GOP falling apart over ACA shows the STUPIDITY of the base forcing the NUCLEAR option on GORSUCH

[Casprings]

We would be in a Much better place if we hadn't forced the Senate dems to use the Nuclear option on Gorsuch. McCain basically voted against the GOP based on process. If the Senate Dems didn't listen to the base and allowed closure, historically a 60 vote threshold, to end in the Senate, we would be in a much better place to actually use closure to stop whoever Trump will pick for Kennedy's seat (Please stay 3 1/2 more years, Kennedy, please). Instead we have a clear rule change and 51 votes required for closure on SC picks.

My only point is, the rage and demands of the base are not always right or the correct strategy. As time goes on, Trump is getting more unpopular and this BS stuff they are pulling on process becomes harder. If we had just accepted the reality that Gorsuch would take a seat on the SC, that would leave us in a place where it wouldn't be a forgone conclusion that the GOP would use the nuclear option on an attempt to block the next Trump SC pick.

Mistakes are mistakes, but this could ensure that the SC is conservative for the next generation.

[Proud liberal 80]

1. If the Dems didn't filibuster Gorsuch

And waited the next time. Guess what.....The republicans would have used the nuclear option the next go around anyway. Don't be so naive.

[Casprings]

3. Of course they would have tried..

And as I pointed out, the ACA shows that becomes more and more difficult as time goes on and Trump becomes less and less popular. The naive part is thinking that using the nuclear options gets you anything on Gorsuch. It got you nothing and there are no cards to play next time, at all.

[lame54]

6. The cards are the same...

They wouldn't work either time

[Proud liberal 80]

9. Healthcare and SCOTUS

Are two totally different issues. And with SCOTUS the republicans stick together, even Collins and Murkowsk.

I am glad that republicans used the nuclear option for SCOTUS, it ends the charade.

[regnaD kciN]

14. They would have tried...and they would have succeeded.

Seriously, this is really dumb as analysis. What on earth would have prevented them from doing it next time around? "Oh, the Democrats went along with us on Gorsuch, so we should be nice in return and allow them to block the next appointment?"

[Casprings]

24. What prevented them form passing ACA.. they had the vote?

What stops them is 3 senators don't want to break the rules because they: 1. Know they will be in the minority at some point. 2. Have some respect for Senate rules and traditions. 3. Trump is more unpopular and elections are coming..

Time changes political conditions.

[unc70]

2. Really?!

Have to keep that powder dry.

Glad you stopped by to enlighten us.

[Casprings]

4. And Gorsuch is not on the SC? What did we get from not saving it?

We did something with no hope of success when it might have some chance latter in time, when Trump is less popular... or a SC pick like Roy Moore.

[OnDoutside]

23. Just to run with your suggestion...

Ok say the Dems rolled over on Gorsuch, then Bader-Ginsburg retires. If you think that they wouldn't do the exact same and force the next most conservative after Gorsuch, as RBG's replacement, you would be deluded. The Supreme Court is the greatest of red meat to the so-called Christian Right.

Whether the 60 went this time or next time is irrelevant. What wouldn't surprise me is if the Reps know they are about to get stuffed in 2018, that they wouldn't re-instate the 60 before the election.

[MurrayDelph]

25. Because nothing works better

than a tool you never get to use?

[Demsrule86]

5. It wouldn't matter. The GOP has already signaled that they will install judges anyway they can.

it is now the case that if you don't have the Senate, you will get no judges...even if you have the presidency...so Congress is equally important to the presidency.

[Demsrule86]

7. Welcome to DU.

[Warpy]

8. It's a little more complicated

The ACA repeal was filed under "budget resolution," a move designed expressly so it would pass with a simple majority. Had it been presented as regular legislation, it was open to filibuster (budget resolution bills are not) and could require a 60 vote majority, something the GOP was never close to having. Since budget resolution bills covering any specific area of the budget can be presented only once a year, this is dead as a doornail until next summer, at the earliest. And since they'll all be worried about reelection next summer, it is unlikely to pass then unless they can come up with a real health plan, one so good it can bend over and fart flowers.

