LOL.... GOP running things
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Hahahahahaha. GOP playing chess while the Dems play Go Fish.
Bad idea that they will pay for later, just like Reid's nuclear option or whatever. Dems will have power again someday and they will use it as well.
I don't think it will come to this on Gorsuch. But the threat of such a move has to be McConnell's trump card, held in his back pocket. My faith in his ability to play it properly isn't large though.
Hopefully in the future the Repubs will show up. If not, the Dems should go around them. Simply avoiding the sessions to prevent quorum means that you know your position is too weak to actually stand up for.
It's a horrible idea. But one that Harry Reid has to live with and watch unfold. And right now, I find it hilarious.
They would do it anyway. Doesn't matter what republicans do right now.
Then none of you should show up here with any faux outrage when the democrats take it even a step further the next time they have the presidency.
Genie is out of the bottle. If GOP doesn't do it, the Democrats undoubtedly would in the future.
On a related note, I was listening to NPR yesterday evening on the drive home as they discussed Trump's nominee (this was before Gorsuch was named) and what hurdles the nominee might face. Towards the end they got into discussing "the nuclear option". First of all, they acted like the idea and notion of it was the most obscure and arcane subject that had ever been brought up on NPR, instead of something that most NPR listeners interested in the Supreme Court would already be readily familiar with. They discussed it in a way that suggested their average listener is a middle school civics class student.
They discussed the tradition of the filibuster in the Senate, what the reaction and consequences might be if McConnell decides to use the nuclear option, and what McConnell's actual comments have been on the subject. Imagine my surprise when the piece ended and they NEVER mentioned ONE WORD about Harry Reid suspending the Senate rules on the filibuster (i.e. using the nuclear option) for ALL judicial nominees other than USSC nominees. They never even uttered the name Harry Reid.
On a related note, I was listening to NPR yesterday evening on the drive home as they discussed Trump's nominee (this was before Gorsuch was named) and what hurdles the nominee might face. Towards the end they got into discussing "the nuclear option". First of all, they acted like the idea and notion of it was the most obscure and arcane subject that had ever been brought up on NPR, instead of something that most NPR listeners interested in the Supreme Court would already be readily familiar with. They discussed it in a way that suggested their average listener is a middle school civics class student.
They discussed the tradition of the filibuster in the Senate, what the reaction and consequences might be if McConnell decides to use the nuclear option, and what McConnell's actual comments have been on the subject. Imagine my surprise when the piece ended and they NEVER mentioned ONE WORD about Harry Reid suspending the Senate rules on the filibuster (i.e. using the nuclear option) for ALL judicial nominees other than USSC nominees. They never even uttered the name Harry Reid.
Last edited:
Hell man, I'm not saying it's "right."
I'm asking what's the cost?
In recent years the Democrats have shown that politics is now akin to Game of Thrones or Highlander... there can be only one.
So if they've shown that they will predictably and reliably do everything in their power to advance their agenda, does it not behoove the balancing party from doing the same to reach parity?
Can you go the other way? Could rules be enacted that could eliminate the nuclear options altogether? That way, the Dems (who i agree will be in power again), simply won't have that joker in the deck to play with.
I say go for it. There are no filibusters in the constitution. Any form of obstruction the minority party could use in case of emergency (filibusters, shenanigans with quorums, etc) will eventually devolve into being used routinely and ruin the function of government. The people have spoken. Let Trump and the Republicans do whatever they can muster majority support for. If you don't like it, vote them out and reverse it.
Get rid of the 60 vote requirement and fix the freaking mess you've created.
Republicans might actually stay in power for a long time if they actually do what people want and need. Government off our backs and real job growth for current citizens not future residents.
Republicans might actually stay in power for a long time if they actually do what people want and need. Government off our backs and real job growth for current citizens not future residents.
Is it possible to put the genie back in the bottle, that restrictions are enacted that cannot easily be undone?
The genie was out of the bottle with the adoption of the 17th amendment. You want to really fix the Senate? Repeal the 17th amendment.
Really hard to prevent majority rule without a constitutional amendment. We relied on norms previously, but over time they get eroded, ratcheted away.
Probably not with the political make-up we have in the two parties right now. Whichever one in power acts to seize as much control and power while they are in not really thinking about when they are out that the other party now has all that power and control. Eventually one will get so much power and control that they will be able to lock out effective dissent pretty much permanently.
At least that is my fear.
The only way it could be done right now is if Democrats agree to pass a hotly contested basket of bills as tradeoff for the Republicans voting in a blick to enact restrictions.
The basket of bills is the pound of flesh demanded of the democrats for being in the weaker position currently.
I don't see that happening unless the restriction was something like you need a 75% or more supermajority to change Senate rules. I don't see the Republicans being interested in doing something like that.
Or the Senate could vote to reverse the 1970 rule change which changed the requirement that a Senator beginning a filibuster actually had to stand and talk continuously even if it took all night. In 1970, the Senate rules changed to a "two-track" system which allowed the Senate, by unanimous consent or by approval of the minority leader, to bypass any bill being filibustered and move on to other bills. No longer does any filibustering Senator have to control the floor indefinitely thus preventing the Senate from conducting other business. Filibusters exploded when this rule change occurred.
I wouldn't use the nuclear option right away. Keep in your back pocket put pressure on the 10 D senators from states that voted for Trump that are up for reelection in 2018 to vote your way. If they don't you have something to use against them. You can always break it out in the 4th quarter for the W.
Manchin and Heitkamp proved today they'll cross party lines to save their own back as they voted for Tillerson.
Manchin and Heitkamp proved today they'll cross party lines to save their own back as they voted for Tillerson.
