Democrats secure votes to block Gorsuch as Senate panel considers nominee

[Master PO]

This thread's s good start .

:doh so you and i in the same thread exchanging posts, is me following you around the board?

When will you begin to discuss the thread topic, master po, besides following me around the board ?

 

[Linc]

The filibuster originated in 2013??

When did the writings on the nuclear option begin ?

 

[Absentglare]

iam glad you find it amusing, but you clearly have no knowledge of the point i was making.

I got your point. If sick people are the only people buying insurance, insurance will become prohibitively expensive.

The individual mandate was placed in the law to make sure that healthy people are buying insurance to balance the dissolution of pre-existing condition based coverage. This in turn was improved through the expansion of medicaid and the issuance of subsidies to ensure that plenty of healthy people sign up.

The point of your hypothetical may have been missed on you.

 

[Master PO]

I got your point. If sick people are the only people buying insurance, insurance will become prohibitively expensive.

The individual mandate was placed in the law to make sure that healthy people are buying insurance to balance the dissolution of pre-existing condition based coverage. This in turn was improved through the expansion of medicaid and the issuance of subsidies to ensure that plenty of healthy people sign up.

The point of your hypothetical may have been missed on you.

i know your point and that is to be collective and to put everyone in the same basket by force.

 

[nota bene]

What did you think of Garland?

I posted my opinion about Gorsuch, not Garland. What's your point--that turn-about is fair play?

 

[Renae]

When did the writings on the nuclear option begin ?

Who used it first?

 

[Absentglare]

I posted my opinion about Gorsuch, not Garland. What's your point--that turn-about is fair play?

You seemed to be commending the nomination of Gorsuch, as though it obligated democrats to confirm Gorsuch. Garland was perhaps the best qualified SCOTUS appointment in our history.

We shouldn't be holding a hearing on the second guy in line and then claiming some obligation to confirm him.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The reason that their first bill failed is the lack of a coherent ideology that can actually address these issues.

The reason their bill had a dismal 17% approval rate is because it was almost universally disliked. What they came up with was garbage from their own voters eyes. Face it, the campaign and the reality are two very different things for congressional republicans at the federal level.

Not chasing you down the black hole of a health care discussion. We can return to the discussion of Gorsuch's confirmation.

 

[akyron]

McConnell will not stop with Supreme Court picks. Next up will be legislation .

/agree

That's probably a door that should never have been opened.

 

[vesper]

While Schumer has the votes to filibuster Gorsuch, McConnell has the votes to use the Constitutional option.
One way or another those of us who voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court vacancy alone in hopes a jurist in the mold of Scalia would be seated, will see Justice Gorsuch confirmed and sworn in on Friday.

 

[nota bene]

You seemed to be commending the nomination of Gorsuch, as though it obligated democrats to confirm Gorsuch. Garland was perhaps the best qualified SCOTUS appointment in our history.

We shouldn't be holding a hearing on the second guy in line and then claiming some obligation to confirm him.

My point is that obstructionism is counterproductive.

 

[Kal'Stang]

My point is that obstructionism is counterproductive.

Most of the time yes, obstructionism is counter productive. But there are times when its appropriate. For instance to stop a particularly outlandish piece of legislation.

BUT that should be the only time its used really. Now a days its not used for that anymore. It's used purely out of spite. That goes beyond counterproductive imo. It goes into serious detriment. Republicans did it way too much during Obama's term, but it seems like Democrats are taking it to a whole 'nother level.

 

[jmotivator]

You continue to lose the debate when you call posters ignorant and civics challenged.

The alt-right Bannonite circus continues on day 75 with its daily lies, misdirections, cover ups, impotence and incompetence .

I called the article ignorant because it contained incorrect information, and I called the article civics challenged because the incorrect information should have been learned in civics class.

A filibuster is NOT what you call it when 60 Democrats vote in lockstep for a bill. A filibuster is when a cloture vote is called and there are not 60 votes for cloture. That is it. That amazing stupid article disregarded the clear definition of a filibuster, something they should have learned in middle school, in order to foist a lie on its readers.

 

[jmotivator]

I provided evidence for my narrative. You provided no evidence. You can wave your hands all you like, but i know of no magicians trick that will force me to unquestionably take your word for it.

I wasn't aware that I needed to provide evidence of something that is common knowledge. Do you agree with that article's explanation of what a filibuster is? Because that is not what a filibuster is.

