Senators fear fallout of nuclear option

[corbe]

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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' has already taken place by the Dems for all other appointments.

Is it your belief that if the Dems regain majority that it is sacrosanct for the SC?

That is just plain ill-advised, dangerous and bordering on idiocy/

[Emjay]

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.

Why are you giving up on 2018?  The Dems are in disarray and have no attractive candidate.  Your beloved Trump will not run again.  HOw about a Ted Cruz in 2018?

[Fishrrman]

The Constitution specifies specific instances in which a supermajority is required.

Voting in the Senate (with the stated exceptions of ratifying treaties, convictions for impeachment, and passing proposed Constitutional amendments) IS NOT one of them.

Get rid of the filibuster.
Nuke it.
Send the ashes to the dustbin of history.

I can live with that.
I'll take my chances when the other side wins, which in time they will.

But right now, this is war.
And this time WE have to win.

The old rules don't apply any more, because the OTHER SIDE has made it plain that they won't LET THEM apply.

Well ok... fine.
We'll play their way.
To win.

Even if it means stepping on toes, traditions, and hurting a few feelings.

[the_doc]

The Constitution specifies specific instances in which a supermajority is required.

Voting in the Senate (with the stated exceptions of ratifying treaties, convictions for impeachment, and passing proposed Constitutional amendments) IS NOT one of them.

Get rid of the filibuster.
Nuke it.
Send the ashes to the dustbin of history.

I can live with that.
I'll take my chances when the other side wins, which in time they will.

But right now, this is war.
And this time WE have to win.

The old rules don't apply any more, because the OTHER SIDE has made it plain that they won't LET THEM apply.

Well ok... fine.
We'll play their way.
To win.

Even if it means stepping on toes, traditions, and hurting a few feelings.

Amen.

[bilo]

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.

Harry Reid made it clear that if the Rats are a majority and the POTUS is a Rat they would get rid of the filibuster for the SCOTUS. They just never had to because the Pubs all run around saying "elections have consequences". There is nothing in the constitution setting up a required 60 vote majority. The filibuster is a created rule of the Senate and should be eliminated.

[libertybele]

Why are you giving up on 2018?  The Dems are in disarray and have no attractive candidate.  Your beloved Trump will not run again.  HOw about a Ted Cruz in 2018?

You're right.  I don't see Trump running again; perhaps Pence will run in 2020.  As for the mid terms in 2018, as I stated previously, IF your beloved Trump doesn't deliver on his campaign promises; it's not going to bode well for the party.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

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.

If we could hold the democrats to the same rules I'd agree 100%. But for them to pass things on a 50+1 versus Republicans having to clear 60 votes gives the Democrats the high ground and then some.

[skeeter]

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.

As long as the democrats consider politics above all else while the GOP plays by Marquis of Queensbury Rules then there simply is no other way than with a simple majority to get a constitutionalist on the court.

As far as the future of my family is concerned a SCOTUS that still respects the ascendency of the Constitution is my primary concern, by a longshot.

[XenaLee]

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

I guess I don't see the downside to the GOP using the same option the Dems used to pass ObamaCare.  They didn't suffer any downside.  Why should the GOP?  I don't get it.  If the Dems pull their usual obstructionism, go around them.  Period.

[montanajoe]

I guess I don't see the downside to the GOP using the same option the Dems used to pass ObamaCare.  They didn't suffer any downside.  Why should the GOP?  I don't get it.  If the Dems pull their usual obstructionism, go around them.  Period.

I trust when the Dims regain the majority and the GOP pulls their usual obstructionism you will cheer them on...

In my view the American political system is broken beyond all redemption it just remains to be seen when the final crash into ungovernance will occur. For the young I suspect there is nothing to look forward to politically except the present generation of politicians dying off..and possibly they can rebuild the system that our generation wrecked 

[the_doc]

I trust when the Dims regain the majority and the GOP pulls their usual obstructionism you will cheer them on...

In my view the American political system is broken beyond all redemption it just remains to be seen when the final crash into ungovernance will occur. For the young I suspect there is nothing to look forward to politically except the present generation of politicians dying off..and possibly they can rebuild the system that our generation wrecked 

At the present time, we have to do what we have to do.

I fully understand that there is a downside to doing what we have to do, but we still have to do what we have to do.  I also agree that our system is broken, since even the GOP contingent includes about 200 pretty lousy Congressmen and almost 50 extraordinarily bad Senators.  That being said, it is all the more important for us to do what we have to do.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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 .

Actually, the law is black and white, at least at the Supreme Court level.  We're supposed to have a government of laws, not of men, so objectivity is critical.  Being in the middle politically shiouldn't have anything to do with the interpretation of the law.

[montanajoe]

Actually, the law is black and white, at least at the Supreme Court level.  We're supposed to have a government of laws, not of men, so objectivity is critical.  Being in the middle politically shiouldn't have anything to do with the interpretation of the law.

