Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 17706]

Wow.

You posted all that.

Yet didn't even bother to learn what a judicial filibuster is.

Bravo.

And he wrote about other people just wanting to put fingers in their ears and scream.

 

[Jarmel]

Key point: if the GOP wanted to kill the legislative filibuster they wouldn't be doing everything by reconciliation. And hamstringing themselves by its rules, they would just make a bill, let the Dems filibuster and then nuke it there.

But they didnt.

I'm sure we'll get there at some point or another in the next two-three years.

 

[Autoignition]

Democrats change the rules because republicans where trying to block Obama from doing anything including several lower court appointees and this is "the dems fault."

Republicans put forth a nominee without consulting dems, dems don't like him so they filibuster, republicans change the rules to push him through anyway, and it's "the dems fault."

Seems to me republicans are as bad as Trump and can't take the blame for their own actions.

THIS. Holy shit. It's not like there's some magical, unseen force that's going to independently go nuclear on this. This is what the GOP is choosing to do. It's their choice. Their decision. The GOP. They're doing it. It's them.

Literally no one is forcing the GOP to go nuclear. I'm so tired of this narrative. They could just drop the nomination and go for a more moderate judge, but they won't do that, because they're assholes. But people are blaming Dems for "forcing the GOP" to go nuclear? Fuck that, man. We're not their handlers. At some point, we need to start holding the Republican party accountable for their own decisions.

 

[Whompa02]

Democrats change the rules because republicans where trying to block Obama from doing anything including several lower court appointees and this is "the dems fault."

Republicans put forth a nominee without consulting dems, dems don't like him so they filibuster, republicans change the rules to push him through anyway, and it's "the dems fault."

Seems to me republicans are as bad as Trump and can't take the blame for their own actions.

bingoooo

 

[sturgboski]

THIS. Holy shit. It's not like there's some magical, unseen force that's going to independently go nuclear on this. This is what the GOP is choosing to do. It's their choice. Their decision. The GOP. They're doing it. It's them.

Literally no one is forcing the GOP to go nuclear. I'm so tired of this narrative. They could just drop the nomination and go for a more moderate judge, but they won't do that, because they're assholes. But people are blaming Dems for "forcing the GOP" to go nuclear? Fuck that, man. We're not their handlers. At some point, we need to start holding the Republican party accountable for their own decisions.

Republicans truly are the worst.

 

[Blader]

This seems really shortsighted. All you're doing is giving them political cover to do the rule change and then the next appointment, as awful as it may be, gets through easily with 51 votes.

Trump could do ALOT worse than Gorsuch



The point is they'd rather have that fight over an actual terrible appointee

If invoking the filibuster once leads to its elimination, then it never really had any power to begin with.

Disappointed that we are heading towards simple majority rule

Both parties are at fault

GOP for Garland
Democrats for going nuclear for judges below Supreme Court

I hope we can eventually have a candidate that brings parties together

Reid invoked the nuclear option for cabinet and lower-court appointments because the GOP had been blocking dozens of those appointments solely for the sake of obstruction. *Dozens* of filibustered appointments compared to one filibustered Gorsuch. The context is just slightly different and, as usual, you either ignore that or don't grasp it at all.

 

[Armaros]

I'm sure we'll get there at some point or another in the next two-three years.

SCOTUS are lifetime appointments and Trump and the GOP need a win, legsiation can be turn around in one election cycle, SCOTUS filibuster and legislative filibuster are miles apart.

 

[Iksenpets]

I'm sure we'll get there at some point or another in the next two-three years.

There's an asymmetry on legislative filibusters that doesn't exist for judicial ones. Both sides want to be able to push through judges when they have the presidency, but the GOP has a much stronger incentive to be able to block laws from passing, since they benefit more from maintaining the status quo than Dems do. It'll be the Dems who eventually kill the legislative filibuster, because the GOP isn't going to give up there future right to scream "no" very very loudly.

 

[Schattenjäger]

GOP is not interested in this. Did you miss Paul Ryan's press conference? He admitted the GOP has not been interested in governing for at least 10 years. How do you engagement someone not interested in playing.

Obama was wildly popular and they refused to work with him for the most part. They wanted to block anything and everything no matter the cost. They chose to challenge whether or not he was a citizen instead.

Your option would have led to even more vacancies in the federal court system.

Blaming the Democrats here is baffling given the very clear motives of the GOP and the fact they wanted everything brought to a screetching halt.

Ok I think they are more to blame and it really sucks
But it is fair to state that the democrats went nuclear first so they set a precedent
I don't know enough about them blocking 70 judges .. but weren't their other options at that point? I'm asking

 

[Elandyll]

Exactly, save the theatrics for a truly terrible judge. I don't agree with all of Gorsuch's rulings, but he's not the end of the world.

