Senators fear fallout of nuclear option

[mystery-ak]

Senators fear fallout of nuclear option
By Alexander Bolton - 04/03/17 06:00 AM EDT

Senators in both parties are speculating that a blowup over President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court could lead not only to the end of the filibuster for such nominations, but for controversial legislation as well.

While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the legislative filibuster is safe, lawmakers fear that pressure will grow to get rid of it if Democrats block Neil Gorsuch’s nomination this week.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326929-senators-fear-fallout-of-nuclear-option

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The Dems are the ones that should be worried.

This a replacement  for Scalia

The next will be a lot messier if a lib replacement.

[libertybele]

I would certainly hope so.  Reid used this option and now McConnell is saying that he will do the same.  As much as I want to see Gorsuch confirmed, using the nuclear option continues to erode the integrity of the Senate.  If I am understanding the use of the "nuclear option," then a simple majority in the Senate can overrun any rule at any time. 

[libertybele]

The Dems are the ones that should be worried.

This a replacement  for Scalia

The next will be a lot messier if a lib replacement.

How do you figure?  If we lose the majority in 2018, and a justice needs to be replaced, the DEMS will be able to use the nuclear option to put a liberal on the bench.

[INVAR]

How do you figure?  If we lose the majority in 2018, and a justice needs to be replaced, the DEMS will be able to use the nuclear option to put a liberal on the bench.

Did we learn nothing over the last 12 years?

The Marxist Left will do it ANYWAY.

If this is supposedly a 'war' as some of the Trump militant and the GOP loyalists insist - then they ought to act like it.

These are 'rules' that can be changed when needed to advance an important agenda (as the Democrats reminded us) - NOT Constitutional limits on governance.

[Sanguine]

Just do your job guys.  Just do your job.

[Polly Ticks]

When a Democratic president nominates a justice to the USSC, the Senate Republicans follow the law and confirm that person if they believe he/she is qualified for the position, irrespective of whether they agree with that person's personal political views. 

When a Republican president nominates a justice, a large number of Senate Democrats will not vote to confirm based on the judge's assumed personal political views.

It is maddening.  It is time for it to stop.

[Polly Ticks]

Just do your job guys.  Just do your job.

Exactly so.
 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Did we learn nothing over the last 12 years?

The Marxist Left will do it ANYWAY.

If this is supposedly a 'war' as some of the Trump militant and the GOP loyalists insist - then they ought to act like it.

These are 'rules' that can be changed when needed to advance an important agenda (as the Democrats reminded us) - NOT Constitutional limits on governance.

We have learned the GOP are not as good at fighting with their left hands as they think they are.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Just do your job guys.  Just do your job.

Wally from Dilbert would get more done.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[INVAR]

We have learned the GOP are not as good at fighting with their left hands as they think they are.

Or they are complicit.

We do not call them the Uniparty Oligarchy for nothing.

Statism is the goal of both the Democrats AND the GOP Establishment.  What they do best is the shell game that has everyone mesmerized and playing the fantasy sports of politics.

[Sanguine]

Wally from Dilbert would get more done.

That's perfect, @Idaho_Cowboy!

[the_doc]

I would certainly hope so.  Reid used this option and now McConnell is saying that he will do the same.  As much as I want to see Gorsuch confirmed, using the nuclear option continues to erode the integrity of the Senate.  If I am understanding the use of the "nuclear option," then a simple majority in the Senate can overrun any rule at any time.

I think the filibuster rule, generally considered, has always been dubious.  It adds a parliamentary requirement that seems to overrule the intentions of the Framers.  The cloture aspect of the filibuster has tended to confuse people in this regard.  It disguises the Senate's intentions requiring a supermajority to get legislation through the Senate (and it often permits Senators not to go clearly on record against a potentially important law or appointment that they oppose for no very good reason). 

The filibuster was not necessarily an obvious problem in the early days of the Senate, since demanding a strong consensus of States for any new laws actually sounds like a good idea, even if it overrules the perspective of the Frames.  Unfortunately, our long-term sociopolitical deterioration as a nation has made the filibuster a mess of partisanism .  Both parties have loathed the filibuster when they are in power and yet they are hate to see it eliminated (for fear that they would need it when they are out of power). 

I cannot believe that our Framers would like this situation.  For that matter, I think our Framers would despise almost of all of our Congressional legislators.  If we had good lawmakers, filibustering would never become an issue. 

[andy58-in-nh]

Did we learn nothing over the last 12 years?

The Marxist Left will do it ANYWAY.

If this is supposedly a 'war' as some of the Trump militant and the GOP loyalists insist - then they ought to act like it.

These are 'rules' that can be changed when needed to advance an important agenda (as the Democrats reminded us) - NOT Constitutional limits on governance.

Exactly.

They use the fact that conservatives still largely aspire to virtue against us.

Time and again, The Left banks on our essential decency and our sense of honor, knowing well that we are loathe to violate our own standards of conduct simply to win a political victory.

Progressives are not so encumbered. They have no fixed standards or values, except for winning. They also know that no matter how much they lie or cheat, the news media that shares their political ideology will not only refuse to call them out, but quite possibly blame the victims.

The only way to defeat such an adversary is to hit them hard, repeatedly, and without mercy at every point of vulnerability.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

How do you figure?  If we lose the majority in 2018, and a justice needs to be replaced, the DEMS will be able to use the nuclear option to put a liberal on the bench.

The nuclear option only lets the Senate confirm a justice -- it cannot appoint one.  The Dems would need both the Presidency and the Senate to do that.

And the Dems were going to do that anyway as soon as they got control of the Presidency and Senate anyway.  If you know a fight is inevitable, it's always best to get in the first punch.  Preferably a cheap shot.

