- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What are the negatives of using the nuclear option on Supreme Court picks?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:00 pm
I don't know much about it. What is the reason people don't want to use it?
14
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:01 pm to PrimeTime Money
Mitch McConnell is afraid of appearing to be an alpha
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:01 pm to PrimeTime Money
No problems here. Knock yourselves out.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:02 pm to PrimeTime Money
Same negative the Dems are now reaping for what they sowed when they used it for federal officers and lower court appointments. Eventual reciprocity.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:02 pm to PrimeTime Money
Bc SCOTUS picks are IMPORTANT & should have full Congressional approval, not just 1 party but since the Dems shite all over that notion.....frick them in the arse!!!!
Nuke 'em!
Nuke 'em!
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:04 pm to PrimeTime Money
Hard to get the radiation out of the carpet
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:04 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
Same negative the Dems are now reaping for what they sowed when they used it for federal officers and lower court appointments. Eventual reciprocity.
Is nobody in the Senate familiar with game theory?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:05 pm to Navytiger74
Yeah but if the Republicans use it, how would it backfire? The one person to replace is a Republican, and all of the others who are near giving up their seat are Democrats right?
So at worst a Republican is replaced by a Republican and Democrats are replaced by Democrats.
But if one of the Dems croak or retire, the Republicans can pick up another seat.
Is that right or am I off?
So at worst a Republican is replaced by a Republican and Democrats are replaced by Democrats.
But if one of the Dems croak or retire, the Republicans can pick up another seat.
Is that right or am I off?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:07 pm to PrimeTime Money
Its not something I like.
What goes around comes around. Dems will one day have all the power again, and they can get in some crazy lunatic leftist.
What goes around comes around. Dems will one day have all the power again, and they can get in some crazy lunatic leftist.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:07 pm to joshnorris14
quote:Probably.
Is nobody in the Senate familiar with game theory?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:08 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
Is nobody in the Senate familiar with game theory?
Yeah. I'm sure none of them passed a 200 level Pol class.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:11 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:It will no doubt be to their short-term advantage (as it was for Harry Reid and crew) but it's tough to game out. One the precedent is set it will inevitably bite both parties in the arse until some firmer rule is put into place to rein in the "nuclear" option altogether.
Yeah but if the Republicans use it, how would it backfire? The one person to replace is a Republican, and all of the others who are near giving up their seat are Democrats right?
So at worst a Republican is replaced by a Republican and Democrats are replaced by Democrats.
But if one of the Dems croak or retire, the Republicans can pick up another seat.
Is that right or am I off?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:13 pm to PrimeTime Money
is there anything that stops them from changing supreme court noms to simple majority while hes in office and then changing back in a couple years(perhaps even making much harder to change again)?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:14 pm to Rebelgator
To Josh's point, the threat is a very real bargaining chip, but it gets sticky if the Dems call the bluff. I don't think anyone wants SCOTUS justices to be confirmed by 51 votes.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:16 pm to PrimeTime Money
Negatives? The need for a boat to nagivate in a world flooded with liberal tears. On the other hand, it might be nice to take up sailing. I need a new hobby.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:22 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Hahahaha
At anybody who thinks won't do it the first time they need to regardless of what the reps do now anyway
Besides republicans roll over anyway
At anybody who thinks won't do it the first time they need to regardless of what the reps do now anyway
Besides republicans roll over anyway
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:25 pm to PrimeTime Money
Nuclear option wont be needed, there are too many Dem Senators up for re-election in Red States. Especially if the Nominee was confirmed by unanimously to the lower courts.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:25 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
is there anything that stops them from changing supreme court noms to simple majority while hes in office and then changing back in a couple years(perhaps even making much harder to change again)?
The fact that each chamber is the sole determiner of its rules ("Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"--Article I, Section 5), and as such can change them whenever. So whenever the other party takes over (and it will happen eventually) the rules will change.
This post was edited on 1/30/17 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:26 pm to gthog61
quote:
At anybody who thinks won't do it the first time they need to regardless of what the reps do now anyway
This is why they should just go ahead and change the rules. The Dems won't hesitate to change the rules when they need to.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 1:32 pm to PrimeTime Money
It was never a law only a rule as to how the senate fulfilled it's role on advice and consent on judicial appointees.
At one time the senate rules required 2/3rds. They changed the rules to 3/5ths(60 votes) under the request of Woodrow Wilson. They can easily change the senate rules to a simple majority if they so wish.
At one time the senate rules required 2/3rds. They changed the rules to 3/5ths(60 votes) under the request of Woodrow Wilson. They can easily change the senate rules to a simple majority if they so wish.
This post was edited on 1/30/17 at 1:33 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News