No.

Everybody knows that Republicans will get their nominees in, one way or another.
If not today, then the next terrible one would see the fillibuster nuked.

Fighting it right away

1- shows backbone to energize the base
2- prevents normalizing the stolen SCOTUS seat
3- It does not put the 'bi partisan' seal on a judge who is demonstrably very pro business and anti person rights
4- if 2018 sees the Senate switch (unlikely) and no other Supreme Court Justice spot was vacant up to then, the question would definitely be "why didn't you fight?", and justifiably so.

 

[Jarmel]

SCOTUS are lifetime appointments and Trump and the GOP need a win, legsiation can be turn around in one election cycle, SCOTUS filibuster and legislative filibuster are miles apart.

So far there hasn't been a bill that anyone on the GOP side feels strongly about. Nobody was going to take a huge hit over a healthcare bill that was struggling in the House of all places. Why would anyone take a PR slam over a bill that nobody likes?

 

[Armaros]

So far there hasn't been a bill that anyone on the GOP side feels strongly about. Nobody was going to take a huge hit over a healthcare bill that was struggling in the House of all places. Why would anyone take a PR slam over a bill that nobody likes?

Without a legislative filibuster, a public option, possibly a single payer health care system would the law of the land.

Do you think the GOP could possible take it down if they couldn't take away the ACA? That is the endgame of nuking the legislative filibuster.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

How would this hypothetical worse judge vote that would be different than Gorsuch?

He's going to vote in step with the other conservative judges 100% of the time, so what difference does it make?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Ok I think they are more to blame and it really sucks
But it is fair to state that the democrats went nuclear first so they set a precedent
I don't know enough about them blocking 70 judges .. but weren't their other options at that point? I'm asking

The other option was to further cripple the federal court system, overwhelm existing judges, and delay critical rulings.

 

[Whompa02]

How would this hypothetical judge vote that would be worse than Gorsuch?

pardon?

 

[Tranqueris]

Exactly, save the theatrics for a truly terrible judge. I don't agree with all of Gorsuch's rulings, but he's not the end of the world.

The man is basically trying to John Kasich his way onto the damn court.

"Why gee golly why I would never, ever try to overturn Row v Wade."

"Goodness gracious, why I would never, ever rule in favor of court decisions that basically turn workers into a corporation's indentured servants."

 

[Blader]

I think people saying Gorsuch isn't all that bad are being fooled by his being a poised, good-looking guy who hasn't said anything blatantly psychotic. Judicially and ideologically, he's pretty firmly in the mold of Scalia, if not even to the right of him.

How would this hypothetical worse judge vote that would be different than Gorsuch?

He's going to vote in step with the other conservative judges 100% of the time, so what difference does it make?

Exactly. Trump could appoint someone who gives fiery speeches about how women who have abortions are horrible sinners who deserve to go to hell, yet he and Gorsuch would still end up ruling the same on abortion cases.

 

[DrMungo]

if it turns out the GOP are willing to destroy the fillibuster, then there is no point in saving it.

1. if Dems refuse to use it now because it might be killed, and then try to use it later, and it gets killed, then saving it amounted to nothing.

2. if dems try to save it for later and it turns out the GOP won't kill it, then they conceded however many votes for no reason before calling the bluff.

if dems aren't willing to call the bluff, the filibuster is already dead. the past 8 years have kind of shown us that there are no republicans who value bipartisanship left in congress.


saving the filibuster is only useful if you believe there's any chance that a future appointee would be radical enough to turn a handful of republicans against the party. I believe that such an appointee doesn't exist and and the senate will fall in line with anything trump/pence/ryan/a future speaker/whoever survives the fallout of the russian investigation would put up over the next 4 years. Therefore, there is zero merit to saving the thing.

Exactly - i bet the GOP has been looking to nuke the filibuster for some time. People like McCain only pay lip service to honoring tradition, but then push comes to shove its always party above country.

For the Dems, they should call the bluff now when there is unity to do so. It sends a sign that if they win back the Senate, the GOP should expect a tit for tat response for the utter disrespect that the GOP demonstrated to Garland and Obama.

 

[datbapple]

And they are dancing, the board floor slamming under the jackboots and the fiddlers grinning hideously over their canted pieces. Towering over them all is Notorious RBG and she is naked dancing, her small feet lively and quick and now in doubletime and bowing to the gents, huge and pale and hairless, like an enormous infant. She never sleeps, she says. She says she'll never die. She bows to the fiddlers and sashays backwards and throws back her head and laughs deep in her throat and she is a great favorite, the justice. She wafts her hat and the lunar dome of her skull passes palely under the lamps and he swings about and takes possession of one of the fiddles and she pirouettes and makes a pass, two passes, dancing and fiddling all at once. Her feet are light and nimble. She never sleeps. She says that she will never die. She dances in light and in shadow and she is a great favorite. She never sleeps, the justice. She is dancing, dancing. She says that she will never die.

posting in appreciation for this amazing message.