I'm not asking you to unquestioningly take my word for it, I am saying that you unquestioningly took the word of an article that is stupid and civics challenged because it agreed with your narrative. Had you known what a filibuster was, or checked to see if their portrayal of what a filibuster is was accurate then I assume you wouldn't have posted the article... since their portrayal of what a filibuster is is stupid and civics challenged.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I called the article ignorant because it contained incorrect information, and I called the article civics challenged because the incorrect information should have been learned in civics class.

A filibuster is NOT what you call it when 60 Democrats vote in lockstep for a bill. A filibuster is when a cloture vote is called and there are not 60 votes for cloture. That is it. That amazing stupid article disregarded the clear definition of a filibuster, something they should have learned in middle school, in order to foist a lie on its readers.

No, that isn't what a filibuster is. A filibuster is when someone, or a group of someones will endlessly "debate" in order to delay or prevent a vote by any means necessary. They can even sit there and read from Shakespeare (which has been done before). Their only goal is to delay or prevent a bill from going to vote. For instance in '86 Senator Alfonse D’Amato of New York held the floor for over 23 hours simply reading from a phone book. He did it to oppose a military spending bill.

A cloture vote is used to end a filibuster.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I called the article ignorant because it contained incorrect information, and I called the article civics challenged because the incorrect information should have been learned in civics class.

A filibuster is NOT what you call it when 60 Democrats vote in lockstep for a bill. A filibuster is when a cloture vote is called and there are not 60 votes for cloture. That is it. That amazing stupid article disregarded the clear definition of a filibuster, something they should have learned in middle school, in order to foist a lie on its readers.

Btw: Here's a link: Filibuster and Cloture

 

[rocket88]

My point is that obstructionism is counterproductive.

It's always "obstructionism" when it goes against you. Liberals said that about the GOP for a long time because they were "obstructing" Obama's agenda. I assume you weren't quite as upset about it then.

What the party in power calls "obstructionism" is often a good thing. It's how business gets done in Washington, and it's how a minority party - who I may remind you still represent a large number of Americans - stays relevant.

That said, I think this is a silly place to take a stand. Gorsuch is a good nominee. Overall pretty mainstream. A little more conservative than I would like, but that's what you get from a Republican nominee. This is really just to make a point about Merrick Garland, who was also a good mainstream nominee (but a little more liberal than some would like). It's a bad time to blow your load, because there's likely to be something from the Republicans that a lot of Americans really can't stomach.

 

[ludin]

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.

You have proven that you are the extremist. He ruled based on the law which is what judges are supposed to do. judges do not get to make or create law that is outside their powers.
if someone doesn't like the law then they need to change it. it is not the courts job to change it.

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?

meaningless rhetoric with no basis in fact. Gorsuch has received some of the highest honors given to judges for his rulings by the Bar.

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.

Gorsuch is perfect for the job and was confirmed unanimously for the court of appeals.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I wish we could elect adults, instead of children pretending to be adults. Let's see if I can sum this up:

McConnell should not trigger the so-called nuclear option.
Democrats shouldn't filibuster Gorsuch for no good reason.
Republicans shouldn't have refused to hold a hearing for Garland for no good reason.
Democrats shouldn't have triggered the so-called nuclear option years back for other appointees (2013?).
Republicans shouldn't have engaged in record filibustering tactics.


All in all, if we insisted on more adults, rather than children, our country could run more smoothly. But that doesn't seem to be the direction we're headed anytime soon.

I agree. one question, in this case if the dems filibuster, what should the republicans do?

 

[ludin]

I think he has had only one ruling overturned by the USSC.

correct. he has had solid rulings and opinions for the years that he has served on the court.

 

[ludin]

I agree. one question, in this case if the dems filibuster, what should the republicans do?

they are going nuclear pretty much on appointments. which will mean all president no matter what side will get up down votes.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

they are going nuclear pretty much on appointments. which will mean all president no matter what side will get up down votes.

Is that bad?

 

[ludin]

Is that bad?

depends on how you look at it. one of the reasons that trump got all his cabinet pushed through
was because harry reid used the nuclear option on Obama.

what it means is the next time there is a SCOTUS nominee once out of committee there will be an up and down vote.

 

[Slyfox696]

I agree. one question, in this case if the dems filibuster, what should the republicans do?

As I said in my post, they should not trigger the so-called nuclear option. If the Dems filibuster, then Republicans should do one of two things. 1) Work across the aisle to come to a compromise on whatever in exchange for a yes vote on Gorsuch or 2) Relay to the President he needs to nominate someone else.

 

[Stephen50right]

Neil Gorsuch will be the next SCOTUS, and we all know it.

Hopefully Trump can get 1 or 2 more on the Supreme Court during the next 8 years.