SCOTUS Potential Filibuster

[marshallnoise]

I don't like either of them either, and haven't for a long time, what's your reasoning?

I also think the nomination process is just a chance for various politicians to circle-jerk each other and enhance their celebrity. Should just be an up or down vote, it's all along party lines at this point anyway, why waste anyone's time trying to "investigate credentials"

Maybe I'm cynical about it, but I just don't see the point in any of it.

I agree with you about the nomination process. It is a circle-jerk.

McConnell and Ryan are establishment, big government, elite "r"epublicans. They don't like Trump because he is an outsider. So they are blocking shit every opportunity.

[mbonder]

I don't like either of them either, and haven't for a long time, what's your reasoning?

I also think the nomination process is just a chance for various politicians to circle-jerk each other and enhance their celebrity. Should just be an up or down vote, it's all along party lines at this point anyway, why waste anyone's time trying to "investigate credentials"

Maybe I'm cynical about it, but I just don't see the point in any of it.

[marshallnoise]

Meh. I am sick of hearing about the worthless filibuster. Good riddance.

Simple majority is what it will be. The ability to prevent a hearing for a nomination should be removed. Complete troll tactic regardless of who is doing it. I hope McConnell gets cancer in his turtle testicles.

I listened to about 12 hours of the complete bullshit that the judiciary committee was dishing out when they were interviewing Gorsuch. It really had less to do with interviewing and more to do with political posturing. The whole process is a farce.

And I don't wish McConnell gets cancer, but I want him gone and I want Ryan gone too. Probably for different reasons than you.

[Dagamus(NM)]

Unless there is consensus on the nominee. There has been a "like for like" replacement strategy. Garland was not a Scalia type judge and it would have shifted the balance of the supreme court. I am thinking that was the logic in not shoving him on through.

Now, if the next one to leave the court is one of the liberal judges, then there will be hellfire from the left. I too am surprised the Dems decided to filibuster on this choice. But its their bed to sleep in.

Meh. I am sick of hearing about the worthless filibuster. Good riddance.

Simple majority is what it will be. The ability to prevent a hearing for a nomination should be removed. Complete troll tactic regardless of who is doing it. I hope McConnell gets cancer in his turtle testicles.

[marshallnoise]

The ultimate consequence of this is that no President will be able to expect to appoint an SC Justice through a Senate not under his/her party's control. Which is fine, but it's just going to be how it is from now on.

Unless there is consensus on the nominee. There has been a "like for like" replacement strategy. Garland was not a Scalia type judge and it would have shifted the balance of the supreme court. I am thinking that was the logic in not shoving him on through.

Now, if the next one to leave the court is one of the liberal judges, then there will be hellfire from the left. I too am surprised the Dems decided to filibuster on this choice. But its their bed to sleep in.

[nrubenstein]

Different situation though. The Dems didn't control congress and thus were in no position to shove it through. The GOP used what tools they had at the time.

So yes, it is less novel.

The ultimate consequence of this is that no President will be able to expect to appoint an SC Justice through a Senate not under his/her party's control. Which is fine, but it's just going to be how it is from now on.

[marshallnoise]

Do you not remember the GOP holding up the nomination of Merrick Garland by refusing to allow it to go to the floor? Are you claiming that that is somehow less novel?

Different situation though. The Dems didn't control congress and thus were in no position to shove it through. The GOP used what tools they had at the time.

So yes, it is less novel.

[Wschnitz]

"Its only ok if my team does it"

[nrubenstein]

The fact that every single SCOTUS judge has been confirmed on a simple majority vote, even the most controversial nominations, like Thomas have all been majority votes. The "nuclear option" would just cement into procedure what has been tradition for the last couple hundred years. This threat of holding up judge noms is mostly a recent thing and pushed largely by Chucky Schumer, who is now pushing it even harder than ever from his new seat of greater influence.

Do you not remember the GOP holding up the nomination of Merrick Garland by refusing to allow it to go to the floor? Are you claiming that that is somehow less novel?

[nrubenstein]

Without the filibuster the senate then becomes mob rule. Clearly the founders wanted the minority to have power in their design. This is short sighted, and once the genie is out of the bottle you cant put it back. Inching closer to banana republic.

THE FILIBUSTER ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING IF USING IT CAUSES IT TO BE REMOVED. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT USING THE FILIBUSTER TO "PRESERVE" IT AND THE MAJORITY KILLING IT OFF TO GET THEIR WAY.

There is no value to a filibuster that can't be used. None whatsoever.

[mrsleeve]

The fact that every single SCOTUS judge has been confirmed on a simple majority vote, even the most controversial nominations, like Thomas have all been majority votes. The "nuclear option" would just cement into procedure what has been tradition for the last couple hundred years. This threat of holding up judge noms is mostly a recent thing and pushed largely by Chucky Schumer, who is now pushing it even harder than ever from his new seat of greater influence.

[naplesE30]

Without the filibuster the senate then becomes mob rule. Clearly the founders wanted the minority to have power in their design. This is short sighted, and once the genie is out of the bottle you cant put it back. Inching closer to banana republic.

[mbonder]

^exactly how I feel about it.

[FredK]

A future nominee could provide the deciding vote to roll back more rulings on social/gender issues, so the political stakes could easily be significantly higher than replacing Scalia.

Point taken, that it would preserve the filibuster for the GOP to use against the Dems should the next SCOTUS justice replacement be left-leaning. That very well could be the way the cookie crumbles.

[nrubenstein]

Interestingly, people thought (Trump included) that all Republicans would vote for the new healthcare bill, and then a portion of them refused to and the bill died.

Preserving the filibuster might be important if we get to an issue where some GOP members can be convinced to join the Dems in whatever they are crusading for (albeit for very different reasons in the case of the healthcare bill). By using the filibuster now they are removing it from their arsenal without actually gaining anything in return (besides saying that they pushed back against Trump's nominee).

That's a thought that I've had about it. I'm just not convinced that Gorsuch is super far right and will push the court to the far right extreme. What makes people believe this is what he will do? I'm honestly searching for information here because I don't know all that much about him.

Once we saw what was in that ridiculous healthcare bill, it became very clear that it was going to struggle in the House and was DOA in the Senate. They certainly *could* have passed something, but it was pretty obvious that the legislation proposed would not pass.

Why do you think that preserving the filibuster accomplishes anything in the case of some future nominee? The most likely result is that it preserves it for the GOP to use against the Democrats next time they are in control.