- 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: MoveOn OUTRAGED over potential Sen Dems deal to confirm Gorsuch
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:27 am to Jbird
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:27 am to Jbird
quote:
Dems would agree not to filibuster Gorsuch in exchange for a GOP promise to keep the filibuster in place for the next opening.
this is some true cuckolgy 101 stuff. If we can only get the dems to start doing what GOP cucks have been doing: worry about tomorrow at the expense of today
then we win
1
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:30 am to KeyserSoze999
I'm not sure why Republicans would take this deal. The BATNA is nuking all nominees through. Why give up your power to slam them all through? Because you want to protect your minority one day. That's a losing fricking attitude.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:35 am to Jbird
GOP shouldn't take this deal.
Democrats are negotiating from a position of weakness and they know that Gorsuch is damn near untouchable at this point and won't upset the balance of the court.
It's just a matter of which 8 democrats are going to be the sacrificial lambs to get past the filibuster.
Democrats are negotiating from a position of weakness and they know that Gorsuch is damn near untouchable at this point and won't upset the balance of the court.
It's just a matter of which 8 democrats are going to be the sacrificial lambs to get past the filibuster.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:36 am to Jbird
It's a shite deal. 100% chance McConnell just goes nuclear on the next pick anyway. If you're not using the filibuster because you're scared they'll nuke it then what good is it?
This post was edited on 3/23/17 at 9:37 am
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:39 am to Loserman
quote:
are incorrect. Thomas will step down before 2018. He will more than likely announce his retirement within the next 6 months.
Hmm, LM...haven't heard that. If that is so, you can bet the farm that the next SC Nominee will be a Black. Probably wouldn't be hard to pick just who Trump is considering; though I (before your point) had assumed that it would be a Black to vie for the Left Wing vacated Seat.
Like the weather up there...constant change.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:41 am to Iosh
quote:Well there is also the idea that Gorsuch isnt a terrible pick to replace Scalia. I know that doesnt matter much to ideologues but it kinda should.
If you're not using the filibuster because you're scared they'll nuke it then what good is it?
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
"we all know he'd never have gotten the nomination (without filibuster, even), and that would have been a much better precedent"
That would have been a tough no vote to cast for Republicans in close states. Garland likely would have done very well in hearings, so a no vote would obviously be pure partisan politics. I think the Republicans did the right thing on this one. The blowback for not holding hearings, given that it was an election year, was not that bad and didn't seem to harm any election results. Plus, the GOP can still stand on the principle that the president's appointee should be given the benefit of the doubt so long as he/she is qualified (though not in an election year!
). Not perfect but preferable to voting down Garland.
And by the way, REJECT the deal on the filibuster. The Dems have ZERO bargaining power; they can cast a nakedly partisan, logic-free vote against an eminently qualified jurist, lose the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, and see him confirmed; or they can vote to confirm and try to take the high road as the far-left rips them a new one. Under no circumstances should they be afforded a better option. Sh*! sandwich or puke pizza should be the only items on the menu.
That would have been a tough no vote to cast for Republicans in close states. Garland likely would have done very well in hearings, so a no vote would obviously be pure partisan politics. I think the Republicans did the right thing on this one. The blowback for not holding hearings, given that it was an election year, was not that bad and didn't seem to harm any election results. Plus, the GOP can still stand on the principle that the president's appointee should be given the benefit of the doubt so long as he/she is qualified (though not in an election year!
). Not perfect but preferable to voting down Garland. And by the way, REJECT the deal on the filibuster. The Dems have ZERO bargaining power; they can cast a nakedly partisan, logic-free vote against an eminently qualified jurist, lose the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, and see him confirmed; or they can vote to confirm and try to take the high road as the far-left rips them a new one. Under no circumstances should they be afforded a better option. Sh*! sandwich or puke pizza should be the only items on the menu.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:50 am to therick711
agreed; if they wanted to be like the dems, then take the deal and renig, but they would never do that either
the best thing is to use the REID RULE today and get rid of the filibuster on SCOTUS and policy votes. Truth is that the cucks like having the 'we need 60 excuse'
the best thing is to use the REID RULE today and get rid of the filibuster on SCOTUS and policy votes. Truth is that the cucks like having the 'we need 60 excuse'
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:51 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The only possible positive I can see is that RBG might see the filibuster option as a means to ensure another Conservative originalist doesn't make it to the court and thus might increase her likelihood of stepping down before she's carried out.
Another thing to consider is the possibility the the GOP picks up a few more senate seats in 2018. Many of the (D) seats that are up for election then are in districts or states that went for Trump.
A filibuster threat wont matter if there are 60+ GOP senators.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:54 am to Loserman
quote:
Problem is their plan didn't work out. Hillary lost and they didn't get control of the Senate.
If she would have won and the Democrats would have won the Senate they would have withdrawn his nomination and nominated someone with a proven activist record.
How could they have withdrawn his nomination if he had already been confirmed??
Posted on 3/23/17 at 9:59 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
Hmm, LM...haven't heard that. If that is so, you can bet the farm that the next SC Nominee will be a Black. Probably wouldn't be hard to pick just who Trump is considering; though I (before your point) had assumed that it would be a Black to vie for the Left Wing vacated Seat. Like the weather up there...constant change.
I know someone who clerked for him. He wants to retire.
Posted on 3/23/17 at 4:47 pm to Jbird
quote:
Dems would agree not to filibuster Gorsuch in exchange for a GOP promise to keep the filibuster in place for the next opening. From Politico:
GOP should do what Dems always do. Promise them something down the road to get what they want then pull the football back Charlie Brown style when it comes time
Posted on 3/23/17 at 4:49 pm to Jbird
No deal. Republicans don't need this. We have the nuclear option so Gorsuch is getting in PERIOD.
We are not the ones that need to negotiate here.
We are not the ones that need to negotiate here.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News