Whose fault if the "nuclear option" is used to put Gorsuch on the Court??

[kentuck]

The Constitution only states that the Senate's job is to "advise and consent".

If the Democrats withhold consent, is that in conflict with the Constitution? I think not.

They might be in conflict with the rule passed by the Congress about 200 years ago but they do not believe the Senate should do away with it. That is their decision - not the Democrats.

If they respect the Constitution, they would make the right decision. They should understand the concept of precedence and that laws have been passed for a reason. They might think twice before they make that decision. Justices should have the consent of Congress. Some might argue that a 51-49 vote would mean that the Congress consents?

Some might argue for slightly a larger majority? Perhaps a 60-40 majority would be more of a consensus? Sixty-votes sounds about right.

(an added correction) https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q139.html

[longship]

1. Hint: Turtle McTurtleface!

Do I pass the test?

[kentuck]

3. What about the sheep that follow the Turtle?

Do they bear any responsibility?

[longship]

5. McTurtleface is majority leader. The buck stops there.

That's it.

[kentuck]

11. I would agree that it is his decision whether to put the vote to a simple majority...

but if fifty Senators vote to agree with him, then are they not responsible for their individual vote?

[longship]

14. It was asked, "Who is responsible?" Not "Who all are responsible?"

Just saying.

[kentuck]

15. You see, you take me literally.

[longship]

17. Indeed, my good friend. :-) nt

[Jonny Appleseed]

19. GOP senators only unilaterally vote because of fear of retalitation by their fuhrer and the Kochs

Votes wouldn't be on party lines if America was running the way it was designed.

[kentuck]

20. Yes, they are effectively gerry-mandered to keep their seats...

...but the one thing they fear the most is a primary opponent.

[Warpy]

26. Exactly, he's the one who has to propose the rule change

to end the filibuster in the Senate, the so-called "nuclear option" since it would eventually blow up on both parties.

A Democratic majority would be INSANE to give it back to them, given the history of the past 20 years. Once it goes, it's gone, and no minority party will be able to halt things they find objectionable.

[longship]

29. D'ya know what?

I don't think Turtle McTurtleface has the votes to go nuclear. Only 3 GOP votes against, it goes down in flames, and the filibuster holds.

[kentuck]

30. Bingo!

I think you got it!

[Warpy]

32. Depends on how much they want this twisted excuse for a judge

on the USSC, if they want to stick another finger in Obama's eye by getting their first hideous pick in there after refusing even to hear Garland, let alone vote on him.

It will be another reason GorsucK will never be legitimate.

[longship]

33. My hypothesis is that they might not have the votes to go nuclear.

There may be some GOP Senators who are intelligent enough to understand that the filibuster cuts both ways. They might not want to pull that trigger.

I don't think Turtle McTurtleface will pull the trigger if he wasn't sure that the votes were there, however.

I wouldn't pay any attention to his saber rattling.

[Warpy]

34. I see one, Susan Collins.

For too many years, that party has pushed ideologues into office, especially the Christian far right ideologues. I think they just might have enough votes.

[Xolodno]

2. Ried's outgoing speech said it all.

And I'm of the opinion Schumer, saw it the same way.

In otherwords, civility in the Senate died when Turtle used the Filibuster purely for obstruction and not for what it was intended, to encourage bi-partisanship. He is already going to go down in the history books as one of the worst Senators, may as well have him own it completely. The Asshole abused the filibuster for his advantage and then is the one who does away with it for his advantage.

[kentuck]

8. I heard something this morning I could hardly believe!

That Mitch had used the filibuster more than both the Parties from George Washington thru George W Bush. He would almost require a 60-vote total to re-name a post office. I would agree, that he is the worst Majority Leader in my lifetime, purely partisan and an asshole to boot.

[Xolodno]

21. Hence, why the filibuster for all intents and purposes...is dead.

Boehnor at least tried to work with Obama on some things, but was often rebuffed by his own party. And from the looks of things, he did get along with Obama.

