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: 9
40
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
My question is that if Democrats actually believed the position was too important to wait to fill, why are they delaying it as much as possible?




posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe there are democrats who would like to return the constitutional majority. But, left it to republicans to change because it would be acceptable to their supporters.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
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.
edit on 9Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:52:41 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Maybe there are democrats who would like to return the constitutional majority.


What 'constitutional majority' are you referencing?



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78
Again, the obstructionist GOP did as much damage to Obama administration as they possibly could.

Conservatives have been majority on the Supreme Court for decades, and the GOP absolutely refused to allow - to an unprecedented point - Obama to change that.

Likening what was done now to what was done to have a minimally functional government by November 2013 is absurd.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The simple majority, like they use to change to rules.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

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?



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I have no idea what your post means, and how it answers my question of if the seat is too important to not fill .. why are they preventing it being filled?

The Democrats either do not think it's that important, and thus are shown to be liars when they said it was, or they think it is, and they are putting the country in danger just so they can play politics.
edit on 8-4-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How are they preventing it? They have no power, just a protest. Like what the republicans did with the democrats Maynard. All perfectly legal. I thought the position was just confirmed after the nuclear option.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
The simple majority, like they use to change to rules.


I'm still not following. Just about everything the Senate does is by simple majority.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Except the supreme court one. If just about everything is done by simple majority, it must work.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Except the supreme court one. If just about everything is done by simple majority, it must work.


There is nothing in the Constitution about super majorities needed for the Supreme Court. The only mandates for super majorities are treaty ratification, constitutional conventions, vetoes or Presidential removal/impeachment.




edit on 8-4-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: Iä! Shub-Niggurath! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Except the supreme court one. If just about everything is done by simple majority, it must work.



The Supreme Court confirmation has always been a simple majority.
The only thing that was changed was the votes needed to end a filibuster - that's a good thing at this time because the Democrats were abusing it.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I agree. I would like to see the simple majority end the contest.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: UKTruth

I agree. I would like to see the simple majority end the contest.



Well in this case that is exactly what happened. Gorsuch gets sworn in on Monday.
I don;t think a simple majority is going to come into play for passing bills - at least not yet.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Conservatives have been majority on the Supreme Court for decades, and the GOP absolutely refused to allow - to an unprecedented point - Obama to change that.


Do you honestly think that the Democratic party wouldn't have done the same thing if the roles were reversed? Of course they would. Whether it was the Republicans or the Democrats, as long as they were acting within the rules of the Senate...which they were...I see nothing wrong with that or even the move Reid made to counter. They were voted in to do what they believe is best for their constituents and the country and if, depending on their respective party, they think that a liberal or conservative court would be bad for the country, hell yes they should obstruct if they can. The voters can decide on election day whether that obstruction was justified or not.

The point is, there was a chain of events leading up to the Republican senate eliminating the flibuster and that the Democratic party....and Harry Reid in particular...had a direct role in it. The fact is, Harry Reid gambled in 2013 that the Dems would retake the Senate and Presidency in 2016 and that eliminating the lower filibuster wouldn't backfire. He lost that bet. I'm only saying that maybe before you start whining about Republicans, you need to hold the Democrat leadership accountable for their own mistakes and overreach that gave the GOP plenty of cover to do this.
edit on 8-4-2017 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

They are delaying it. If it is so important it can not be delayed ... why are they delaying it? My post stands. One of those two positions is necessarily true.

The Democrats either do not think it's that important, and thus are shown to be liars when they said it was, or they think it is, and they are putting the country in danger just so they can play politics.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Greven
Conservatives have been majority on the Supreme Court for decades, and the GOP absolutely refused to allow - to an unprecedented point - Obama to change that.


Do you honestly think that the Democratic party wouldn't have done the same thing if the roles were reversed? Of course they would. Whether it was the Republicans or the Democrats, as long as they were acting within the rules of the Senate...which they were...I see nothing wrong with that or even the move Reid made to counter. They were voted in to do what they believe is best for their constituents and the country and if, depending on their respective party, they think that a liberal or conservative court would be bad for the country, hell yes they should obstruct if they can. The voters can decide on election day whether that obstruction was justified or not.

The point is, there was a chain of events leading up to the Republican senate eliminating the flibuster and that the Democratic party....and Harry Reid in particular...had a direct role in it. The fact is, Harry Reid gambled in 2013 that the Dems would retake the Senate and Presidency in 2016 and that eliminating the lower filibuster wouldn't backfire. He lost that bet. I'm only saying that maybe before you start whining about Republicans, you need to hold the Democrat leadership accountable for their own mistakes and overreach that gave the GOP plenty of cover to do this.

They don't care about what's 'bad for the country' or they wouldn't be pushing stuff that is, objectively, bad for the country. They only care about power.

I'm not a Democrat so I don't really have a say in their leadership.

Let me point out another distinction between what the Dems did and what the GOP just did - other nominations are not lifetime appointments.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
They don't care about what's 'bad for the country' or they wouldn't be pushing stuff that is, objectively, bad for the country. They only care about power.


Many would say that there are two sides to that argument and that it very much depends upon one's political perspective. But if that's the angle you're approaching it from, I can understand why you view it the way you do.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Aw shucks, democrats don't play fair.




top topics



 
40
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join