Other Resources The Political Joe » SCOTUS Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2017-03-20 12:58 PM

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: SCOTUS
I haven't been following the interrogation of Gorsuch can anyone report on how that is going?

The dems need to think this one thru. There is no way to stop this guy from getting confirmed. Is this really the nominee they want to collectively fall on their swords over? This is a conservative replacing a conservative. If the senate changes the rules then 6 months or 3 years from now when/if Ginsburg dies or retires the bar will have already been lowered to 50 and she will be replace by a conservative.

My daddy used to say, "choose your fights wisely".......wait, that's not true. Dad would fight at the drop of a hat and I took after him. I guess I wish he had said that......


Ok, I my ellipsisesses to avoid having to finish my thoughts and write in complete, coherent sentences......allows me ramble on





2017-03-20 1:28 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

On 8/21 this year there is supposed to be a total solar ellipsis.....so there is that.

2017-03-20 1:36 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
I love riding those ellipsis machines at the gym. ..
2017-03-20 1:54 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

He's pretty much a guarantee to get in, it's just a matter of how long the D's want to drag it out and what kind of precedent they want to set. 

2017-03-20 1:54 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
Originally posted by Left Brain

On 8/21 this year there is supposed to be a total solar ellipsis.....so there is that.




That is because the earth orbit around the sun is ellipsiscle...

2017-03-20 2:02 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Left Brain

On 8/21 this year there is supposed to be a total solar ellipsis.....so there is that.

That is because the earth orbit around the sun is ellipsiscle...

I don't think you can use the word ellipsiscle and 3 dots.....that's an over-extension of elllipsisness.



Edited by Left Brain 2017-03-20 2:09 PM


2017-03-20 2:17 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Left Brain

On 8/21 this year there is supposed to be a total solar ellipsis.....so there is that.

That is because the earth orbit around the sun is ellipsiscle...

I don't think you can use the word ellipsiscle and 3 dots.....that's an over-extension of elllipsisness.




I will self report myself to the Department of Redundancy Department.


2017-03-22 12:33 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
The more I see and read about Gorsuch the more qualified he comes across. The dem are doing themselves a great disservice to themselves by continuing to attack him. And politically it makes no sense for them to try to block him. If they try to block him do they really think Trump with withdraw Gorsuch and nominate someone else? No! He will send out a tweet every day saying the dems refuse to give an "up or down vote to Gorsuch". That is the 'best case scenario' for them. The worst case is the nuclear option....and given the potential of a GOP POTUS for the next 8 years they would just be shooting themselves in the foot.

Yesterday he said this:

".... people want to be remembered for the kindnesses they showed other people, by and large. What I try to point out is, it’s not how big your bank account balance is, nobody ever puts that in their draft obituary, or that they billed the most hours, or that they won the most cases. It’s how they treated other people along the way. And for me, it’s the words I read yesterday from Increase Sumner’s tombstone. And that means as a person, I’d like to be remembered as a good dad, a good husband, kind and mild in private life, dignified and firm in public life. And I have no illusions that I’ll be remembered for very long. If Byron White is as nearly forgotten as he is now, as he said he would be, I have no illusions, I won’t last five minutes; that’s as it should be. The great joy in life, Shaw said, is devoting yourself to a cause you deem mighty before you are thrown on the scrap heap. An independent judiciary in this country, I can carry that baton for as long as I can carry it, and I have no illusions i’m going to last as long as you suggest, and that’ll be good enough for me."

Sounds like a reasonable and balanced man.
2017-03-22 2:11 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Gorsuch will be confirmed, I have no doubt.  I suspect several Democrats will vote with the Republicans giving a filibuster proof majority. 

2017-03-22 2:30 PM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

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

Gorsuch will be confirmed, I have no doubt.  I suspect several Democrats will vote with the Republicans giving a filibuster proof majority. 




I hope your are right. It would be nice to see enough dems break ranks with Shummer.
2017-03-24 3:52 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Sounds like Shumer is playing the filibuster card.  It's almost humorous to see them try to justify it.

BTW, this is way more about Merrick Garland than it is Gorsuch. 



2017-03-24 4:27 PM
in reply to: tuwood

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by tuwood

Sounds like Shumer is playing the filibuster card.  It's almost humorous to see them try to justify it.

BTW, this is way more about Merrick Garland than it is Gorsuch. 

If that's true they should just filibuster for 1 year and give Trump the remaining 3

2017-03-24 8:42 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Sounds like Shumer is playing the filibuster card.  It's almost humorous to see them try to justify it.

BTW, this is way more about Merrick Garland than it is Gorsuch. 

If that's true they should just filibuster for 1 year and give Trump the remaining 3

lol, that would be funny. 

I don't understand the whole nuclear option completely, but it sounds like if the change is made then it's permanent?  Or perhaps it's just a precedent that's set, I don't know. 
It seems as though the R's don't really want to do the Nuclear option, but will if they have to.  This nominee isn't really the one to get crazy on, but if RGB retires in the next year or two it's going to be crazy. 

