• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats secure votes to block Gorsuch as Senate panel considers nominee

I call bull****.

eb2bfeb7ba90c8179c9bcdbe8500cd0f.jpg

Who called Cloture? What was the outcome of the vote? and what was the outcome of the bills on which cloture was called? You might want to either read what I have written on the subject or actually do more than look at a low-information bar graph before calling BS.

Cloture votes are not filibusters. Filibusters are FAILED cloture votes. There was no increase in the rate of failed cloture votes during that time, it just happens to be that Reid called a metric ass-ton of cloture votes, the majority of which passed easily. And even when a filibuster is successful it doesn't mean that the resulting debate doesn't come to a conclusion and a vote taken. Not only that, but many calls for cloture were withdrawn and a vote happened anyway.

There were three effective filibusters of appointees in the 112th Congress, and 2 in the 113th Congress. There was an uptick in the rate of successful filibusters in the 112th congress, but it was for appointees, and the number was inflated because the Democrats reissued some bills over and over again.

Many "filibusters", however, didn't stop the bill or appointee from being approved in a floor vote.

It is a complex issue and you let NPR keep you ignorant.
 
The republicans insisted that an 8 justice court is sufficient, did they not? We don't require a specific number of justices.

I don't think democrats want someone who will continue to place business interests above those of the people like Gorsuch. His ruling that the trucker should have risked hypothermia and frostbite is asinine.

I get the feeling that you are convinced that the SCOTUS will be enhanced by Gorsuch's presence, yet it seems that democrats disagree. I would argue that Garland was a moderate, non-partisan candidate. He should have had a hearing. The SCOTUS should not have become another partisan tool, but now republicans have insisted by refusing to even consider any semblance of bipartisanship with respect to Garland. Now McConnell vows ahead of time to use the nuclear option, and they whine that it's democrats fault that we can't be bipartisan: nope, McConnell said that out of partisanship, for the same reason he refused Garland a hearing.

Face the facts here. The right is trying to transform the SCOTUS, where judges are historically bipartisan, into another partisan vehicle. And judging by which direction President Trump is turning the country, it's a really bad move on their part.

Really? The right is trying to transform SCOTUS huh? Tell me, how many posts here at DP do you think that I could find by the left leaning posters that wanted to stack SCOTUS towards a liberal viewpoint? Transform it from one of actually judging based on Constitutionality to one of judging based off of feelings? Don't even attempt to portray this as a right wing thing. Both sides always want to stack SCOTUS in favor of their viewpoint so just knock off the lame partisan excuses.

And yes, Garland should have had a hearing. But he didn't. Get over it. Both sides need to stop acting like dicks.

And its really funny that Gorsuch had unanimous support across both sides of the aisle for his current position but for some odd reason he suddenly doesn't? No its not for some odd reason. The ONLY reason that Democrats are opposing him is out of spite because the Republicans acted childish themselves and wouldn't even give Garland a hearing. That is the ONLY reason. Anything else is made up partisan BS.

And what's ironic and hypocritical is that your complaining about the republicans insisting that SCOTUS was fine with just 8 Justices and yet at the same time Democrats cried foul and insisted that it needed 9. Now they're apparently perfectly fine with having just 8 Justices. Are you? What was your stance during all that? What's your stance now?

The only actual fact here is that both sides are acting like children and need to grow the **** up or gtfo.
 
When that day comes it will hurt less if trump can pack the courts with conservatives before the balance of power shifts back to the dems

At least you admit that "packing the court" is what the GOP is trying to do. I doubt that Trump will be around long enough to pick another SC Judge. He's going down......
 
We'll see if McConnell is going to risk undermining minority power or if he's going to go full turtle and abandon his own promise (again).

He will. They're going to change the rules.

So either Gorsuch is in for the fix, or they're in a panic to get someone confirmed in case Trump is charged with a crime soon. They're moving very fast on everything, since the Trump administration is crumbling. They're heading for the doors and fire escapes. Trump may be fine, but they can't be sure.
 
I believe the point is that conservatives have used the filibuster far more than Dems so it is good that the Republicans are killing it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-05-09/all-filibusters-all-the-time

I've read that that may be what the Democrats are thinking. They know that an extremist Justice is going to be pushed through, one way or the other, so maybe they figure that this way, at least the Dems get the filibuster killed, which has hurt the Democrats more often than the Republicans in the past.
 
I've read that that may be what the Democrats are thinking. They know that an extremist Justice is going to be pushed through, one way or the other, so maybe they figure that this way, at least the Dems get the filibuster killed, which has hurt the Democrats more often than the Republicans in the past.

LOL Gorsuch is hardly an extremist. in fact he has top marks on pretty much all of his rulings and has some of the bar's highest merits.

he knows he doesn't have the power to re-write the constitution. someone should tell the 3 liberal justices that.
 