Since they've diddled away nearly 8 years without coming up with a plan of their own, just a lot of pieces of plans from bitterly divided factions that not only don't work together, they don't work at all, I find it highly unlikely they're going to come up with anything coherent in one short year.

They can steal elections but they can't govern, not at all.

(Oh, and I love their reaction to the bad news from the CBO: cut the CBO's funding)

[Casprings]

12. I understand budget reconciliation

That has little bearing on rather one should have kept the 60 votes required to pick a SC pick.

[Warpy]

18. I know. They played dirty right down the line

refusing to do their jobs while Obama was in office and ramming through an unsuitable nominee as soon as he was out.

They're behaving just like racketeers.

[Casprings]

22. Yes.. and we should be willing to that.. when it makes strategic sense.

[MrPurple]

10. I agree, it would have been better to save that bullet

Because later in time, when Trump has alienated more of his party, and maybe if the SCOTUS nominee was more controversial than Gorsuch, they might not have gotten 51 votes to to override the rule. It seemed pretty obvious at the time that the Republicans had the votes to eliminate the need for cloture if we filibustered Gorsuch.

[WinkyDink]

11. Who's this "we," White Man? (It's a very old TV joke; don't go all PC on me.)

[Casprings]

13. Anyone who doesn't want to see 30 to 40 years of a conservative majority on the SC..that is the "we"

[WinkyDink]

16. Yeah, like THAT could have been avoided. Let me introduce you to Mitch McConnell.

[Casprings]

21. Let me introduce you to the fact that Mitch just failed...

And he failed because he was treating the rules and the tradition of the Senate as toilet paper. If the dems held back, its likely that at least 3 senators would want to stop him again and force a return to Senate traditions.

[mr_liberal]

15. I made this argument.

I said they should make a deal with Collins, Murkowski and McCain. And everybody here told me you couldn't trust them. They would have agreed to not blow up the filibuster in exchange for Gorsuch being allowed to be confirmed. That would mean Trump would need 60 votes to replace Kennedy.

Too late now, the far left is not rational or strategic, theyre just all about emotion.

[WinkyDink]

17. You have no idea what these 3 Republicans "would have agreed to," ESPECIALLY McCain.

[mr_liberal]

20. They did it before, Gang of 14, try google. nm

[DefenseLawyer]

38. I have a bridge for sale

It's a beauty. Great view of the Thames.

[Kaleva]

19. An interesting arguement

[yallerdawg]

26. When the Republicans held up almost every Federal court appointment -

some for years - and demonstrated they would have done it for the entire 8 years of Obama - unprecedented! - Harry Reid really had no choice.

We agreed that on cabinet picks and lower court nominees, the president should have a simple majority for 'advise and consent.'

What McConnell did with holding up Obama's legitimate Supreme Court pick, and dropping the 60 vote threshold on Supreme Court nominees is only on McConnell.

There is nothing stopping McConnell from going to simple majority on EVERYTHING.

McConnell started this with Obama's election - and we'll see if he'll want to add to his already infamous legacy by killing off the Senate as just another house of mob rule.

[MrPurple]

30. McConnell needs 50 Republicans to vote with him

And with the deteriorating public opinion of Trump and Collins, Murkowski & McCain demonstrating some independence, that hopefully will not happen.

[Blue_true]

27. First things first.

Let's focus on taking back the Senate in 2018. We need to win 3 seats and hold our own. If we do that, we can freeze anyone Trump nominates, like McConnell did. McConnell played that game first, he drew first blood, let's go Rambo on his ass.

[Casprings]

28. Of course

But map is terriable in 2018 to win the Senate. Do we try? Sure, but not likely.

[Blue_true]

29. We can pick up Heller's seat in Nevada and maybe take a seat in one more GOP state.

And if McCain dies and Democrats in Arizona can force a special election, we can have a chance of picking up McCain's seat. Also, if we can bloody Flack on his healthcare vote and run a strong Democrat against him, we can win both Arizona seats. That would give us four seats for a count of 52, that would be enough to freeze any Trump Court nominee.