 

[guek]

How would this hypothetical worse judge vote that would be different than Gorsuch?

He's going to vote in step with the other conservative judges 100% of the time, so what difference does it make?

Fewer "gosh"es per minute

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Memories of goldfish.

Basically.

Its like people forgot what happened between 2009-2011.

The GOP absolutely refused to work with Democrats. And in Garland's case neglected their duties to the American public and the fabric of the Senate by refusing to hold hearings. They broke the process and so reap the whirlwind. Of course, Democrats are still playing by the rules. But the GOP will continue to circumvent the rules by ridding themselves of the filibuster.

And yet some continue to blame the Democrats. Maddening.

The GOP is only concerned about winning. Like they are the team that sends in a scrub to slide tackle a star player and break his shun.

When did they compromise over the last 8 years? The republicans are the reason people think the government is broken. And look no further than the HC vote when the republicans who control everything couldn't get shit done.

I mean we all know that are evil. But when has the GOP given a shit about working together? They would let the world burn just to be right and push througb crazy.

 

[Dan]

Ok I think they are more to blame and it really sucks
But it is fair to state that the democrats went nuclear first so they set a precedent
I don't know enough about them blocking 70 judges .. but weren't their other options at that point? I'm asking

Other options... ummm, nominating conservative judges?

You forget that Republicans enjoy crippling the government rather than ceding ground because it supports their argument that government is ineffective. McConnell said publicly that his number one priority was preventing Obama's re-election, not helping to govern. How does one compromise with those positions without giving everything up?

 

[Jarmel]

Without a legislative filibuster, a public option, possibly a single payer health care system would the law of the land.

Do you think the GOP could possible take it down if they couldn't take away the ACA? That is the endgame of nuking the legislative filibuster.

The point is that due to the polarization of the country, there's increasing pressure on Senators to just push things through and more of a focus on short term strategies in both parties. Both the GOP and Dems are going to get a boost from the judicial nuclear option being erased and there stands little reason as to why that wouldn't hold up on the legislative side.

Both parties aren't really interested in talking with each other and aren't being punished for refusing to do so. So if there was some imaginary bill that has widespread GOP support, I see little reason why they wouldn't just nuke the legislative filibuster option then anyway. They're not going to suffer from it and if the public turns out later to hate the bill, just blame it on the other party.

 

[tuxfool]

Fewer "gosh"es per minute

He said, "worse", not "better".

 

[darkwing]

it's like a nuclear war, in the end no one wins

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The point is that due to the polarization of the country, there's increasing pressure on Senators to just push things through and more of a focus on short term strategies in both parties. Both the GOP and Dems are going to get a boost from the judicial nuclear option being erased and there stands little reason as to why that wouldn't hold up on the legislative side.

Both parties aren't really interested in talking with each other and aren't being punished for refusing to do so. So if there was some imaginary bill that has widespread GOP support, I see little reason why they wouldn't just nuke the legislative filibuster option then anyway. They're not going to suffer from it and if the public turns out later to hate the bill, just blame it on the other party.

Democrats were interested in working with the GOP. Perhaps for too long as they received absolutely nothing in return.

Dems certainly were punished harshly. GOP wasn't, though.

 

[guek]

It still boggles my mind that they didn't even consider Garland in a hearing. Like, what the fuck. The game has always been underhanded but they dropped all pretense. And Republican voters didn't care because the GOP might as well be a football team for them.

 

[Armaros]

The point is that due to the polarization of the country, there's increasing pressure on Senators to just push things through and more of a focus on short term strategies in both parties. Both the GOP and Dems are going to get a boost from the judicial nuclear option being erased and there stands little reason as to why that wouldn't hold up on the legislative side.

Both parties aren't really interested in talking with each other and aren't being punished for refusing to do so. So if there was some imaginary bill that has widespread GOP support, I see little reason why they wouldn't just nuke the legislative filibuster option then anyway. They're not going to suffer from it and if the public turns out later to hate the bill, just blame it on the other party.

What is more polarising to the GOP vs Democrats then Obamacare? And they failed to and went out of their way to avoid the filibuster without the nuclear option.

 

[The Last Wizard]

Well the filibuster rules have been changed.

 

[George Washington]

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.

They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force---to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reigns of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Keep it up Republicans.

 

[Arttemis]

All 52 Republicans vote for the changing of the rules in such a way that many of them said was improper... but did it anyway to push their agenda.

