It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Nuclear option' expected after Democrats filibuster Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The SCOTUS has been majority Republican since 1970, as I recollect.

They refused any change to that. Democrats were pissed that Republicans refused to let Obama fill the seat.

The Democrats who previously argued no seat should be filled during an election season? Now what does that have to do with my post?



They call it The Biden Rule.

And it makes a bit of sense, coming from Biden.









posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The SCOTUS has been majority Republican since 1970, as I recollect.

They refused any change to that. Democrats were pissed that Republicans refused to let Obama fill the seat.

The Democrats who previously argued no seat should be filled during an election season? Now what does that have to do with my post?

The "Biden Rule" was not what some think it was.

Biden argued hypothetically that, IF a seat on the SCOTUS were to become vacant the summer before the election (just a few months) , THEN the then-president Bush should wait until after the ELECTION happened to nominate a candidate.

The intent wasn't to keep the sitting president from nominating someone. This is entirely different from what the GOP did, and what they characterize Biden as having said.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm not in favor of the super majority. I agree with the Republicans changing it to the simple majority for the supreme Court.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

They said the President SHOULD wait .. meaning Obama SHOULD have waited .. meaning the Democrats' opinion is that Obama was in the wrong, and being that it SHOULD have waited they should have supported the Republicans call to .. wait. So what happened is exactly what the Democrats said SHOULD happen. So why are they so bitter?

You posted literally nothing to contradict my point.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

We only like it when it benefits our party! The type of partisan politics both sides can display that is destroying our country. It just happens to be worse from the left, but republicans are quite guilty too.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Greven

They said the President SHOULD wait .. meaning Obama SHOULD have waited .. meaning the Democrats' opinion is that Obama was in the wrong, and being that it SHOULD have waited they should have supported the Republicans call to .. wait. So what happened is exactly what the Democrats said SHOULD happen. So why are they so bitter?

You posted literally nothing to contradict my point.

The 'rule' was A) never a rule, B) hypothetical, C) a much smaller time frame than what really happened, D) not a PROHIBITION but a RECOMMENDATION (aka SHOULD not SHALL), and the biggest and most egregious difference E) WAS PERFECTLY FINE WITH CONFIRMING THE SCOTUS NOMINEE AFTER THE ELECTION OCCURRED

Biden BY HIS ARGUMENT was still arguing that BUSH would get the nominee, after the election was HELD and before the INAUGURATION.

It is so utterly unlike what you're talking about.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

No, he was arguing the current President (Bush) would NOT get it and the next President would (which could be Bush).

Time frame is the same, once the election season has begun.

It being a hypothetical is exactly what makes the Democrats hypocrites.


and that it was “essential” that the Senate refuse to confirm a nominee to the court until then.


So yes, Obama was not prohibited from trying, but the Senate MUST REFUSE.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You''ve made the claim that Biden argued such that Bush wouldn't get the nominee.

Prove it - with Biden's words. Good luck, because this is what he said:

President Should 'Not Name A Nominee Until After The November Election'
edit on 11Sun, 09 Apr 2017 11:18:43 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You''ve made the claim that Biden argued such that Bush wouldn't get the nominee.

Prove it - with Biden's words. Good luck, because this is what he said:

President Should 'Not Name A Nominee Until After The November Election'

He said they should reject any nominee. You think in december, when the Democrats have won the election, they are accepting Bush's last minute choice?

It's cute if you really think that. If they are accepting his choice in December when he is on the way out ... why would they need to wait? Your position is literally the stupidest one possible.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Point out the timestamp where he you think he says they should reject any nominee, because he doesn't. Here's the full transcript anyone can read:

TRANSCRIPT - June 25, 1992:

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

Similarly, if Governor Clinton should win this fall, then my views on the need for philosophic compromise between the branches would not be softened, but rather the prospects for such compromise would be naturally enhanced. With this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

It seems clear to me that within the Bush administration, the process of selecting Supreme Court nominees has become dominated by the right intent on using the Court to implement an ultraconservative social agenda that the Congress and the public have rejected. In this way, all the participants in the process can be clear well in advance of how I intend to approach any future nominations.


Oh okay, now you're moving into another talking point entirely - that a post-election confirmation implicitly means they wouldn't hold a confirmation at all.

This is still completely different from what the GOP did, which was refuse to EVER hold a confirmation hearing, while making it very clear that they never intended to.

e: Also, it's the holding a confirmation hearing that I'm talking about, not just automatically accepting a nominee. I missed the "Time frame is the same, once the election season has begun" you wrote in the previous post - election seasons are moving back years now; Trump is already fundraising - guess he shouldn't get a nominee then?
edit on 13Sun, 09 Apr 2017 13:06:50 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: Sillyolme
It could play against them in the future.