[MrPurple]

31. That's assuming that the Democrats hold serve on a bunch of seats in red states

McCaskill - Missouri
Tester - Montana
Heitkamp - North Dakota
Donnelly - Indiana
Manchin - West Virginia

Hopefully, impeachment proceedings or some very damaging things for the R's will be underway, but it will definitely be a challenge to hold all of these seats in red states.

[Blue_true]

32. Montana just re-elected a Democrat Governor and almost put a socialist

into the US House. The Democratic Party is decent there and is getting better. Manchin, Heitkamp and Tester are tough campaigners if the far left in our party don't attack them.

[nkpolitics1212]

33. In 2018 we have a greater than 50% chance to hold onto FL,IN,MI,MO,MT,ND,OH,PA,WV and WI and

pick up NV(Heller)-Rosen,AZ (Flake)-Kelly,Sinema,or Stanton,AZ (McCain)-Kelly,Sinema,or Stanton,and TX (Cruz)-O'Rourke.

[MrPurple]

35. That would be nice, but it seems kind of delusional

with the off the deep end kicker that it's probable that we knock off Cruz and pick up 2 seats in Arizona with McCain, who was just re-elected dead and replaced.

[Casprings]

36. That is far fetched

... but if it is a landslide.. add Cocker to the list

[Casprings]

34. 1. That's a pretty long shot

2. Lots of places to play defense. WV, MO, MT, and on and on.


I would love it! Is it possiable? Sure. But not likely.

[MrPurple]

46. Hopefully, there's another "legitimate rape" Republican that we can support inthe Missouri primaries

[BumRushDaShow]

39. AZ has specific rules for the Senate replacement

I.e., -

16-222. Vacancy in the office of United States senator or representative

A. When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or representative in Congress by reason of death or resignation, or from any other cause, the vacancy shall be filled at the next general election. At such election the person elected shall fill the unexpired term of the vacated office.

<...>

C. For a vacancy in the office of United States senator, the governor shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy. That appointee shall be of the same political party as the person vacating the office and shall serve until the person elected at the next general election is qualified and assumes office. If the person vacating the office changed political party affiliations after taking office, the person who is appointed to fill the vacancy shall be of the same political party that the vacating officeholder was when the vacating officeholder was elected or appointed to that office.

http://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=http://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00222.htm

So there is no "forcing a special election" in AZ for U.S. Senate vacancies.

But for the sake of discussion, I would proffer that as has happened in the past, a GOP Senator could consider switching parties. Arlen Specter did that in 2009 and by doing that, moved Democrats closer to the 60 votes needed to thwart a filibuster (and the positive decision for Al Franken's ballot recount, finally sealed the deal for the 60 that year). In Specter's case, he was expected to be primaried in 2010 and given he was a household name in the state (and especially in Philadelphia, where he used to be the D.A.), he felt he had a better chance being re-elected as a Democrat (but he was eventually beaten by Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary, and Sestak lost to teabagger Toomey in the general).

[DefenseLawyer]

37. The ACA repeal was brought under reconciliation, the filibuster has nothing to do with it.

This sounds like a Mark Penn inspired fairytale.

[Casprings]

40. I understand the process is different

But the reason that the ACA broke down is because McCain didn't like the process. If you saved the nuke option for the next replacement, you make that process argument really strong. That and a POTUS that is less popular.

[DefenseLawyer]

41. Maybe there's still hope for the Grand Bargain! n/t

[Casprings]

42. No there is some chance of success versus no chance with Gorsuch seat.

[DefenseLawyer]

43. Third Way nonsense

But I appreciate the sincerity of your position.

[Casprings]

44. There is no "third way". It's chance of success versus no chance

[pnwmom]

45. I don't understand why you think we'd be in a better position. If they hadn't ended the filibuster

with Gorsuch, they'd be ending it with the next nominee.

The result would be exactly the same -- two nominees we didn't want.