2017-03-25 8:55 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

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

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by tuwood

Sounds like Shumer is playing the filibuster card.  It's almost humorous to see them try to justify it.

BTW, this is way more about Merrick Garland than it is Gorsuch. 

If that's true they should just filibuster for 1 year and give Trump the remaining 3

lol, that would be funny. 

I don't understand the whole nuclear option completely, but it sounds like if the change is made then it's permanent?  Or perhaps it's just a precedent that's set, I don't know. 
It seems as though the R's don't really want to do the Nuclear option, but will if they have to.  This nominee isn't really the one to get crazy on, but if RGB retires in the next year or two it's going to be crazy. 





That is why I think dems are playing with fire. If the force reps to change the rules now, the RBG's replacement is a walk on.

Some RINOs might not want to change the rules just to hurt Trump.
2017-03-27 8:41 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
I don't know why they call changing the rules the "nuclear" option. The constitution requires a simple majority. The 'rule' might not even be constitutional.
2017-03-27 8:59 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio I don't know why they call changing the rules the "nuclear" option. The constitution requires a simple majority. The 'rule' might not even be constitutional.

My understanding is the vote has always been a simple majority for judge nominees, but the 60 vote rule is for when the opposing party decides to be a D-bag and filibuster a nominee they know they can't stop.  Then they created a rule that a 60 vote majority could stop any filibuster. So the whole nuclear option has nothing to do with the approvals or not, it's simply changing the requirement to stop a filibuster to a simple majority.

(going from memory, so hopefully this is correct)  ;-



2017-03-27 9:59 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

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

Originally posted by Rogillio I don't know why they call changing the rules the "nuclear" option. The constitution requires a simple majority. The 'rule' might not even be constitutional.

My understanding is the vote has always been a simple majority for judge nominees, but the 60 vote rule is for when the opposing party decides to be a D-bag and filibuster a nominee they know they can't stop.  Then they created a rule that a 60 vote majority could stop any filibuster. So the whole nuclear option has nothing to do with the approvals or not, it's simply changing the requirement to stop a filibuster to a simple majority.

(going from memory, so hopefully this is correct)  ;-




You are exactly correct. It's a self-imposed rule to require 60 votes to stop the filibuster....but it blocks an up/down vote for nominees that should only require 51 votes. I think the term 'nuclear' is bit melodramatic....even for politics.

Despite the left's attempt to make him look bad, he went the hearings unscathed and looked very impressive.....he minds me of Jimmy Steward, very likeable. I think opposition to him will blow up in some dems faces like a poorly handled IED.
2017-03-27 1:20 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio I don't know why they call changing the rules the "nuclear" option. The constitution requires a simple majority. The 'rule' might not even be constitutional.

My understanding is the vote has always been a simple majority for judge nominees, but the 60 vote rule is for when the opposing party decides to be a D-bag and filibuster a nominee they know they can't stop.  Then they created a rule that a 60 vote majority could stop any filibuster. So the whole nuclear option has nothing to do with the approvals or not, it's simply changing the requirement to stop a filibuster to a simple majority.

(going from memory, so hopefully this is correct)  ;-

You are exactly correct. It's a self-imposed rule to require 60 votes to stop the filibuster....but it blocks an up/down vote for nominees that should only require 51 votes. I think the term 'nuclear' is bit melodramatic....even for politics. Despite the left's attempt to make him look bad, he went the hearings unscathed and looked very impressive.....he minds me of Jimmy Steward, very likeable. I think opposition to him will blow up in some dems faces like a poorly handled IED.

Yeah it's melodramatic - but they needed a simple term to describe what amounts to some legal handwaving.  Normally it takes a 2/3 vote to amend Senate rules.  What they do instead is declare that there's a constitutional question (about the rule) and then they can proceed to cloture on majority vote.

On a side note, the Senate used to require 2/3 vote to shut down a filibuster, then reduced it to 3/5 some years later.  They also used to require actually standing up and speaking, but now a senator only has to declare his/her intent to filibuster.  That last part I think they should roll back.  It would make grumpy old men really think twice about whether they want to stand at the podium for hours on end without a bathroom break.

2017-03-27 1:57 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio I don't know why they call changing the rules the "nuclear" option. The constitution requires a simple majority. The 'rule' might not even be constitutional.

My understanding is the vote has always been a simple majority for judge nominees, but the 60 vote rule is for when the opposing party decides to be a D-bag and filibuster a nominee they know they can't stop.  Then they created a rule that a 60 vote majority could stop any filibuster. So the whole nuclear option has nothing to do with the approvals or not, it's simply changing the requirement to stop a filibuster to a simple majority.

(going from memory, so hopefully this is correct)  ;-

You are exactly correct. It's a self-imposed rule to require 60 votes to stop the filibuster....but it blocks an up/down vote for nominees that should only require 51 votes. I think the term 'nuclear' is bit melodramatic....even for politics. Despite the left's attempt to make him look bad, he went the hearings unscathed and looked very impressive.....he minds me of Jimmy Steward, very likeable. I think opposition to him will blow up in some dems faces like a poorly handled IED.