Actually...no

If the if the law was black and white there would not be any cases on the SC'c annual docket. Hopefully, a SC decision on an issue makes the law black and white but in more cases than not that it doesn't

[Sanguine]

Actually...no

If the if the law was black and white there would not be any cases on the SC'c annual docket. Hopefully, a SC decision on an issue makes the law black and white but in more cases than not that it doesn't

Even where the law is black and white, people's interpretations can be anything but.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Even where the law is black and white, people's interpretations can be anything but.

That's true, but there is no more guarantee of a person who is politically palatable being correct than anyone else.  Frankly, I'd say that's less likely.  Judges are not supposed to consider politics or political views, so whether or not the results they reach are "popular" shouldn't enter into it.

[Sanguine]

That's true, but there is no more guarantee of a person who is politically palatable being correct than anyone else.  Frankly, I'd say that's less likely.  Judges are not supposed to consider politics or political views, so whether or not the results they reach are "popular" shouldn't enter into it.

Correct.  In fact, if one hews closely to the laws the decisions will tend to be more unpopular than popular.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Actually...no

If the if the law was black and white there would not be any cases on the SC'c annual docket.

Laws are written, literally, in black and white.  They are intended to be as objective as possible.  Just because people may either 1) disagree over the interpretation, or (more likely) 2) disagree about the desirability of applying the law as written doesn't change that.  The goal should be to interpret the law as written, not based on what result is the most desirable from a policy perspective.  And you're right -- the goal should also be to provide clarity for future rulings.

But none of those things are more likely to result from "compromising" on Justices.  In fact, "compromising" on Justices makes it more likely that you are going to be appointing Justices based on the politics of the moment rather than on their ability/willingness to even attempt to apply the law as written.  Because what is going to happen moving forward is that Democrats are, every time, going to oppose strict constructionists.  They'll insist on "moderates", which means that we are surrendering at the outset the ability to appoint the only kind of justices who should be on the Court at all.

[montanajoe]

Laws are written, literally, in black and white.  They are intended to be as objective as possible.  Just because people may either 1) disagree over the interpretation, or (more likely) 2) disagree about the desirability of applying the law as written doesn't change that.  The goal should be to interpret the law as written, not based on what result is the most desirable from a policy perspective.  And you're right -- the goal should also be to provide clarity for future rulings.

But none of those things are more likely to result from "compromising" on Justices.  In fact, "compromising" on Justices makes it more likely that you are going to be appointing Justices based on the politics of the moment rather than on their ability/willingness to even attempt to apply the law as written.  Because what is going to happen moving forward is that Democrats are, every time[, going to oppose strict constructionists.  They'll insist on "moderates", which means that we are surrendering at the outset the ability to appoint the only kind of justices who should be on the Court at all.

Damm I guess everyone needs to congratulate the Dims for showing us all the way. As always the Dims are far ahead of the GOP, all the GOP Senators opposing this in 2014 have been shown to be wrong, thank god for the Dims for showing the hapless GOP the proper way to confirm Justices...

As I stated before, the only logical outcome of this foolishness by the politicians of both parties is to ultimately end up with a SC filled by political hacks whose only allegiance is to the political party that appointed them and whatever brand of BS they are pushing at the time. The politicians of this generation have successfully destroyed the legislative branch and given a few years their destruction of the judicial branch will be complete.

With a majority vote there is simply no reason to have any concern for a nominees qualification at all..twenty years from now "strict constitutionalist" will be a quaint term from a past when laws did mean something...
 

[INVAR]

what is going to happen moving forward is that Democrats are, every time, going to oppose strict constructionists.  They'll insist on "moderates", which means that we are surrendering at the outset the ability to appoint the only kind of justices who should be on the Court at all.

If find it curious that you could say this with a straight face over court picks, but deny that very same thing when it comes to surrendering at the outset, government-run healthcare which you insist we have to compromise on.

This is what compromise gets you my friend.  Permanent Statism.

[geronl]

Why are you giving up on 2018?  The Dems are in disarray and have no attractive candidate.  Your beloved Trump will not run again.  HOw about a Ted Cruz in 2018?

?

There is no Presidential race in 2018. Trump is threatening to primary conservative members of his own party, which will help the Democrats.

[geronl]

If find it curious that you could say this with a straight face over court picks, but deny that very same thing when it comes to surrendering at the outset, government-run healthcare which you insist we have to compromise on.

This is what compromise gets you my friend.  Permanent Statism.

I had a similar reaction. On one thread he preaches compromise and moving to the left and another he says we must stand firm and fight to the nth degree

[Frank Cannon]

Let's not panic people. McConnell knows how to handle fall out.....

[libertybele]

Let's not panic people. McConnell knows how to handle fall out.....

That's what most of us are afraid of ...Turtle Power!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

At the present time, we have to do what we have to do.

I fully understand that there is a downside to doing what we have to do, but we still have to do what we have to do.

can you explain the downside?

If you say we keep the filibuster now and expect the Dems will honor it in future, that is almost delusional.

The Dems already broke it for all other than SC appointees, so no reason to expect it too to not be broken by them.