And think of all it will accomplish, too!!
Every now and then I click on a nationalreview link, but am disappointed by their blatant partisanship. The following is no exception.
Even ignoring the partisan diction National Review insists on, their plan seems to just advocate more Republican malice:
- forcing a traditional filibuster – for many years, Senators wishing to filibuster have not been forced to actually, well, filibuster. The National Review wants to subject the Democrats to the humiliation of engaging in a real filibuster, but ensure it is unsuccessful whether they have 41 votes or not. Thanks big!
- they do this by redefining “day” so it no longer means “day.” Great moments in GOP leadership. (The Republican-led House no longer uses “science” to mean “science,” so why not?)
One can hardly blame Democrats for being fed up; the GOP has done other dirty work in the past:
- G.W. Bush made 171 recess appointments. Under Obama, the GOP used trickery so that recess appointments can no longer be made unless the President’s party controls both houses of Congress.
- Filibustering executive appointments was extremely rare until the Clinton Administration; it dropped somewhat under G.W. Bush but, until Reid “went nuclear,” the number of filibusters of Obama appointments exceeded ALL previous such filibusters by a factor of ten or such!
Speaking of nuclear (A-bomb) options, Google shows me that if the Senate tries to change its rules in mid-session, that motion itself can be filibustered, with 2/3 majority required for cloture! So how do the Trumpists propose to abolish filibuster anyway? An H-bomb option?
As I understand it, the nuclear option involves re-interpreting the rules, not changing them as such. The presiding officer’s ruling on what a rule means can be upheld or overturned by a majority vote.
You know that in 2013, a majority Democratic Senate eliminated the filibuster for all nominees except the Supreme Court, right? Since your prior paragraph just mentioned it?
So deductively, you might reach the conclusion that there is some way to do it without a 2/3rds vote, yes? You might conclude that the Trumpists will do whatever the Reid majority did?
IIRC, there was some “Gang of Senators” from both parties which could yield a cloture vote of 3/5 (if not 2/3). I thought the “Gang” agreed to Reid’s compromise … but I’m likely wrong.
BTW, I notice that you posted primarily to insult my skill at legalisms —
“You know … Since your prior paragraph just mentioned it … So deductively, you might reach the conclusion … yes? You might conclude”
You do not, however, deign to respond when I post specific questions in other threads directed at your own ignorances and faulty logic.
Yes, you’ve confused two different events, and two different standards for supermajorities to boot.
The Gang of 14 avoided the nuclear option in 2005. This was when the Republicans were in the majority, and the Democrats under Reid were filibustering ten judicial nominees from George W Bush.
In response to these “unprecedented” Democratic filibusters, the Republican Senate leadership under Bill Frist threatened to detonate the nuclear option and remove the filibuster by majority vote.
But moderates from each party - seven Democrats and seven Republicans - sought to avoid this. The seven GOP senators could withhold their vote from the nuclear option causing it to fail; the seven Democrats could withhold their vote from sustaining the filibuster, causing it to end. Thus, the “Gang of 14,” was in a position to enable or frustrate either side.
They agreed amongst themselves that the Democrats would agree to no longer filibuster judicial nominees “except in extraordinary circumstances,” and the Republicans would not trigger the bomb. Three of the nominees had withdrawn; the bulk of the others were confirmed. Henry Saad and William Gary Myers were the only two rejected.
That was in 2005.
In 2013, it was the Democrats in the majority, and the Republicans filibustering. The Democrats under Reid exercised the nuclear option, sustaining a ruling from the chair that ended the filibuster rule for judicial nominees (except Supreme Court nominees).
A brief explanation about the supermajorities: changing the Senate Rules requires a 2/3 majority (67), by Senate Rules. Ending a filibuster (by Senate Rule) requires a 3/5ths majority (60).
The “nuclear option” forces a change with only 51, by exploiting a parliamentary maneuver related to sustaining a ruling from the chair. A challenge to the 3/5ths rule is made, claiming that the 3/5ths rule is unconstitutional. The chair rules it is, in fact, unconstitutional, since the Constitution grants unreviewable power to each house of Congress to make its own rules, which means by simple majority only. That decision of the chair is challenged, and the rules provide that a simple majority sustains it. That’s what happened in 2013.
Democrat rank-and-file advocated for Harry Reid to make the Republicans have real filibusters rather than procedural ones. I am non-partisan on this issue. Regardless of the party, if you want to filibuster you need to actually speak.
Not exactly. For a pro-forma session to be considered not a recess, it must be able to conduct business. Have one Democratic Senator there to make a Call of the House and all Senators unless excused MUST attend the session. Again, the point is to inconvenience the Pubs so they stop playing games.
Annybody here think Gorsuch’s recently disclosed plagiarism will present a major obstacle? From what I’ve seen so far, it doesn’t seem egregious enough to me. Link: Reports Raise Question of Plagiarism in Neil Gorsuch Writings | Snopes.com
Not I. Originality is critically important for academics and poets. Judges based most of their work on precedence, and being right is a lot more important than being original.
And none of the stuff he’s accused of plagiarizing even looks like its intended to be original. It’s a dull recitation of facts, not opinion.
I’m not a Gorsuch fan, but I can’t get excited about this.
I agree-- none of the stuff he’s accused of plagiarizing even looks like its intended to be original. It’s a dull recitation of facts, not opinion.
Apart from which, the person he’s supposedly “plagiarizing” came out with a statement that said it was not plagiarism.
What plagiarism? Someone in the Democrat collective makes an unsubstantiated claim, and then expects like-minded cohorts to repeat the claim ad nauseam.
Except:
*Oxford Emeritus Professor John Finnis, who supervised the dissertation, said:
None of the allegations has any substance or justification. In all the instances mentioned, Neil Gorsuch’s writing and citing was easily and well within the proper and accepted standards of scholarly research and writing in the field of study in which he and I work.
In her statement, Kuzma said:
I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the ‘Baby/Infant Doe’ case that occurred in 1982. Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language.*
The claim of plagiarism is fake news.
Another vote for “no evidence here for anything that constitutes plagiarism.”
That’s not very relevant unless the other person is some kind of expert on plagiarism, but I still doubt it will matter.
Gorsuch is confirmed. 54-45.
Trump signs the appointment and Gorsuch needs to take his oath of office.
There are no cases to be heard at the Supreme Court in the coming week. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer is a blockbuster religious freedom case that will be heard the following week, on Wednesday April 19. The court will hear a few other cases on the Monday and Tuesday preceding, but none that will attract as much attention as Trinity.
Calling it a “religious freedom” case kinda misses the mark, I feel. The church applied for a grant to replace the gravel on their playground with a recycled rubberized surface, and they were denied because the state determined that they could not give grants from taxpayer funds to churches. Where Gorsuch falls will be telling, though.
Fuck the Republicans, man. Fuck 'em all with the bloody corpse of an aborted fetus. All last year they made a mockery of the Constitution by refusing to debate any of Obama’s nominees, to the extent of holding phantom sessions just to block any chance of a recess appointment, denying the entire country proper SCOTUS functionality, as well as spending the holidays away from their families who they obviously don’t give two shits about. And now they go and pull this nuclear bullshit. It’s no less than I’d expect from these Democracy-hating fuckers, but still fuck 'em.
By the way, I note with curiosity the vote adds up to only 99. Who abstained?
One senator was out recovering from surgery.
This post brings me so much joy. Thank you for sharing.
Rants go in the Pit. Dial it back.
[/moderating]