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: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

ANOTHER WIN for President Trump! He's on a roll. Now, if he can get rid of ObamaCare, Trump's 100-day scorecard will be perfect.




posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

You might as well change your thread title to: Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch to US Supreme Court after Nuclear Option Invoked by Republican Majority.

About time Republicans show some REAL backbone!

LIVE BLOG of the PROCEEDINGS: www.foxnews.com...





IS IT TOO LATE TO CHANGE THE THREAD's TITLE?
edit on 4/7/2017 by carewemust because: Way to go Mr. President!



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: BlueAjah

ANOTHER WIN for President Trump! He's on a roll. Now, if he can get rid of ObamaCare, Trump's 100-day scorecard will be perfect.



He's certainly had a very good first 80 days or so, but the Syria strike was a mistake.

The confirmation of Gorsuch is a massive win though - it doesn't get much bigger than that.
He can now move to get the partisan Seattle's judge overturned.
edit on 7/4/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Ahh... remember when the GOP filibustered literally hundreds of bills before they got to President Obama's desk?

Guess they won't be able to do that when they lose power again.
edit on 13Fri, 07 Apr 2017 13:42:05 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Ahh... remember when the GOP filibustered literally hundreds of bills before they got to President Obama's desk?

Guess they won't be able to do that when they lose power again.


I really like this.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Guess they won't be able to do that when they lose power again.


This was not changed, you still need a 3/5ths super majority to override a filibuster on legislation.



edit on 7-4-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This is a strategic blunder for the Democrats, but the Philabuster has always been a literal waste of hot air, I even thought that when Rand was doing it against Obama. And the next supreme court judge can be even more conservative without a fight.

Is it really a blunder by the Democrats when McConnell said he would end the filibuster if it were used to block nominations?

Get used to the new second House, it has been a GOP plan for a long time coming - because they seem to think that they won't ever lose control again.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I also remember when Harry Reid said that the Senate was going to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees last year, in anticipation of the Dems winning the Senate and Hillary as president. The simple fact is that the Dems painted themselves into a corner with that kind of talk and gave the GOP little strategic alternative but to strike first when the opportunity arose, knowing that the Dems had publicly stated their intent to do the exact same thing to Republicans had the election turned out differently.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Greven
Guess they won't be able to do that when they lose power again.


This was not changed, you still need a 3/5s super majority to override a filibuster on legislation.

What makes you think those rules won't change now, too?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Greven

I also remember when Harry Reid said that the Senate was going to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees last year, in anticipation of the Dems winning the Senate and Hillary as president. The simple fact is that the Dems painted themselves into a corner with that kind of talk and gave the GOP little strategic alternative but to strike first when the opportunity arose, knowing that the Dems had publicly stated their intent to do the exact same thing to Republicans had the election turned out differently.

Have you forgotten Garland?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

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


I'll worry about it if it happens.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

No. I just don't care. As I said above, the Senate is under no obligation to confirm any nominee that they deem unacceptable.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Oh okay, so it's always Democrats' fault when they do tit-for-tat - Republicans just had to do it because of Democrats.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven




posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: vor78

Oh okay, so it's always Democrats' fault when they do tit-for-tat - Republicans just had to do it because of Democrats.


Not always, but in this case? Yes. The Democratic party can largely blame this upon its own leadership for how this happened. They're the ones that eliminated the filibuster on all other judicial nominations in 2013 AND they also clearly stated an intent to eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations during the most recent election cycle in anticipation of a Democrat victory. Sorry, but I can't blame the GOP in this case now that the tables have turned following the election and they've thrown the Dems' own playbook back in their faces.

And understand, this is a two-way street. The Dems are on the short end of this today, but there will come a day when the GOP is. That's fine, too. Actions have consequences and I can accept that.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Seems the Syrian event is serving for a very mighty
distraction to a lot of important happenings.

Thanks for posting!

I hope he serves his country well.

If only Obamacare could be repealed, lets hope
someone does because Roberts did a great disservice
(understatement) to this country in his vote for it.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: vor78

Oh okay, so it's always Democrats' fault when they do tit-for-tat - Republicans just had to do it because of Democrats.


Not always, but in this case? Yes. The Democratic party can largely blame this upon its own leadership for how this happened. They're the ones that eliminated the filibuster on all other judicial nominations in 2013 AND they also clearly stated an intent to eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations during the most recent election cycle in anticipation of a Democrat victory. Sorry, but I can't blame the GOP in this case now that the tables have turned following the election and they've thrown the Dems' own playbook back in their faces.

And understand, this is a two-way street. The Dems are on the short end of this today, but there will come a day when the GOP is. That's fine, too. Actions have consequences and I can accept that.



Sure, as you say, the Democrats did eliminate the filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointments - as you said, in 2013.

You forget, however, one key point: Reid changed the rules after the GOP blocked more Obama nominees than had been blocked by all Post-WW2 presidents combined - and that was just Obama's first term. Think about that.

I sure as hell blame the GOP for starting this. They adopted a policy of obstruction - they tried to make Obama a one-term president, though that failed. They tried to stifle any legislation and nomination, until they couldn't stop the nominations anymore.

After doing that, we have people saying how Obama didn't do much as president - gee, I wonder why?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Sure, as you say, the Democrats did eliminate the filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointments - as you said, in 2013.

You forget, however, one key point: Reid changed the rules after the GOP blocked more Obama nominees than had been blocked by all Post-WW2 presidents combined - and that was just Obama's first term. Think about that.



And the GOP has now changed the rules after the Democrats tried to block Gorsuch. There's no difference here, aside from the partisan angle and the fact that the Dems are the ones who struck the first blow and set the precedent against the judicial filibuster in 2013 . In doing so, they gave the GOP all the excuse they needed to return the favor now. Even your current Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has expressed regret over Reid's 2013 action against the filibuster, because he knew it set a precedent that could come back to bite the Dems in the ass and sure enough, it has.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I hate that this is called the nuclear option.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


Gorsuch is an excellent judicial candidate.

The Senate democrats are following lockstep party obstruction, and intimidated by party leadership. Not a single one of them presented a valid reason for opposition.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join