Schumer Urges Filibuster to Block Gorsuch Confirmation

[Miller]

Representatives Represent: The Best Rap Battles from C-SPAN

[Bricker]

@DrDeth

representatives represent

Yes. Well done. Representatives represent.

And, I suppose, senators senate?

So all we need to do is chase down the last part, “the base.”

Your definition is missing the part about the base.

Perhaps representatives represent the electorate, and not so much the base. Could that be?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

Perhaps representatives represent the electorate, and not so much the base. Could that be?

What do you mean by “represent” in the phrase “represent the electorate”?

[Johnny_Ace]

@Bricker

What rules of debate are you thinking of?

And of course, your second paragraph ignores the fact that Shodan’s comment did not arise as original argument, but in response to a claim that the base’s attitude was favorable towards Garland.

You cannot transform the burden of proof by denying his denial.

Can you explain where, and how, you studied debate?

Yet more excuses and evasion, and you’re not even really the one it’s directed at.

I actually was on the debate team at a nationally- (hell, internationally-) respected university. I know formal debate. The fact is that if you said “Wrong!” and provided no evidence the judges would skewer you for it. You can cite all you want, that is the fact.

Bottom line, regardless, the tactic is bullshit and unfair. If you have something to say, fucking support it.

[Johnny_Ace]

Btw, Bricker, why are you making excuses for Shodan? Can’t he speak for himself?

[John_Mace]

@Johnny_Ace

Btw, Bricker, why are you making excuses for Shodan? Can’t he speak for himself?

When you were on the internationally recognized debate team, did the judges care who made a particular argument? If not, what difference does it make here?

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

What do you mean by “represent” in the phrase “represent the electorate”?

I mean that in a democratic republic, the elected legislators exercise their authority as proxy for the will of the voting public.

[Bricker]

@Johnny_Ace

Btw, Bricker, why are you making excuses for Shodan? Can’t he speak for himself?

What relevance does that have?

[Bricker]

@Johnny_Ace

I know formal debate. The fact is that if you said “Wrong!” and provided no evidence the judges would skewer you for it. You can cite all you want, that is the fact.

But I did cite. Where’s your contrary cite? Your post is your cite? Based on your experience at a famous university?

If you believe that a rhetor could offer an unsupported claim, and the one penalized would be the opponent who (equally unsupported) said, “Wrong,” then I must conclude that you were the water boy for the debaters.

[Bone]

As interesting as a discussion about debate etiquette and protocol, judging for points, and the stack rank of team members, I can’t see how it’s related to Gorsuch, Schumer, or a filibuster. This is not an official directive, but please consider moving on from these not even tangentially related distractions.

[Johnny_Ace]

One final comment before I return you to the original topic of discussion. Getting a single cite (which still isn’t forthcoming) has been like pulling teeth.

I find it hilarious that people are using sham legalism to justify the argument equivalent of Ding Dong Ditch. And here’s the punchline: only one of them went up and rang the doorbell, and he’s off hiding in the bushes.

But hey, you got away with it, the doorbell rang, and you didn’t get caught. You da men!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Falchion

RFRA didn’t amend the First Amendment, and you know it. It interprets federal statutory and administrative law. It does not apply, for example, to the states.

It modifies the government’s burden of proof in First Amendment cases. It is effectively an amendment, even if is only a statute. And it is only not applicable to the states because SCOTUS wouldn’t allow it.

[aldiboronti]

I’ve just been reading about the actual Senate procedure for all this on Fox. Wow, it’s complex!

For a change in Senate precedent (it wouldn’t be a rule change) the following would have to happen. The Senate Judiciary Committee meets today to vote the nomination out of committee and on to the floor of the Senate. On Tuesday debate would begin and on that day McConnell would file a cloture petition to end debate. Such petitions require an intervening day before a vote can be taken so the vote to end the filibuster would probably be on Thursday. If Gorsuch doesn’t get 60 votes that’s when it gets interesting.

From a procedural standpoint, the Senate must be in what’s called a “non-debatable” posture. In other words, a failed cloture vote is just that. There’s no more debate. This parliamentary cul-de-sac is important because it’s practically the only procedural locus where McConnell could initiate the nuclear option. Any other parliamentary disposition prevents McConnell from going nuclear. But this unique place – following a failed cloture vote – is practically throbbing with political isotopes.

Bizarrely McConnell could switch his vote to halt debate so he winds up on the “prevailing side” of the cloture vote. That’s because the Democrats would have ‘won’ and only someone on the winning side has the right to call for a revote on the same issue. And that’s when the big red button is pushed.

All he has to do is to make a point of order that the Senate only needs a simple majority to end debate on a Supreme Court nominee.

