That’s your prerogative, however you made a statement that’s false. If you decline to defend it it’s your choice.
The error you made is one that many have made so you’re not treading new ground at least. When you say that there are well worn rules, etc. it’s not about the rules of cloture or what page they may be on. You are describing the Republican senate declining to hold hearings at all, no? That’s why you say, “…and just not even hold hearings” That isn’t about cloture so the lack of page reference is a red herring. No, the error you made is believing that there is a rule that there must be hearings. You accuse Republicans of “making up a reason” to avoid the rules - but there is no rule they were avoiding.
The Republican senate may very well have made up a reason, for political cover, as a rationalization, etc. - but it was not to avoid “the rules” because there were not avoiding any rule. That is, unless you can cite these rule(s)? The problem for your position is that you can’t.
The problem, Jack Batty, is that you’re arguing from the spirit of the rules, and from common sense. Bricker and the others, knowing that the actions of the Republican Senators are indefensible from any rational standpoint, are choosing to argue from the most specific letter of their interpretation of the law.
To my knowledge, there is no rule codified anywhere saying that the president cannot decide to nuke Moscow in a unilateral first strike. I suppose you have no real problem with the president taking that course of action, then?
As I keep going on and on and on, norms matter. Unwritten rules that help make a system that doesn’t work very well in theory work better in practice. For example, the filibuster is a terrible idea if it becomes the go-to tool for any form of governance, a way to ensure that government grinds to a halt. However, there was a norm in place that made it politically unwelcome to filibuster everything, which meant that the filibuster still served far more reasonable purposes - a check on potentially extreme policies the majority tried to push through along partisan lines. That’s a good idea, and you know what? For a long-ass time, it worked. The US constitutional system is horribly broken in a lot of ways that are incompatible with hardline party discipline, and a system of norms helps ensure that those cracks and breaks don’t get to the point where they utterly destroy the system. They also have the substantial advantage over laws that there can be grey areas, that they can be a little unclear. A norm against watching porn in congress would not have to “define” pornography in the way a law does, and any law trying to limit how often a party could filibuster would not serve the same purpose as a norm, as such a hard line could easily be abused.
The only reason to ignore these norms, or pretend they don’t matter, is because you know that within the framework of those norms, what your party has done is indefensible. In other words, I totally cosign galen ubal’s post.
The only rule that matters can be found in the Constitution Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, which states:
Robert’s Rules of Order, cloture, and page numbers not relevant.
It’s the same reason it was silly for some Democrats to insist that the Republicans were somehow “breaking the rules” by not holding a hearing for Judge Garland.
There are liberal lawyers on the board, and I’m sure one of them could step in and list the rule you mention.
If it existed.
And of course I think I’m right about everything. If I thought I were wrong, I’d change my belief. In fact, the purpose of these discussions is for others to advance reasons that show me where I’m wrong, as they did when I defended the idea that there was a War on Christmas. Turns out I was wrong, and I changed my mind. Now I’m right: there is no fair reason to characterize events as a war on Christmas.
Admitting error and changing beliefs as a result is an approach I recommend to everyone. Especially you.
Sorry if this is a hijack, but what is the process for reinstating the filibuster for Supreme Court justices if the GOP does go nuclear? Is it another simple majority rule change to go back?
Yes. It’s a problem for a President that wants to be able to appoint the justice he wants.
Their words were clear; I am arguing that their actual intentions didn’t match those words, illustrated by my hypothetical about the nomination of Pryor.
So you support a party that brazenly lies about its intentions because it will help you get what you want? End justifies the means then? Just want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
Somehow I thought America was founded on better ideals than that, but maybe I’m wrong and it really is just about fucking everyone else over to get what you want.
That didn’t seem like a tantrum to me. It seemed like a cynical, partisan departure from norms in order to prevent a sitting President his power to nominate justices in order to prevent a shift in the balance of the Supreme Court.
What the Democrats are doing is somewhere between justice and revenge. And its about time.
Why not?
When was the last time has a supreme court nominee been successfully filibustered? I’m not talking about Ted Cruz or Rand Paul getting up there and reading the phone book for 2 hours for a CSPAN photo op while everyone goes to lunch. I mean a nominee being denied an up or down vote by 41 senators? I think the Democrats should absolutely filibuster and The Republicans should absolutely abolish the 41 vote rule, however I think they should preserve the talking filibuster so that as long as Democrats are willing to man the floor 24 hours/day; seven days/week; 52 weeks/year, then sure, they can hold things up for as long as their stamina or political capital carries them.
I get the feeling that there is nothing the Republicans would say that would make you say “well, gee, you make a lot of sense, I agree with you now” Right now the Democrats probably have a slim moral advantage on their side but its not as one sided as you make out. If the Republicans nuke the filibuster, the moral advantage widens. If they nuke the silent filibuster but maintain the talking filibuster, they might regain moral high ground. YMMV
Gorsuch is confirmable nominee, almost as confirmable as Garland but Garland was a compromise nominee. I don’t know any lawyers or serious legal scholars who disagree unless they are extremely partisan.
If it motivates and energizes Democratic voters (which would be required for Democrats to have a chance to win Congress in 2018), then it will have been successful. And, IMO, the loss of the filibuster in the long term greatly helps Democratic priorities.
The reason they bring Lindsay Graham up there is because he has in fact always voted for cloture on every qualified nominee regardless of who nominated them and vote to confirm every qualified nominee regardless of who nominated them. The Republican leadership may not be able to say these things without being hypocrites but Lindsay Graham can. So we can an should point out how hypocritical Republicans are but not Lindsay Graham specifically. He met with Garland and would have voted for cloture and he would have voted to confirm Merrick Garland. In my view, he is less of a hypocrite on this particular issue than most.
Wait. You don’t think there was an abuse of the filibuster during the Obama administration? Sure the Democrats are abusing the filibuster now but that I in response to the merrick garland nomination. What was the justification of the Republican filibusters other than partisanship?
Yes but Merrick garland is plenty of moral justification for blocking Gorsuch. What was the moral justification for blocking merrick garland? The only real justification was that Republicans didn’t want to let Obama shift the balance of the court and they were willing to do whatever the fuck it took to prevent Obama from shifting the balance of the court.
2013 was morally justified by the abuse of the filibuster by Republicans. What was the moral justification for all those filibusters? Wasn’t it almost pure partisanship?
I’d be opposed to a unilateral first strike. I am also opposed to errors of fact. That is a norm of this board, if I am not mistaken. Will you join me in calling out the error that Jack made?
I don’t really pass for a liberal around here but I play one in real life. I would be willing to see the balance of the court shift from time to time, sometimes for me and sometimes against me to preserve rule of law and insulate the judiciary from politics as much as possible. We have seen more civil rights advancement from an independent judiciary than any country has ever seen from a politicized one.
