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: 2
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

This is not them showing backbone. It shows weakness. If they had a good candidate they wouldn't need to make this change in the rules.
Trump is a moron and needs to get a win under his belt so he ordered this stupid move.
Oh well.
They will have to live with it now.
They won't always hold the majority.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme
So Obama was a moron in 2013? So glad you feel that way Silly.


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
They're talking about it.
Not a move they want to make lightly.
It could play against them in the future.

Actually....THIS is the Dems playbook from 2013...now biting THEM in the ass.

Ever hear of Harry Reid? You can thank him.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Since the beginning of the US Constitution, as the 5th Amendment gives the rules for amending the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the senate.

Though the idea goes back to Roman times with the Roman senate.

The idea of the Nuclear Option was first introduced back in 1917 as a way to try and reform filibusters (wasn't call that of course back then). In 1957 VP Nixon wrote an opinion piece on it.

It didn't really gain ground until around 2005 when Dems were filibustering judicial nominees sent in by George W. Bush, but the Gang of 14 kept that from happening then.

Interesting to note: After she won her senate election in 2012, Elizabeth Warren (D) was quoted as saying:

“On the first day of the new session in January, the senators will have a unique opportunity to change the filibuster rule with a majority vote, rather than the normal two-thirds vote. The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition.”



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: carewemust
About time Republicans show some REAL backbone!

When it gets down to the jiggy ... this is a vote for the RINOs.

I'll chalk it up as a win for the Government and the New World Order.

Does this mean we have another "chief" of justice to ignore all the injustice in the world?

If 99% of the injustice is cause by your country then ignoring it make sense. Cause you did not respect it in the first place



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Ah, same 'ol.... If that isn't progressive I don't know what is.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust


Oh well.
They will have to live with it now.
They won't always hold the majority.

They not need to live with it. They gonna ho hide under the mountain when shtf. You and the rest of the american people gonna have to livewith it.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Personally the way I see filibusters is nothing more than throwing a tantrum to get you way. Just like a spoiled child holds their breath or screams and cries until they get what they want.

Hold the vote and be done with it. Majority rules.

My own personal opinion is that a 2/3's vote should only be required when amending the US Constitution



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: DBCowboy

if you do not know the reason behind "Reid breaking the dam", then your simplistic answer makes sense...tell you what, I think the democrats should follow in the footsteps of their fellow republican senators, and frankly state to the public that it is their intention to make trump a one-term president, and to block EVERYTHING the republicans senators, as well as the president, proposes for the next 4 years.....


They should totally hold symbolic votes ever so often promising to repeal everything Trump manages to pass and then fail later when they get their majority back.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: DBCowboy
THIS is one of the reason why I voted for Donald Trump!!!! Woohoo!!!!! Finally someone is getting something done! Bout time.


And what is he getting done. Fck up another country. And this time as a bonus the usa too. NK aint as weak or isolated as you might think. The real free world aint as dumb and naive as it was when you illigaly invaded Iraq or Afganistan. And you aint fighting poor hungry farmers armed with ww2 guns this time.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: therealfreeworld


If 99% of the injustice is cause by your country then ignoring it make sense.

Not for me.

ETA: btw, welcome to ATS!
edit on 6-4-2017 by intrptr because: ETA:



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
My own personal opinion is that a 2/3's vote should only be required when amending the US Constitution


Or treaties.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Someone tell me why this is OK.

If the Dems tried this, the Righties here on ATS would be livid.

Is it just your side winning?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Someone tell me why this is OK.


Considering that in certain points of the past there was neither cloture nor filibusters this is not a big deal. The Senate, as a parliamentary body, can change their rules as affirmed by the Supreme Court and if you don't like the rule changes you need to get your side in power to prevent them being changed or to change them back.







edit on 6-4-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

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



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:47 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


What the hell does anything in this rambling rant have to do with anything I said?
edit on 6-4-2017 by FauxMulder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
Someone tell me why this is OK.


Considering that in certain points of the past there was neither cloture nor filibusters this is not a big deal. The Senate can change their rules as affirmed by the Supreme Court and if you don't like the rule changes you need to get your side in power to prevent them being changed or to change them back.








the only way for that to happen is to get a majority of democratic governors elected in 2020, so they can redraw all of their respective states congressional districting lines in the next census.
edit on 6-4-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
Wow, someone seems a little upset. Maybe you should step away for a moment.

Calm down buddy. We got our justice today, we are going to be OK.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
Someone tell me why this is OK.


Considering that in certain points of the past there was neither cloture nor filibusters this is not a big deal. The Senate, as a parliamentary body, can change their rules as affirmed by the Supreme Court and if you don't like the rule changes you need to get your side in power to prevent them being changed or to change them back.


So, its OK if you are on the side with the most power?

What happened to "Checks and Balances"?

edit on 6-4-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
the only way for that to happen is to get a majority of democratic governors elected in 2020, so they can redraw all of their respective states congressional districting lines in the next census.


Then I suggest you get started. 2020 will be here before you realize.




top topics



 
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join