Naturally, whichever GOP senator is presiding over the chamber would rule against McConnell. After all, that’s not the precedent. But McConnell would then appeal that ruling, forcing another vote. At that stage, the Senate is voting to sustain the ruling of the presiding officer. But if 51 senators vote no, the Senate has rebuked the chair’s ruling and set a new precedent. Only 51 yeas are then necessary to break a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee.

That is the nuclear option.

And I thought British Parliamentary procedure was complicated!

(Apologies if this is explained elsewhere in the thread. I may well have missed it.)

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It modifies the government’s burden of proof in First Amendment cases. It is effectively an amendment, even if is only a statute. And it is only not applicable to the states because SCOTUS wouldn’t allow it.

It modifies the standard of review applied to federal law and administrative actions that impinge on the exercise of religion.

It would be unusual today to hear that SCOTUS did not allow the First Amendment to be applied to the states.

The RFRA is not the same thing as the “First Amendment,” and it would be better if you just said, “Yeah, fair enough; I was using ‘First Amendment,’ as a convenient shorthand way to note the way religious exercise under federal law was affected, because most people recognize ‘First Amendment’ more readily than ‘RFRA.’”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

Right. They are less biased, but I don’t agree the difference is significant.

In this judgement, I include blatant examples like the editorial positions taken about the filibuster over the years (“Now is the perfect moment for them to unite with like-minded Democrats to get rid of an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose,” when Clinton was President and Republicans were the minority Senate party; “The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out,” when Bush was President and the Democrats were the minority Senate party; and then right back to “From now on, if any senator tries to filibuster a presidential nominee, that filibuster can be stopped with a simple majority, not the 60-vote requirement of the past. That means a return to the democratic process of giving nominees an up-or-down vote, allowing them to be either confirmed or rejected by a simple majority. . . . This vote was long overdue,” when Obama was President and the GOP once again in the minority.)

Eloquent defenses of each position, tailored to fit the needs of the Democrats. Yes, they are less biased than Fox, but not significantly so.

I don’t think its fair to compare NYT editorials with the news portion of Fox News.

NYT shows bias from time to time and the political leanings of the reporters leak through from time to time but its nothing like Fox News or even the Washington Times.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@k9bfriender

You most certainly misunderstood what I wrote.

You are correct in that it isn’t comedy, in that it’s not really very funny, but my point was that it is not news, and yet, many of it’s viewers, including Trump, think that it is. Regardless of their opinion on a political matter, they base their conclusions on fact that are demonstrably false. Facts that they got from Fox News. Facts that they thought were true, because they got them from a “News” channel. And these are the same people who say they can’t trust “lamestream” media sources like NBC because Brian Williams got fired for lying, or Dan Rather got fired for publicizing some documents that turned out to be fake. The fact that O’reilly hasn’t been fired, and these other journalists have, bolsters o’reilly and Fox’s credibility in their minds, even though, if you look at the actual facts of the matter, it should be exactly the other way around.

Limbaugh has no more obligation to be neutral and factual that Maddow. Some Maddow viewers think Maddow is news.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It modifies the government’s burden of proof in First Amendment cases. It is effectively an amendment, even if is only a statute. And it is only not applicable to the states because SCOTUS wouldn’t allow it.

In what way is it like an amendment? Congress may repeal RFRA, it may exclude laws from RFRA, it may amend RFRA. Congress cannot do any of that with a constitutional amendment.

[RTFirefly]

Lindsey Graham: "I find ironic and sad that we’re going to change the rules over somebody who has lived such a good life, who has been such a good judge for such a long time.”

Sen. Graham, your praise for Judge Garland is duly and sarcastically noted. Maybe you should have demanded that the Senate act on his nomination last year, because then we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

[Jack_Batty]

Listening to all these Republicans stepping up to the mic to complain about Gorsuch being filibustered, with phrasing like, “the American people expect an up and down vote,” and accusing Democrats of political theater, as if Merrick Garland never existed, is making my fucking blood boil. I haven’t screamed, “go fuck yourself!” at my TeeVee this much since the last Giants/Patriots Superbowl.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Jack_Batty

Listening to all these Republicans stepping up to the mic to complain about Gorsuch being filibustered, with phrasing like, “the American people expect an up and down vote,” and accusing Democrats of political theater, as if Merrick Garland never existed, is making my fucking blood boil. I haven’t screamed, “go fuck yourself!” at my TeeVee this much since the last Giants/Patriots Superbowl.

If it helps, it looks like the norm going forward is going to be that Presidents only get SCOTUS confirmations when their own party controls the Senate, so soon Obama’s Garland nomination won’t be a unique exception so much as just the first nomination under the new norms.