LOL Gorsuch is hardly an extremist. in fact he has top marks on pretty much all of his rulings and has some of the bar's highest merits.

he knows he doesn't have the power to re-write the constitution. someone should tell the 3 liberal justices that.

And the trucker ruling?
 
I would argue that justices Kennedy, Roberts, and [hypothetical] Garland votes would all come down to the details of the case.

I don't see a big push to overturn Heller. I don't envision the SCOTUS changing positions with respect to the second amendment anytime soon.

The pro-gun side has been overwhelmingly successful from the legislative angle. The judiciary isn't really doing much because gun laws aren't slated for change. Liberals have bigger fish to fry for the foreseeable future. I suppose i can understand why you'd want to play the long game and secure someone you have confidence in, but i don't think it's fair for you to speculate on Garland being predictably anti-gun.

the fourth circuit blatantly ignored both Heller and McDonald.

The left is constantly trying to whittle away gun owners' rights

its important to them for two reasons-1) to pander to the slow witted who want something done about gun violence and are too stupid or don't care enough to really understand the issues

2) its important to slake the hatred of the lefties who blame losing everything from the 2000 presidential election to the current presidency on the NRA and want legislation designed to harass and punish people who take their second amendment rights seriously
 
And the trucker ruling?

yep he ruled based on the law. your point?
judges do not have the power to re-write law or re-write the constitution.

this is basic government 101.
 
At least you admit that "packing the court" is what the GOP is trying to do. I doubt that Trump will be around long enough to pick another SC Judge. He's going down......

Dems want to pack the court too

But they lost the senate and the white house so now repubs are in the drivers seat
 
I believe the point is that conservatives have used the filibuster far more than Dems so it is good that the Republicans are killing it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-05-09/all-filibusters-all-the-time

And that story is really, amazingly ignorant.

First, a cloture vote is not a filibuster. It simply isn't.

Second, just because you have 60 Democrats voting lockstep in the Senate doesn't make the vote a filibuster. Good grief.

And it is a lie to say that every single bill passed required a 60 vote cloture. Cloture was called on about 10% of all bills passed, and about 5% of bills were subject to a failed cloture, and an even smaller percentage of those bills were actually withdrawn due to a filibuster.
 
And the trucker ruling?

one decision that actually comported with the law. he was a dissenting opinion such the claim that his decision was overruled is not accurate. rather his dissent remained a dissent, not the controlling decision. and he had the law on his side

Gorsuch disagreed (PDF) with the panel majority, which found that the law protected Maddin. Gorsuch acknowledged the firing decision might not be wise or kind. But the court’s job was to interpret the law and its protections for those who refuse to operate a vehicle.

“The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle,” Gorsuch wrote. “There’s simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid.”

Frozen trucker case is among decisions said to illustrate Gorsuch's legal approach
 
LOL Gorsuch is hardly an extremist. in fact he has top marks on pretty much all of his rulings and has some of the bar's highest merits.

he knows he doesn't have the power to re-write the constitution. someone should tell the 3 liberal justices that.

He's an extremist. Read the case of the trucker. His decision was absurd. Gorsuch ALWAYS (except twice) finds for the corporation, as a matter of practice, no matter the law. He's an extremist and is in the pocket of the corporate oligarchy.

I thought Trumpers wanted to drain the swamp? Now they want to put the swamp in the Supreme Court, in addition to the Executive Branch and the Legislature?

The Republicans should pick someone who is pro-life and a conservative but who a few more Dems would vote for. Problem solved. But they won't. Their decision.
 
I believe the point is that conservatives have used the filibuster far more than Dems so it is good that the Republicans are killing it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-05-09/all-filibusters-all-the-time

the demographics suggest the dems -appealing to immigrants and the fast breeding urban poor, will probably increase their popular vote advantage in the future. However, it appears that the GOP will continue to win more states and that means they have the edge in holding the senate
 
here you are faulting the democras for tRump's incompetence
his appointees were not timely submitting their paperwork
tRump was not timely submitting their names
in fact, most of the remaining appointments are not filled because tRump has made no effort to fill them. that was his choice

I do not believe that is the case.
The delay on U.S. Trade Representative nominee Robert Lighthizer appears to be purely political. No paperwork holdup on his conformation hearing.

Trump’s pick for Labor secretary, Alex Acosta is understandable his paperwork was not yet completed as of mid March since he was chosen after Pudzer withdrew his nomination.

There is no possible excuse other than political for Dan Coats to have to wait till mid March to be confirmed. The new Director of National Intelligence was overwhelmingly approved in his confirmation and should have been confirmed a lot sooner especially considering the importance of his position.
I believe he has been on the job a whole 15 or so days. Geesh

Purdue for Agriculture Secretary, it was being reported about a week ago that they were waiting on his FBI check and OGE report. Purdue is another one many believe he will sail through confirmation.