The turtle on the other hand, whenever you saw him and Obama together he looked like he wanted spit in his face. He didn't just disagree with Obama, he hated him with a passion. I could hazard a guess as to why, but there would be no point to it.

Turtle trashed the civility of the Senate, did the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, held up nominations including leaving the Supreme Court vacant one seat for a year, etc.

Its ironic, Kentucky gave us Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser. And its given us Mitch McConnell, The Great Obstructor and Partisan hack.

[kentuck]

22. Amen to that!

He put Party over Everything.

[synergie]

23. Schumer tweeted something out

that pretty much made that clear.

Pretty much that McConnell used the "nuclear option" when he denied Merrick Garland meetings, much less a hearing. Everything else is fall out.

[Xolodno]

24. Yeap.

No point in playing by the rules if they won't do so. It's not boxing anymore, its a WWE No Disqualification, Falls Count Anywhere & Hard Core Match.

[Angry Dragon]

4. repubs

[PoliticAverse]

6. The current filibuster rule only dates back to 1975 when the "talking filibuster" was eliminated.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

"Consent" can mean a 51-50 vote (which was the vote to confirm one of Trump's cabinet members:
see http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/betsy-devos-narrowly-confirmed-by-us-senate/ ).
.

[kentuck]

10. Yes, that is the argument.

The people should ask, what makes you think you can get the Supreme Court to do what you want??

[Retrograde]

7. The people who vote for Gorsuch

are ultimately responsible if he is seated.

[Ms. Toad]

9. The last senate - who refused to even give Garland a hearing. n/t

[dchill]

12. Every Republican.

[still_one]

13. The nuclear option was already done when they blocked Garland's appointment without a hearing. This

just formalizes it

[kentuck]

18. I saw a quote by Adam Schiff...

..and he was of a similar position.

[still_one]

25. That is exactly where I got it from kentuck. I couldn't remember who said it, and appreciate

your heads up

Obviously, I agree with his assessment

Thanks

[Vinca]

16. GOP. In the past, if a candidate wasn't going to get sufficient votes they put up a new candidate.

[Thomas Hurt]

27. the GOP violated their oathes of office

by not doing exactly what the Dems are doing now.

Gorsuch got a hearing and meetings and a vote and it appears may get a filibuster.......Garland got none of those.

[Alice11111]

31. True

[jmg257]

28. Whomever set using it as precedent...

In 1917, a threat to use what is now known as the nuclear option resulted in reform of the Senate's filibuster rules. An opinion written by Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957 concluded that the U.S. Constitution grants the presiding officer the authority to override Senate rules.[1] The option was used to make further rule changes in 1975.[2] In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" – 67 or more votes) to end debate on a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court

Apparently using for the USSC is new.

[kentuck]

35. I think it is relevant to note that in 2013...

McConnell was filibustering everything. He was abusing the system He vowed to give Obama nothing. He sponsored more filibusters than everyone from Washington thru George W Bush.

(on edit) There were backlogs of cases in our court system and McConnell refused to approve any judges. He filibustered all of them. They had no regard for our justice system - it was all about politics. Finally, Reid was tortured into pulling the nuclear trigger on lower court judges. It was mostly out of necessity.

[jmg257]

36. Thanks, Kentuck for the info! nt

[former9thward]

37. Harry Reid was told this would happen when he got rid of the filibuster

for appointments and lower court judges. He did not care. In fact he welcomed it.

Harry Reid's Parting Shot: Dems Will Nuke The Filibuster For SCOTUS

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he is confident that he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if they win back the Senate in November.

Envisioning Hillary Clinton in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid warned that if a Senate Republican minority block her Supreme Court nominee, he is confident the party won't hesitate to change the filibuster rules again.

Such a move would be an extension of what Reid did in 2013 when he was still majority leader, eliminating filibusters (with a simple majority vote) on the President's nominees. There was only one exception: the Supreme Court. As it stands now, Democrats still need 60 votes to move forward with a Supreme Court nominee.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again