It shows that the Democrats are doing everything they can to oppose Trump’s agenda. That’s what the vast majority of Democrats that I know and speak to want them to do. And in the long run, they/we see the loss of the filibuster as both inevitable and a good thing.
(post shortened)
Are you referring to the passage of ACA/Obamacare?
Or the “promise” to replace it?
I was referring to the comment I quoted in my post that was right above my words. You do understand how the quote function works on this board right?
For instance this reply is referring to your comment which is quoted above.
Make sense?
I don’t know for sure, but I don’t see how the answer could possibly matter. Once the Republicans nuke it, they won’t try to reset the rule back to 60, and once the Democrats are back in the majority, they won’t either. It’ll be 50 votes for SCOTUS nominations from here on out.
Soon it will be 51 for everything, I expect. Why would the legislative filibuster survive? And good riddance, IMO (at least until the political atmosphere changes substantively).
Could a Senator submit the nomination to the Senate, or the Judiciary Committee, without McConnell’s consent?
If it was really all the Democrats and a few Republicans who wanted Garland, could they have done something to bring it about? I assume Biden was President of the Senate in 2016, and I doubt he would have ruled such a motion out of order, or whatever it would be.
Regards,
Shodan
Nah, Graham’s a hypocrite too.
He signed onto this.
I’m no expert on Senate rules, but here’s how I think that plays out. Let’s skip the committee since we’re imagining a world in which they change the rules anyway, so they can also avoid the rule that a nomination has to go through the committee.
Republican collaborator X, who we’ll call Schmusan Callins, makes a motion on the floor to confirm Judge Garland. This is ruled out of order by whatever Republican Senator is presiding over that session (not the VP), for any number of reasons, including that it’s not on the calendar, etc. Sen. Callins then makes a motion to appeal the ruling(s) of the chair. If that motion carries 50 votes, then it wins. Then they take the vote on Garland. They can follow the same procedure to kill the filibuster, if need be.
AFAIK, that’s possible. But it obviously requires a whole hell of a lot more than just having a few Republican Senators agree to vote for Garland. They also have to agree to wreck at least a few other rules of the Senate, and stick their thumbs in the eyes of their co-partisans.
I agree. That’s the way the things appear to be headed. Maybe it’ll be during Trump’s administration when Republicans have something they really want to pass (I suspect Democrats will filibuster most / all legislation during Trump’s administration) or in the next Dem president’s administration when the shoe is on the other foot and Republicans are filibustering most everything.
Reid used the nuclear option after the GOP filibustered 79 Obama nominees. McConnell decides to go nuclear the first time the Democrats try it. But tell me again how the Republicans are the adults in the room.
Originally Posted by Airbeck
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?
Still sounds like the passage of ACA/Obamacare.
Still sounds like you don’t understand how to figure out what a post is responding to.
Once again, its referring to what is in the quote above it.
Let me know if you are still unclear on this.
He’s being clever. Remember when Obama said “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” He is claiming that that was a brazen lie of the same sort that McConnell would be stuck in if he had to walk back his words that he would refuse to even meet with a candidate nominated by Obama.
It’s that whole both sides do it false equivalence that is pretty much the only argument I have seen that defends this sort of behavior. Not that it’s a good argument, or that it’s a strong argument, but it is pretty much the only argument left.
I know what he’s doing. I’m just refusing to play his game.
I made no error. You’re just unhappy that I don’t agree with every golden nugget that falls out of your head. That entire paragraph above is nothing more than what I said, tilting your head sideways and squinting just right to come up with some bullshit that we’re all supposed to respond to with obsequiousness because the “adult” Republicans are coming up with it.
The Republicans blowing off hearings altogether for anybody Obama would have nominated was a blatant, craven, political-show-pony move, pissing all over the spirit of the rules of the senate, that falls just short, morally, of “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you!” and in light of that, their bitching about filibustering now is entirely hypocritical. And no self-inflated Republican is going to convince me otherwise just because what their boys did wasn’t illegal.
Not to mention the weakness of, “there is no rule stating there must be hearings.” The forefathers put this shit together with the idea that the President would nominate a judge and the Senate would provide advice and consent and then vote him in or out … but, whoops, they forgot to mention that the best way of going about all that is done through hearings (although the congresses for the previous 200 or so years managed to figure it out easily enough without being micromanaged), so *boing *- loophole! Not holding hearings - perfectly acceptable because it isn’t explicitly laid out in the Constitution. We’ll just *call *that advice and consent and no one will be the wiser.
It’s nakedly craven. Anything to get their way, with no shame whatsoever.
I actually don’t see all that many Republicans “bitching about” the filibuster. They mostly seem resigned to it and resigned to what they’ll have to do to overcome it.
So you are an originalist now? OK, I’ll take your word for it - please produce the evidence that shows that the Founding Fathers thought holding hearings was the best way to provide advice and consent. And why they said explicitly that the Senate could set its own rules instead of spelling it out.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you know what the Senate did after Johnson nominated Henry Stanbery to the Supreme Court? You’ll notice the Senate did not vote on him. How does that their tactic square with your vision of the “forefathers?”