The excuse often given by the Democrats for the delays is they are waiting on the reports from the Office of Government ethics to proceed.
An Obama appointee Walter Shaub, is the director of OGE. He was confirmed in 2013. He serves a 5 year term that overlaps presidential elections.

You may recall this involving Walter Shaub at the end of November last year just three weeks after the election.

"A series of tweets on 30 November 2016 from the office's official Twitter account praised President-elect Donald Trump for planning to divest his business holdings in order to resolve potential conflicts of interest, following an announcement where Trump reaffirmed his intent to take himself out of business operations, despite him having made no firm commitment to a divestment like selling his businesses or a blind trust. A number of observers speculated that the office's account might have been hacked, a suggestion it later denied.[2] The New York Times suggested that the apparent misunderstanding behind the postings were deliberately intended to reveal the independent agency had advised Trump's legal counsel that a divestment was the only adequate remedy for resolving any conflict, and, by extension, pressure Trump into doing so.[3] A Freedom of Information Act request by news organization The Daily Dot revealed that OGE Director Walter M. Shaub personally ordered officials within the agency to post the 9 tweets. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Government_Ethics

Talk about ethics!

So everytime a Dem says they are waiting on the OGE report to proceed it is probably true, by design.

Another critical appointee of Trump's has been politically stalled is the Deputy AG.
 
He's an extremist. Read the case of the trucker. His decision was absurd. Gorsuch ALWAYS (except twice) finds for the corporation, as a matter of practice, no matter the law. He's an extremist and is in the pocket of the corporate oligarchy.

I thought Trumpers wanted to drain the swamp? Now they want to put the swamp in the Supreme Court, in addition to the Executive Branch and the Legislature?

The Republicans should pick someone who is pro-life and a conservative but who a few more Dems would vote for. Problem solved. But they won't. Their decision.

Someone who uses the term "corporate oligarchy" has no business calling anyone an extremist.
 
Well, the long wait is over. If the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments dies, it will likely happen this week.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...9bcd8c-186a-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html

What a purely shameful display by Democrats. I hope the party suffers and evolves into something better before obtaining any power again. Wasn't it a few months ago they were demanding the seat be filled and how dire it is to have a justice vacant? Now they'll filibusterer a justice they likely confirmed in the past purely because we have a Republican appointing him.
 
Who called Cloture? What was the outcome of the vote? and what was the outcome of the bills on which cloture was called? You might want to either read what I have written on the subject or actually do more than look at a low-information bar graph before calling BS.

Cloture votes are not filibusters. Filibusters are FAILED cloture votes. There was no increase in the rate of failed cloture votes during that time, it just happens to be that Reid called a metric ass-ton of cloture votes, the majority of which passed easily. And even when a filibuster is successful it doesn't mean that the resulting debate doesn't come to a conclusion and a vote taken. Not only that, but many calls for cloture were withdrawn and a vote happened anyway.

There were three effective filibusters of appointees in the 112th Congress, and 2 in the 113th Congress. There was an uptick in the rate of successful filibusters in the 112th congress, but it was for appointees, and the number was inflated because the Democrats reissued some bills over and over again.

Many "filibusters", however, didn't stop the bill or appointee from being approved in a floor vote.

It is a complex issue and you let NPR keep you ignorant.

They were being petty and blocking appointments en masse for political reasons. None of your hand waving can change that.
 
What a purely shameful display by Democrats. I hope the party suffers and evolves into something better before obtaining any power again. Wasn't it a few months ago they were demanding the seat be filled and how dire it is to have a justice vacant? Now they'll filibusterer a justice they likely confirmed in the past purely because we have a Republican appointing him.

So uh, how did you feel about Garland being blocked for the entirety of Obama's last year?
 



Graphic

How Supreme Court confirmations have become more partisan
The overwhelming majority of Supreme Court nominees have received a substantial majority of votes for confirmation, and no Supreme Court nominee has ever been blocked by a single-party filibuster. But that is expected to change with nominee Neil Gorsuch.

 
What a purely shameful display by Democrats. I hope the party suffers and evolves into something better before obtaining any power again. Wasn't it a few months ago they were demanding the seat be filled and how dire it is to have a justice vacant? Now they'll filibusterer a justice they likely confirmed in the past purely because we have a Republican appointing him.

Just like Obama's SC appointment was denied a hearing because we had a Democrat appointing him. Your memory is so short.
 
Just like Obama's SC appointment was denied a hearing because we had a Democrat appointing him. Your memory is so short.

In a press briefing Sean Spicer said that Republicans always allowed an up and down vote on Obama's Supreme Court appointments.

Yes. He said that.
 
Back
Top Bottom