 

[Bookoo]

Ok, so reading the answers to my questions are sort of what I expected.

There was no reason not to filibuster since Repubs can get rid of it at anytime so part of me feels like the spectacle of this and the speculation of it seems silly since in the end it didn't really matter. Although it seems like the final nail in the coffin for bipartisanship.

Followup...what is stopping repubs from just re-implementing the rules after they force their people through? I have heard some it hurts the integrity of the office, but it doesn't feel like that doesn't seem to mean much anymore.

 

[pxleyes]

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I understand, but looking at Gorsuch as a judge, he is qualified. Even if we don't agree with everything he's done. And either way he's getting the seat.



It's time for the government to work in a bipartisan manner.

Gorsuch is evil and the fact that he went to Harvard doesn't change that.

 

[gimmmick]

I hope dems take back the senate in 2018 after all if this. What a sad day for democracy. Nothing but extreme judges will come out of this.

 

[darkwing]

nuclear is a go

 

[Armaros]

I hope dems take back the senate in 2018 after all if this. What a sad day for democracy. Nothing but extreme judges will come out of this.

Very low chance with which seats are up and how many of them are vulnerable Dems.

 

[WedgeX]

Well the filibuster rules have been changed.

Yep it's official. Via the New York Times.

 

[studyguy]

All 52 Republicans vote for the changing of the rules that many of them said was improper.

https://twitter.com/Mickey_McCauley/status/835919739851415552

John Miguel McCauley
@Mickey_McCauley
#Resistance leader John McCain bravely vows to grimace slightly each time he votes for Trump legislation

 

[darkwing]

looks like Gorsuch will be in after all

 

[Jarmel]

What is more polarising to the GOP vs Democrats then Obamacare? And they failed to and went out of their way to avoid the filibuster without the nuclear option.

Because the replacement bill was dogshit and had less than 20% popularity among citizens. Why would any Senator bother in this case?

Democrats were interested in working with the GOP. Perhaps for too long as they received absolutely nothing in return.

Dems certainly were punished harshly. GOP wasn't, though.

Dems were punished for trying to work with the GOP in the past but now both bases aren't interested in talking with each other, the GOP due to ideology and the Dems due to being burned so badly in the past.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Disappointed that we are heading towards simple majority rule

Both parties are at fault

GOP for Garland
Democrats for going nuclear for judges below Supreme Court

I hope we can eventually have a candidate that brings parties together

Heading towards?

If the majority party can, at any time of their choosing, change the rules so that it is simple majority rule, then it is already majority rule.

 

[Dan]

I hope dems take back the senate in 2018 after all if this. What a sad day for democracy. Nothing but extreme judges will come out of this.

That's unfortunately a very steep hurdle given the makeup of which Senate seats are up for election that year. :/

 

[Whompa02]

All 52 Republicans vote for the changing of the rules in such a way that many of them said was improper... but did it anyway to push their agenda.

Seems to be the case. They're desperate even when they're in control. Pretty hilarious.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

The game is the game.

McConnell probably realizes the president is a disaster and SC judges are just about the only wins he'll get over the next 4 years.

 

[The Last Wizard]

Yep it's official. Via the New York Times.

I wish they'd just come out and say they couldn't care less about the rules of the country unless it benefits them. Tired of all the damn charades like they care about anything besides money.

 

[marrec]

Damn that nuclear strike didn't take long lol

 

[guek]

Ok, so reading the answers to my questions are sort of what I expected.

There was no reason not to filibuster since Repubs can get rid of it at anytime so part of me feels like the spectacle of this and the speculation of it seems silly since in the end it didn't really matter.

Followup...what is stopping repubs from just reimplementing the rules after they force their people through? I have heard some it hurts the integrity of the office, but it doesn't feel like that doesn't seem to mean much anymore.

The GOP has conditioned their constituents to applaud obstructionism as long as they're the ones doing it. There are no consequences for this kind of shit from their voting block. However, governing is a lot harder than opposition, and the major reason they can't get shit done despite controlling both congress and the White House is that you can't govern on a platform limited to "we're not the filthy Democrats."

 

[Blader]

Heading towards?

If the majority party can, at any time of their choosing, change the rules so that it is simple majority rule, then it is already majority rule.

Yep. If invoking the filibuster once (or at least, the first time in decades) can lead to its elimination, then there was never really a filibuster in the first place.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

SCOTUS are lifetime appointments and Trump and the GOP need a win, legsiation can be turn around in one election cycle, SCOTUS filibuster and legislative filibuster are miles apart.

I'm confused. What was Trump saying during his campaign about "term limits".

Thought he was talking about supreme court judges having term limits?