Yeah it's melodramatic - but they needed a simple term to describe what amounts to some legal handwaving.  Normally it takes a 2/3 vote to amend Senate rules.  What they do instead is declare that there's a constitutional question (about the rule) and then they can proceed to cloture on majority vote.

On a side note, the Senate used to require 2/3 vote to shut down a filibuster, then reduced it to 3/5 some years later.  They also used to require actually standing up and speaking, but now a senator only has to declare his/her intent to filibuster.  That last part I think they should roll back.  It would make grumpy old men really think twice about whether they want to stand at the podium for hours on end without a bathroom break.

I think we could find bipartisan support for that.    

2017-03-27 3:57 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

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

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio I don't know why they call changing the rules the "nuclear" option. The constitution requires a simple majority. The 'rule' might not even be constitutional.

My understanding is the vote has always been a simple majority for judge nominees, but the 60 vote rule is for when the opposing party decides to be a D-bag and filibuster a nominee they know they can't stop.  Then they created a rule that a 60 vote majority could stop any filibuster. So the whole nuclear option has nothing to do with the approvals or not, it's simply changing the requirement to stop a filibuster to a simple majority.

(going from memory, so hopefully this is correct)  ;-

You are exactly correct. It's a self-imposed rule to require 60 votes to stop the filibuster....but it blocks an up/down vote for nominees that should only require 51 votes. I think the term 'nuclear' is bit melodramatic....even for politics. Despite the left's attempt to make him look bad, he went the hearings unscathed and looked very impressive.....he minds me of Jimmy Steward, very likeable. I think opposition to him will blow up in some dems faces like a poorly handled IED.

Yeah it's melodramatic - but they needed a simple term to describe what amounts to some legal handwaving.  Normally it takes a 2/3 vote to amend Senate rules.  What they do instead is declare that there's a constitutional question (about the rule) and then they can proceed to cloture on majority vote.

On a side note, the Senate used to require 2/3 vote to shut down a filibuster, then reduced it to 3/5 some years later.  They also used to require actually standing up and speaking, but now a senator only has to declare his/her intent to filibuster.  That last part I think they should roll back.  It would make grumpy old men really think twice about whether they want to stand at the podium for hours on end without a bathroom break.

I think we could find bipartisan support for that.    




I agree. Let them stand up there and make a fool of themselves rambling on and on.
2017-03-30 5:21 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Rogillio I don't know why they call changing the rules the "nuclear" option. The constitution requires a simple majority. The 'rule' might not even be constitutional.

My understanding is the vote has always been a simple majority for judge nominees, but the 60 vote rule is for when the opposing party decides to be a D-bag and filibuster a nominee they know they can't stop.  Then they created a rule that a 60 vote majority could stop any filibuster. So the whole nuclear option has nothing to do with the approvals or not, it's simply changing the requirement to stop a filibuster to a simple majority.

(going from memory, so hopefully this is correct)  ;-

You are exactly correct. It's a self-imposed rule to require 60 votes to stop the filibuster....but it blocks an up/down vote for nominees that should only require 51 votes. I think the term 'nuclear' is bit melodramatic....even for politics. Despite the left's attempt to make him look bad, he went the hearings unscathed and looked very impressive.....he minds me of Jimmy Steward, very likeable. I think opposition to him will blow up in some dems faces like a poorly handled IED.

Yeah it's melodramatic - but they needed a simple term to describe what amounts to some legal handwaving.  Normally it takes a 2/3 vote to amend Senate rules.  What they do instead is declare that there's a constitutional question (about the rule) and then they can proceed to cloture on majority vote.

On a side note, the Senate used to require 2/3 vote to shut down a filibuster, then reduced it to 3/5 some years later.  They also used to require actually standing up and speaking, but now a senator only has to declare his/her intent to filibuster.  That last part I think they should roll back.  It would make grumpy old men really think twice about whether they want to stand at the podium for hours on end without a bathroom break.

I think we could find bipartisan support for that.    

I agree. Let them stand up there and make a fool of themselves rambling on and on.

I read something earlier today that there's a little enforced "two speech" rule in the Senate.  It states that you can only give two speeches on any pending issue.  So if they wanted they could use that rule and force the Dems to do a true filibuster until they pass out twice.  Might take a few days, but would avoid going nuclear and make them look like idiots.  Kind of a win/win



2017-04-03 2:49 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS
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!'
2017-04-03 5:44 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

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. 

2017-04-03 8:02 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
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. 




And it establishipes the prescient for cutting off legislation filibusters. Meaning the RNC would rule with 52.

The balls in the RNC court....just hope they have the balls to play with them. Wait, what? NM.
2017-04-03 8:09 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: SCOTUS

Originally posted by Rogillio
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. 

And it establishipes the prescient for cutting off legislation filibusters..

Bro - you shoulda used an ellipse there. LMAO

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » SCOTUS Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2
 
 
RELATED POSTS

SCOTUS Nuclear Option Pages: 1 2

Started by Rogillio
Views: 929 Posts: 28

2017-02-01 4:56 PM tuwood