EPTThe question now is who will vote against the nuclear option. I have no idea how anybody stands on that. Any Republicans against it? Do the three Democratic rebels have a stance on it?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7248
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3525 Posts
The question now is who will vote against the nuclear option. I have no idea how anybody stands on that. Any Republicans against it? Do the three Democratic rebels have a stance on it? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12619 Posts
On April 04 2017 01:54 Krikkitone wrote: The problem is in those states where a primary from the left would lose to a republican. (the DNC would probably support a DINO at the risk of losing a Senate seat.) In those cases the Senator could also run as an Independent. (Primarying is a bigger risk in the House because D+R are sorted within states much more than between states) No it wouldn't cause the quote means economically to the left of them, not socially to the left of them. Just let the Republican be the one defending that corporations are awesome in West Virginia. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
This is a game of chicken both sides have never played before, so we don't know what is going to happen. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3525 Posts
On April 04 2017 02:43 LegalLord wrote: I doubt the traitors would cooperate with the nuclear option, even if they would vote to confirm xDaunt. Assuming all the Dems are against the nuclear option (not 100% sure on that), that means there needs to be three Republican rebels. Graham, McCain and Collins were all members of the "Gang of 14" that opposed the nuclear option in 2005. Do they hold the same position now? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On April 04 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote: So it's now confirmed there's not enough votes to break the filibuster. The question now is who will vote against the nuclear option. I have no idea how anybody stands on that. Any Republicans against it? Do the three Democratic rebels have a stance on it? Since this is all theater I'm guessing it works out something like this (considering some Democrats have been saying "I will vote against him" rather than I will filibuster). Democrats threaten filibuster, Republicans say they will use the nuclear option, Democrats/Republicans go on TV that week to explain why that's so dangerous, Democrats agree to an up or down vote, Gorsuch is confirmed. Maybe it drags on for a week or two, but that's where we get eventually. Otherwise Democrats could expect never to get a SCOTUS judge themselves without either 60 vote majorities or going nuclear themselves, again. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 04 2017 02:01 LightSpectra wrote: Looks like the nuclear option's happening for Gorsuch. Only four Democrats have said they would oppose a filibuster: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/gorsuch-filibuster-whip-count/ (There's four undecided Democrats, but it's really not likely all four of them will fall in line against a filibuster.) Any strong opinions on TL about that? 10 years ago the idea was so unthinkable, now it's almost inevitable. EDIT: Minutes after I posted this, WaPo updated to show that one of the undecideds now supports the filibuster. opinions: it's the republicans fault. (more fact than opinion of course). I dislike the current filibuster rule, it's dumb, so I won't miss it that much. I also think that from a constitutional perspective, it's really dumb to have a rule that says you can't do X without a 3/5 majority, unless a simple majority decides otherwise. If the filibuster truly matters, it should be put into the constitution so it can't be removed with a simple majority. I dislike the current filibuster because you don't have to actually stand there talking, you just sort of declare it and block stuff. I'm fine with giving people all the time they want to talk and debate, if they still have something to say, and it's on topic, and they aren't just repeating themselves. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
zlefin: The constitution allows both houses to make their own rules, and any rule set will have abuses. By nature, any political system will find way to "kill" bills and use that system as leverage. The political system will find a new filibuster. The real fear is that both parties start changes the rules of the House and Senate each time the power dynamic changes. I am with you that someone should have to stand their talking. The rule was much better when we had people reading from the phone book and losing their weekends due to holding up a bill. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
sadly we don't seem to have a president capable of actually striking that kind of deal, this is really a situation for dealmaking. while true any rule system will have abuses, it's still dumb to have a rule that requires supermajorities unless a majority decides otherwise. You could also agree to some ruleset and require a 2/3 majority to make changes to it, whether the system would work better long term is hard to say, but it would prevent oscillating majorities from constantly changing the rules. Since rules are a framework, much like the constitutions itself, it might make sense to have them be less flexible. you can't necessarily find a "new" filibuster, well-written rulesets may simply not allow for such a thing. The rulesets are not so byzantinely complicated that there's always some other sneaky way to mess with stuff. I dislike reading from the phonebook, it feels like a waste of everybody's time, sure i'ts better than the current system, but it's still dumb. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On April 04 2017 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Since this is all theater I'm guessing it works out something like this (considering some Democrats have been saying "I will vote against him" rather than I will filibuster). Democrats threaten filibuster, Republicans say they will use the nuclear option, Democrats/Republicans go on TV that week to explain why that's so dangerous, Democrats agree to an up or down vote, Gorsuch is confirmed. Maybe it drags on for a week or two, but that's where we get eventually. Otherwise Democrats could expect never to get a SCOTUS judge themselves without either 60 vote majorities or going nuclear themselves, again. I don't know that this scenario is anything but disastrous for the Democrats? Like I again don't care if Gorsuch is confirmed or not, but if the Democrats let the Republicans avoid a vote on Garland then roll over and get nothing in response my opinion of the Democratic party would sink to a new low and I can't imagine I am alone in that thought. In a time where people are demanding a lot from the Democrats, having them just play dead to continued Republican bullying seems horrible. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10989 Posts
If this judge gets thru whiteout a second/third/whatever try, someone paid really well. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5083 Posts
They have to succeed here, hope a liberal/moderate justice doesn't leave in the next 3 years, and take back both the senate and presidency in 4 years. Quite a few ifs in there. Edit: the gop has little spine, but I expect they will go through with it. The Democrats certainly would, and threatened to do so, so I expect to see those clips rolled out. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On April 03 2017 22:50 LightSpectra wrote: In response to "many just accepting that he's corrupt but will help their side", I hope those people realize how detrimental that idea is. Presidents that are perceived as being good leave a long-lasting mark. Reagan's influence is still felt deeply within the GOP. On the other hand, Bush was so unpopular that the Democrats got their biggest wins since the 1950s out of it, and more people than ever were completely disillusioned with the GOP and conservatism. They might be holding power now but Trump's popularity ratings are so poisonous that there's little doubt that there will be a huge Democratic sweep in 2018 and most likely 2020 as well. This is the time for the Republicans to do damage control and distance themselves from Trump, but they don't seem to be doing that at all. I loved when democrats said EXACTLY this when he got the nomination (and that it was impossible for him to get elected) | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 04 2017 03:18 Introvert wrote: There is only one scenario where this works long term for the Democrats. They have to succeed here, hope a liberal/moderate justice doesn't leave in the next 3 years, and take back both the senate and presidency in 4 years. Quite a few ifs in there. long term it's just as bad for the republicans, and the country. so it seems more like a wash long term, you're thinking medium/short term really. short term, it's mostly something they have to do for cohesion and support. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 04 2017 03:18 Introvert wrote: There is only one scenario where this works long term for the Democrats. They have to succeed here, hope a liberal/moderate justice doesn't leave in the next 3 years, and take back both the senate and presidency in 4 years. Quite a few ifs in there. So the exact same plan the Republicans had in 2016, except they needed to hold on to the Senate? All these plans suck, but the Republican leadership can’t be trusted. The democrats are going to get nothing for 4 years and they know it, so why even pretend? | ||
|
Introvert
United States5083 Posts
On April 04 2017 03:24 GoTuNk! wrote: I loved when democrats said EXACTLY this when he got the nomination (and that it was impossible or him to get elected) Moreover, we've already seen that most voters view Trump as his own entity, apart from the gop in many ways. I am very curious to see how this translates to the midterms, should he still be at 35% approval, especially if these congressmen run apart from him. The congressional map favors the gop in generally due to the more dispersed nature of the country. 2006/08 could happen again though, we clearly shouldn't try and find out. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On April 04 2017 03:18 Introvert wrote: There is only one scenario where this works long term for the Democrats. They have to succeed here, hope a liberal/moderate justice doesn't leave in the next 3 years, and take back both the senate and presidency in 4 years. Quite a few ifs in there. Edit: the gop has little spine, but I expect they will go through with it. The Democrats certainly would, and threatened to do so, so I expect to see those clips rolled out. Don't they just have to take back a majority in 2018? Don't have to hold out until 2020. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3525 Posts
On April 04 2017 03:18 Introvert wrote: There is only one scenario where this works long term for the Democrats. They have to succeed here, hope a liberal/moderate justice doesn't leave in the next 3 years, and take back both the senate and presidency in 4 years. Quite a few ifs in there. Edit: the gop has little spine, but I expect they will go through with it. The Democrats certainly would, and threatened to do so, so I expect to see those clips rolled out. Trump's polling incredibly bad, my expectation is that so long as they don't cave on the filibuster, they're going to sweep both houses in 2018 and it'll all be a moot point. Then it's just a matter of waiting it out until 2020 or 2024. | ||
| ||
