Supreme Court Justice kennedy retires

[Jim in CT]

I would like to thank Harry Reid for invoking the nuclear option when it suited his needs. What’s good for the goose.

[spence]

For SCOTUS?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

For SCOTUS?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a precedent in Senate procedure. Did Reid think it would only be used in the way HE wanted? As in the SCOTUS, precedent can spread like a virus. And as we have said, over and over, the left was warned that its precedents would come back to bite them.

[Jim in CT]

The nuclear can of worms has been opened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The nuclear can of worms has been opened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ask Harry Reid. He opened it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ask Harry Reid. He opened it.

Exactly. You have a problem with it, write a letter to Harry Reid. He opened it. Time to stick it up his azz.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Such non answers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Such non answers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your one word, totally general, non-specific question was, I assume, a sly way to lead into focusing some kind of unnamed blame on the current use of the nuclear option and brush Reid's culpability under the rug. The "non-answers" focused the blame back onto the originator, and implied that the answer you want is also the answer to why Reid created the nuclear option.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Such non answers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reid started this. Am I going too fast? Reid was warned by chuck Schumer that the gop would eventually use the nuclear option against the dems. He was right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by spence

Such non answers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your answers add nothing to the discussion.... (I detest this style of debate, as I do the current style of governing by winning at all costs...)

I just assumed that you were aware of the history of this rule of order, brought to the Senate floor by Mr Reid. It allows passage of vote by simple majority of 51, which is an easier target to attain than the normal passage vote needed which was 60.


So end result is, after an eight year reign where a group played with the rules to hold us by the short hairs.... the tide has changed and is being used against those who invoked this option.


Please note, Jeff, that this is NOT a pro-Trump post. Simply an answer to your answers feigning surprise and disdain…..

[PaulS]

I'd prefer 9 middle of the roaders.

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I'd prefer 9 middle of the roaders.

As it should be.... to judge each case on merit, not political affiliation.

To take it a step further, I would prefer 100 middle of the roaders in the Senate too.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

As it should be.... to judge each case on merit, not political affiliation.

To take it a step further, I would prefer 100 middle of the roaders in the Senate too.

Good Luck with that, our state can't even come up with 2.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Reid started this. Am I going too fast? Reid was warned by chuck Schumer that the gop would eventually use the nuclear option against the dems. He was right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They already have. Blaming this on Reid is silly, the Republicans removed the restriction for SCOTUS. They've already gone there.

[wdmso]

All the GOP can say is at least we didn't steal this one....

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I just assumed that you were aware of the history of this rule of order, brought to the Senate floor by Mr Reid. It allows passage of vote by simple majority of 51, which is an easier target to attain than the normal passage vote needed which was 60.

Hence my point that the GOP has already used it to push Neil Gorsuch through. There's no can of worms that's been opened, we're far past that. Jim's just so giddy because he thinks Roe is going to be overturned he can't think straight.

[nightfighter]

This is exactly what I find so nauseating. You project the idea of a landmark decision being overturned into a discussion about the procedure of appointment.... and then assign that idea to another, if only to propagate your agenda. It reminds me of debating with conspiracy theorists about NASA, 9/11, Newtown, flat earth, etc....

[DZ]

I don't think there are any "middle of the roader's" in today's environment. There will always be issues with any nominee by both sides. This is bound to be nasty, I watched some clips of Clarence Thomas where he basically said he was "lynched" in the approval process. Trumps lasting legacy whether we like it or not will be the shape of the Supreme Court in years to come.

[JohnR]

I warned you..... ; )

Politics
Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees
1:11
The Senate goes nuclear

By Paul Kane November 21, 2013 Email the author

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

Goes on to say this was R's fault for blocking O's nominees, and that R's said to HR don't do this. HR gave middle finger yada yada yada

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7900470a61af

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

All the GOP can say is at least we didn't steal this one....

What did they steal , exactly? The nomination of the nut obama wanted? The American citizens freely chose to give senate control to the gop. As obama liked to say, elections have consequences. I don’t think voters gave the senate to the gop, so they could let obama replace Scalia with a liberal nut job. If the American people don’t like what Mitch McConnell did, they have the opportunity every two years to make a change. So far, they have chosen to leave the senate with the gop, and it’s a safe bet they will keep the senate in November, the seats up for re election could not possibly align any better for the republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Hence my point that the GOP has already used it to push Neil Gorsuch through. There's no can of worms that's been opened, we're far past that. Jim's just so giddy because he thinks Roe is going to be overturned he can't think straight.

Reid did it in 2013, which last time I checked, was before Gorsuch got confirmed.

I don’t expect roe to get overturned. I do expect a shift away from liberal activism, and damn right that has me giddy. I remember exactly how I felt whan I heard Scalia died, I can’t believe how much better things are than I feared, all because McConnell finally grew a pair and held off obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Oooohhhhhhh

The Burn

https://twitter.com/senorrinhatch/st...75217584295938

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What did they steal , exactly? The nomination of the nut obama wanted? The American citizens freely chose to give senate control to the gop. As obama liked to say, elections have consequences. I don’t think voters gave the senate to the gop, so they could let obama replace Scalia with a liberal nut job. If the American people don’t like what Mitch McConnell did, they have the opportunity every two years to make a change. So far, they have chosen to leave the senate with the gop, and it’s a safe bet they will keep the senate in November, the seats up for re election could not possibly align any better for the republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Merrick Garland was a nut? Is that based on Obama nominating him, therefore he must be an evil progressive? What do you actually know about him other than that he was nominated by Obama?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Merrick Garland was a nut? Is that based on Obama nominating him, therefore he must be an evil progressive? What do you actually know about him other than that he was nominated by Obama?

I’m basing it on the fact that obama wanted him. And the tiny, tiny bit I read. I didn’t write his biography. And I was using hyperbole, I don’t actually suspect he was mentally ill.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

This is exactly what I find so nauseating. You project the idea of a landmark decision being overturned into a discussion about the procedure of appointment.... and then assign that idea to another, if only to propagate your agenda. It reminds me of debating with conspiracy theorists about NASA, 9/11, Newtown, flat earth, etc....

Because they're all interrelated politically...no conspiracy here.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Reid did it in 2013, which last time I checked, was before Gorsuch got confirmed.

Reid specifically said it wasn't allowed for SCOTUS. The Republicans changed that rule to push Gorsuch through which they likely would have done regardless of what Reid did in 2013.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by DZ

I watched some clips of Clarence Thomas where he basically said he was "lynched" in the approval process.

It is widely viewed that he pulled the race card by saying that when he was questioned on the sexual aspects of his dealings w/Anita Hill.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is widely viewed that he pulled the race card by saying that when he was questioned on the sexual aspects of his dealings w/Anita Hill.

It is also widely viewed that the dems played the race card, from the bottom of the deck, by claiming that a black man was not to be trusted around women. That was actually when I became a republican, after I saw what they did to Clarence Thomas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Reid specifically said it wasn't allowed for SCOTUS. The Republicans changed that rule to push Gorsuch through which they likely would have done regardless of what Reid did in 2013.

Ahh. So since you speculate that they might have done it anyway, that means Reid didn’t open the can of worms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device