[Restored]

I would certainly hope so.  Reid used this option and now McConnell is saying that he will do the same.  As much as I want to see Gorsuch confirmed, using the nuclear option continues to erode the integrity of the Senate.  If I am understanding the use of the "nuclear option," then a simple majority in the Senate can overrun any rule at any time.

The Democrats shouldn't have put it in place then. Sux2bthem

[Doug Loss]

I think the filibuster rule, generally considered, has always been dubious.  It adds a parliamentary requirement that seems to overrule the intentions of the Framers.  The cloture aspect of the filibuster has tended to confuse people in this regard.  It disguises the Senate's intentions requiring a supermajority to get legislation through the Senate (and it often permits Senators not to go clearly on record against a potentially important law or appointment that they oppose for no very good reason). 

The filibuster was not necessarily an obvious problem in the early days of the Senate, since demanding a strong consensus of States for any new laws actually sounds like a good idea, even if it overrules the perspective of the Frames.  Unfortunately, our long-term sociopolitical deterioration as a nation has made the filibuster a mess of partisanism .  Both parties have loathed the filibuster when they are in power and yet they are hate to see it eliminated (for fear that they would need it when they are out of power). 

I cannot believe that our Framers would like this situation.  For that matter, I think our Framers would despise almost of all of our Congressional legislators.  If we had good lawmakers, filibustering would never become an issue.

It's also worth noting that what is considered a "filibuster" has changed substantially over the past 25-30 years.  It used to be that a filibuster meant that a senator was speaking non-stop, refusing to relinquish the floor.  After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in the early 1970s under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.  A filibuster no longer requires a senator to hold the floor to prevent a vote on a controversial piece of legislation. Indeed, the modern filibuster requires little more than a simple declaration by a minority of senators that they don’t want a certain legislative proposal to gain passage with anything less than 60 votes.

It's this lack of requirement for any effort on the part of the filibusterer that has led to a proliferation of filibusters and a de facto 60 vote requirement to get any controversial legislation passed.

[geronl]

The Dems are the ones that should be worried.

This a replacement  for Scalia

The next will be a lot messier if a lib replacement.

He'll probably be more like Roberts than Scalia

[Jazzhead]

The Dems' position is unfathomable to me.   Why not keep their powder dry and wait until the next SCOTUS nominee, one who would actually change the balance of the Court rather than just maintain it?   If the Dems wait until a balance-shifting nominee, they'll likely win a few moderate votes to retain the filibuster.  If they insist on filibustering Gorsuch,  it will be solely for the crassest of political reasons and the GOP will twist arms to make sure Gorsuch is approved.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

The Dems' position is unfathomable to me.   Why not keep their powder dry and wait until the next SCOTUS nominee, one who would actually change the balance of the Court rather than just maintain it?   If the Dems wait until a balance-shifting nominee, they'll likely win a few moderate votes to retain the filibuster.  If they insist on filibustering Gorsuch,  it will be solely for the crassest of political reasons and the GOP will twist arms to make sure Gorsuch is approved.

The Dems want a deal in which they agree to not filibuster Gorsuch in exchange for letting them filibuster everything else that comes down the pike.

[Sanguine]

The Dems' position is unfathomable to me.   Why not keep their powder dry and wait until the next SCOTUS nominee, one who would actually change the balance of the Court rather than just maintain it?   If the Dems wait until a balance-shifting nominee, they'll likely win a few moderate votes to retain the filibuster.  If they insist on filibustering Gorsuch,  it will be solely for the crassest of political reasons and the GOP will twist arms to make sure Gorsuch is approved.

They're not used to being out of power and able to throw their weight around.  Old habits die hard.  They're also very angry.  Makes it hard to plot strategically.

[montanajoe]

A nominee having to meet a 60 vote threshold to be confirmed to a life position on the Supreme Court is not a bad policy in my opinion. Having only to need a simple majority will invariably lead to a highly politicized SC with ideologues on both sides and no one in the middle which will further erode confidence in the American institutions of government and speed our decline as a nation. The law is not black and white, it encompasses all the various shades of grey in between the SC needs  that middle ground .

I know many will say the Dims will do it so we should to. Although that's probably true, the GOP will be the party forever tainted with turning the SC into just as dysfunctional of an institution as the Congress. For those who care only about their side winning that obviously not a concern but I still rather naively believe that each generation has an obligation to the succeeding generations.

History has shown repeatedly that majority rule dooms a nation to failure.

[geronl]

The Dems want a deal in which they agree to not filibuster Gorsuch in exchange for letting them filibuster everything else that comes down the pike.

They need to go back when filibusters were real filibusters

[Emjay]

We have learned the GOP are not as good at fighting with their left hands as they think they are.

But, as you see, some people complain and get nervous if they do.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A nominee having to meet a 60 vote threshold to be confirmed to a life position on the Supreme Court is not a bad policy in my opinion. Having only to need a simple majority will invariably lead to a highly politicized SC with ideologues on both sides and no one in the middle which will further erode confidence in the American institutions of government and speed our decline as a nation. The law is not black and white, it encompasses all the various shades of grey in between the SC needs  that middle ground .

I know many will say the Dims will do it so we should to. Although that's probably true, the GOP will be the party forever tainted with turning the SC into just as dysfunctional of an institution as the Congress. For those who care only about their side winning that obviously not a concern but I still rather naively believe that each generation has an obligation to the succeeding generations.

History has shown repeatedly that majority rule dooms a nation to failure.

One can say exactly the same thing on all federal judges.  And yet the Dems already changed the rules to have a simple majority for approval.

The Dems have already removed the 60 vote rule and it is idiocy to believe they will not do so on SCOTUS nominations if they are regrettably "back in charge".