all lower court rulings stand with a tie and several lower courts are liberal majority.  This would be more liberal than a 5-4 conservative majority court that would rule on all of them. 

2017-04-06 12:17 PM
in reply to: tuwood

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio OMG, I am listening to the Senate and the dems are just dragging this out ad nauseam. First Schumer proposes a delay till Monday. It failed. Now he proposed a delay till 5 pm and they are voting again. Really quite disheartening to watch

My understanding is that there's a new set of cases that hit the Supreme Court on Monday, so if they can delay him even through the weekend then he won't be able to be a part of those cases.  Then they'd be ruled on with the 4-4 court where all lower court rulings stand with a tie and several lower courts are liberal majority.  This would be more liberal than a 5-4 conservative majority court that would rule on all of them. 

As with many things in Congress it's more about their individual constituents than anything else.  In a hypothetical situation with the numbers flipped, t'd be like a Republican filibustering to prevent some gun control law.  Maybe it passes anyhow but when you're running for office again, you don't have to defend yourself against attacks from a challenger on that topic.

2017-04-06 12:41 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio OMG, I am listening to the Senate and the dems are just dragging this out ad nauseam. First Schumer proposes a delay till Monday. It failed. Now he proposed a delay till 5 pm and they are voting again. Really quite disheartening to watch

My understanding is that there's a new set of cases that hit the Supreme Court on Monday, so if they can delay him even through the weekend then he won't be able to be a part of those cases.  Then they'd be ruled on with the 4-4 court where all lower court rulings stand with a tie and several lower courts are liberal majority.  This would be more liberal than a 5-4 conservative majority court that would rule on all of them. 

As with many things in Congress it's more about their individual constituents than anything else.  In a hypothetical situation with the numbers flipped, t'd be like a Republican filibustering to prevent some gun control law.  Maybe it passes anyhow but when you're running for office again, you don't have to defend yourself against attacks from a challenger on that topic.




I agree it's about the optics. I thought the GOP in the House made fools of themselves the previous few years voting over and over to repeal Obamacare when it was so obvious they were just trying to make themselves look good to their constituents. But really, it just made them look powerless.


So the 3 eldest justices (78, 80 and 84) are all to the left of the 4 hard right justices.

I think it's almost certain Trump will get at least one more nomination in 4 years. If he gets a second term ()and the GOP holds the Senate), he will get 2 more probably.

My 'prediction' is RBG will die on the court. She hates Trump and will hold onto her seat till her last breathe. But at 84, how many more breathes does she have left?



2017-04-07 11:13 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
It's done. He is confirmed. One down and 2 more to go!



Republican simply said to the democrats, "You will play ball with us or we'll shove the bat up your a)ss." And that is exactly what they did!




Edited by Rogillio 2017-04-07 11:18 AM
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » SCOTUS Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2
 
 
RELATED POSTS

SCOTUS Nuclear Option Pages: 1 2

Started by Rogillio
Views: 932 Posts: 28

2017-02-01 4:56 PM tuwood