I agree and it probably will.

Sad that even a SCOTUS nomination has become so partisan that this has to be considered. The nuclear option has been used before but not for a SCOTUS.

Gorsuch really inst bad at all. I think the dems are wasting their time fighting this. Obama got 2 justices that IMO are far more partisan than Gorsuch without all this hoopla



2 justices?....so?.....hey, I know....make it a law that the supreme court CANNOT have more than 4 liberal justices on the court at anytime in the future....that way, the republicans can control the entire government for ever and ever.....and then do away with every law that was passed by liberals for the last 200 years.....and only then, the crybaby republicans can have their plutocratic oligarchy....AND IT WILL FINALLY BE SPRINGTIME IN AMERICA!!!!....zeik heil...click click

So you want a government that……….

Doesn’t appear to have any interest in upholding the constitution unless it suits their agenda.

Is above and completely ignores the laws of the land that our fore fathers have painstakingly laid out for them.

Doesn’t mind watching american citizens struggle and suffer.

So corrupt that all they can do is lie to cover up all their other lies, corruption and deceit.

Doesn’t enforce immigration laws that cost millions of jobs for american citizens and breaking the middle class.

Educates illegals at the cost of a quality education for tax paying citizens.

Wants to harbor criminals that are here illegally.

Promotes racism.

Promotes violence and violent protesting.

Doing everything they can to take away my constitutional right to bear arms in order to protect myself and family.

Wants to provide healthcare to illegals and deadbeats, while vets and citizens receive sub par healthcare or do without, all while working citizens foot the bill.

Wants to allow members of a suppressive, violent and hateful religion to live here without any screening.

Wants american tax payers to continue to foot the bill of agencies that are NOT willing to do their job of protecting the citizens that are paying their salaries.

and infinite etc………..

This is seriously the government you want for the citizens of this country?????

If this is the government you want for your fellow American citizens, I would consider your ideological mindset treasonous and as un american as it gets and strongly suggest maybe finding another country to live in that closer resembles your failed ideas.

And, while the Republican Party is not without it’s faults, I could go on and on about the fallacies, stupidity and idiocy of the Democratic Party in it’s current state. The Dem Party is a failed joke and a much bigger joke than the Trump administration will ever be. According to the monumental disastrous failure of the Democratic Party last election, America overwhelmingly tends to agree with me.
edit on 9-4-2017 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Point out the timestamp where he you think he says they should reject any nominee


Here is the quote.


“It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”

www.nytimes.com...

Was the political season underway?

If it was it is ESSENTIAL the nomination be put off. You do know what the word essential means right?
edit on 9-4-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't understand why you link to the NYT for a quote that is in the transcript above, just past the bolded section.

Sure I know what the word essential means.

Do you know what "until after the election campaign is over" means?

When you're in a hole, stop digging.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Greven
What makes you think those rules won't change now, too?


I'll worry about it if it happens.

FYI, they're starting to talk about it:

“At this point, there is not a majority for ending the legislative filibuster,” Cruz said. “My hope is the Democrats will stop their unreasonable across-the-board obstruction and allow the Senate to operate. If they continue an immovable blockade, I suspect the votes will shift on that question.”
...
After he voted alongside his Republican colleagues to end the SCOTUS filibuster, the 30-year Senate veteran argued last week that the end of the legislative filibuster was inevitable. McCain told reporters the move signified “the end of the unique role that the Senate plays.”

“It's a slippery slope,” McCain warned. “We will all live to regret it.”
...
“It's a matter of when,” Franks told IJR. “The only question is: will Republicans wake up in time to give the American people just a little glimpse of what Republican policy looks like, or will we hand it back to the Democrats because of a stalemated, gridlocked legislative process for the next four years?”

Franks continued that if Republicans waited, Democrats would gain control of the Senate, blow up the rules themselves, “and what's left of America will be no more.”


Ah yes, Cruz, unreasonable obstruction which is somehow more reasonable than what the GOP did during Obama's terms - what was that? You were the one who first recommended to block Obama's last SCOTUS nominee? You were the one who shutdown the government?

Sigh... even if they're obstructing, some Democrats have still voted for Trump's nominees. Not many Republicans did that during the previous administration.
edit on 0Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:27:22 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Fine with me, now they can go back to the original voting of Senators as well. All these new rules can go.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join