- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Dems to filibuster Gorsuch
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:53 am to UncleFestersLegs
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:53 am to UncleFestersLegs
Just remember, the nuclear option is good when you're in power, bites you if you lose power. Ask Harry Reid and the Dems.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 10:54 am
1
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:54 am to CelticDog
Dems could have pushed Garland through with politic pressure if they really wanted.
Bottom line is y'all thought you were going to win and wanted to replace scalia with a lefty.
You got greedy and lost. Time to pay the piper.
Bottom line is y'all thought you were going to win and wanted to replace scalia with a lefty.
You got greedy and lost. Time to pay the piper.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:56 am to BamaAtl
quote:
taint Gorsuch forever.
Will he not be confirmed by majority vote?
Pretty sure that is all that is required under the Constitution.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:58 am to udtiger
quote:
Pretty sure that is all that is required under the Constitution
It doesn't fit this narrative. The majority only matters in the presidential election. And only when it pertains to their guy.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 10:58 am to Roll Tide Ravens
The dems will use the nuclear option given the chance whether the republicans do it or not.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:00 am to BBONDS25
quote:
The dems will use the nuclear option given the chance whether the republicans do it or not.
That's true.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:00 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
This nomination should be put on hold until the Trump administration is cleared and the dark cloud hovering over the White House is gone.
And after Pence is president, you will hear, we need to wait until a president is elected. Pence was not elected.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:03 am to CelticDog
quote:
And after Pence is president, you will hear, we need to wait until a president is elected. Pence was not elected.
Yes which is exactly what the left is trying to do and why the right needs to tell them to F off.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:05 am to BamaAtl
Are you saying that McConnell will insure that the DEM filibuster is successful? The same McConnell who refused to even give Merrick a hearing? The same McConnell who said that Gorsuch will be confirmed "one way or another"?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:07 am to GFaceKillah
quote:
Only when the other party does it. Otherwise it's justified.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
We have arrived at a time in our nations history where our Constitution is truly hanging by a thread. The correction began in November. Using the tools designed by the adversary, the great correction will put into play, the righting of our Ship of State.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:21 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
But, does the GOP have the balls to use the "nuclear option" to override the filibuster?
quote:
This is the $64 question. Mitch will likely cave and bend over for Chuck Schumer.
If it was about anything else, then I would agree with you. This time is different, because in this case, Mitch already held firm and refused to bend to the political pressure. He already bucked the pressure from the media, democrats, and half the country by refusing to hold a hearing on Garland.
He also has already stated that(even before a nominee was announced) Trump would get his nominee on the court. He also stated that it could be done the easy way or the hard way depending on the path the democrats chose.
Another thing to consider is this is likely Mitch's last term as a senator. He is in the 3rd year of this term and is already 75 years old.
I doubt he plans to run again. Therefore its get his way as majority leader or bust.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 11:28 am
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:21 am to Snazzmeister
quote:
a GOP that does not seem to have the resolve required to get it done. In the end, no one comes out unscathed.
Exactly! But, IMHO, the US electorate will eventually want to go back to quiet placation from Big Government, and they are being conditioned to accept that the only way to return to peaceful placation is to surrender to dumping Trump, the Outrageous Orange Outsider that must be Ousted. How is it that "The Matrix" fans put it? You take the Red Pill to return to peaceful placation and blissful ignorance of what's really the truth? In this case the truth is that the Left are trying to consolidate total political power that cannot be reversed by voting.
Trump will be POTUS for 8 years at the most. An 8 year interruption of this process that's been underway for about 50 years is not a big setback for the Internationalist Left.
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 11:23 am
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:23 am to therick711
quote:
The Republicans could always just use the two-speech rule and bleed the Ds morning, noon, and night until they give up or run out of speeches.
And I think they should invoke this rule first.
Save nuclear option (if at all possible) for (if it happens) Justice Ginsberg's replacement.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:30 am to Quidam65
quote:
And I think they should invoke this rule first. Save nuclear option (if at all possible) for (if it happens) Justice Ginsberg's replacement.
Makes no difference. The leftists will use whatever means necessary the next time they get in power. This is the last chance for those on the other side to slow the tide. The rules are only rules. Made up by the majority. frick the leftists now before they frick all of us!
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:34 am to Quidam65
quote:
And I think they should invoke this rule first.
Save nuclear option (if at all possible) for (if it happens) Justice Ginsberg's replacement.
Is there a limitation on how many nukes may be used in a set period of time?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:35 am to fouldeliverer
Lets all laugh at the idea that the Dems would have let the Republicans filibuster a Scalia replacement if they had been in the majority at the time.
If Republicans cave to this, it will be another nail in the coffin of the GOP.
If Republicans cave to this, it will be another nail in the coffin of the GOP.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:35 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
I think you mean while Bill Clinton was committing perjury and being disbarred.
He was disbarred? I didn't remember that.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:36 am to Loserman
If I were Trump , I would tell Schumer straight up "I won't ask the Senate to go nuclear for Gorsuch, if you fillibuster him, I will withdraw his nomination and choose the most far right candidate I can find, and ask Mitch to go nuclear to get THAT candidate installed."
These Dems are acting like little children and daddy needs to spank their asses and send them to bed without dinner. No more messing around with them.
These Dems are acting like little children and daddy needs to spank their asses and send them to bed without dinner. No more messing around with them.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:37 am to Champagne
quote:
Dude, your side is already engaged in all out ideological war. What do you have in reserve? Assassinations like Putin orchestrates? Your side is doing everything except that at this point.
My side? I'm not a Democrat. Jesus.
The obvious long term consequence is that GOP will no longer be able to filibuster when the Dems control the Senate. This seems unlikely in 2018 as I think 23 of the 33 seats up for election are Democrats. Of those there's 8-10 that come from states that Trump won. (numbers may be slightly off, but that's the gist. But if they lose the Presidency and Senate in 2020 it could really bite them in the arse. Will RBG survive till then? Probably not, so perhaps its worth it.
The other is who will win the war of public perception, and not just what the MSM says, but what actual swing voters believe. Who will people blame? Gorsuch is supremely qualified and very likeable so perhaps they side with the Republicans because they were forced into it. Maybe others will feel like the Dems were justified in the filibuster because of Garland, and that the GOP were unjustified in changing a long standing Senate Rule.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 11:38 am to Themole
quote:
Is there a limitation on how many nukes may be used in a set period of time?
The nuclear option would change the Senate rules to abolish the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Until it is ever changed back (unlikely if they go down that road) there will be no limitations.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News