Exactly! Especially considering Republican History of obstructionism with SCOTUS votes. (Reply #39)

In the discussion thread: If we never filibuster because we fear losing the filibuster, haven't we already lost it? [View all]

Response to NurseJackie (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:45 PM

Amimnoch (4,558 posts)

39. Exactly! Especially considering Republican History of obstructionism with SCOTUS votes.

Everybody of course knows the latest travesty of Merrick Garland.

Perhaps people need a refresher of just how MANY times the Democratic Senate Majority has confirmed a Republican nominee, and how few times a Republican Senate has confirmed a Democratic Nominee:

GW Bush got both Souter and Thomas on with Democratic Party Senate majorities.
Reagan got Kennedy on with a Democratic Party Senate Majority.
Ford got J.P. Stevens on - Democratic Party Senate maj.
Nixon got Burger, Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and Rehnquist on.
Ike got Brennan, Whittaker, and Stewart on with that same Democratic Party Senate majority.

NOT SINCE PRESIDENT CLEVELAND IN 1894 HAS THE REPUBLICAN HELD SENATE EVER CONFIRMED A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC POTUS SCOTUS NOMINATION.

Sooooo, they can kiss my f'n ass on "Democratic Party obstructionism".

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

55 replies	Author	Time	Post
If we never filibuster because we fear losing the filibuster, haven't we already lost it? [View all]	NurseJackie	Apr 2017	OP
Maybe it's time to start seeing the Senate as an illegitimate political body.	ck4829	Apr 2017	#1
YES	delisen	Apr 2017	#2
We need to call their bluff, or let them dispel it.	forgotmylogin	Apr 2017	#27
The filibuster exists to be used	panader0	Apr 2017	#3
McTurtle & Ryan r bought, won't push for independ trumprussia investig	wordpix	Apr 2017	#16
McConnell fillibustered an entire year of Obama's presidency.	Atman	Apr 2017	#29
you know, I've never cared for it...I neither fear nor hold it in any regard..	JHan	Apr 2017	#4
I agree with most of what you wrote, except for that last part.	NurseJackie	Apr 2017	#7
You've got a point, we can make tea with their tears. That's motivation enough!	JHan	Apr 2017	#9
(Yeah, we just have to kick out the 'R's....)	lastlib	Apr 2017	#24
filibuster is tool to slow down process & take close look, in this case @Gorsuch	wordpix	Apr 2017	#18
Historically, the fillibuster seems to have been used for some really evil shit...	Wounded Bear	Apr 2017	#20
The threat of force is often as effective as actual action	Amishman	Apr 2017	#5
Then we need to start whipping more votes	bettyellen	Apr 2017	#13
Yes, I agree but with a caveat	Amishman	Apr 2017	#30
The fear of losing it has been concern for both parties when either gets out of majority.	boston bean	Apr 2017	#6
HOMERUN!!!	NightWatcher	Apr 2017	#8
Yes!	bettyellen	Apr 2017	#10
i have a question about this. senate rules.	mopinko	Apr 2017	#11
That seems logical, but why would the party IN power want to relinquish power?	NurseJackie	Apr 2017	#15
being decent is in fact a huge disadvantage,	mopinko	Apr 2017	#19
You haven't overlooked anything. It is the Dems who say that who are overlooking the obvious.	Amaryllis	Apr 2017	#12
Precisely	Me.	Apr 2017	#14
I've read a dissenting opinion about using the filibuster in this case.	BobTheSubgenius	Apr 2017	#17
it's not "truly important" to keep all 3 branches of gov out of GOP/Trump hands?	wordpix	Apr 2017	#22
Of course we admit defeat if we don't fb because we fear losing it!	Lucky Luciano	Apr 2017	#21
The argument in this specific case	Lurks Often	Apr 2017	#23
Very good point. Use it or lose it, either way	wordpix	Apr 2017	#25
Even more, if Democrats don't use the filibuster for fear of losing it	ToxMarz	Apr 2017	#26
We have already lost it	IronLionZion	Apr 2017	#28
Bingo!	CanonRay	Apr 2017	#31
Yes.	madashelltoo	Apr 2017	#32
The filibuster, in its current form is a fake	TXCritter	Apr 2017	#33
What difference does it make?	kentuck	Apr 2017	#34
This needs to happen	Scalded Nun	Apr 2017	#35
Yes we have. Well said.	zentrum	Apr 2017	#36
No. You're making an assessment as to whether this is the worst candidate	Ms. Toad	Apr 2017	#37
No way. If you give in to a bully the bully wins.	sharedvalues	Apr 2017	#42
I didn't suggest it was safe.	Ms. Toad	Apr 2017	#50
Yup	wryter2000	Apr 2017	#38
Exactly! Especially considering Republican History of obstructionism with SCOTUS votes.	Amimnoch	Apr 2017	#39
Wow! I had no idea. What a bunch of assholes. Well, we knew that already...	Fast Walker 52	Apr 2017	#49
Very interesting statistic. Profound, actually. Bookmarking. . . nt	Bernardo de La Paz	Apr 2017	#55
Very profound point!	world wide wally	Apr 2017	#40
Exactly!	mcar	Apr 2017	#41
No. You have overlooked something	FBaggins	Apr 2017	#43
this assumes that they won't go nuclear for the next pick, and of course they want to	Fast Walker 52	Apr 2017	#48
Because "they" are no more a unified block than democrats are	FBaggins	Apr 2017	#52
Welcome to the post-Reagan Democratic Party. nt	Gore1FL	Apr 2017	#44
They're just "keeping their powder dry"	Buns_of_Fire	Apr 2017	#45
LOL, yes. I think it's time to use it finally.	Fast Walker 52	Apr 2017	#47
That's the kind of nonsense the got us in this trouble in the first	FBaggins	Apr 2017	#54
you know, it's all about Senate decorum and a bunch of crap that the GOP has blown past	Fast Walker 52	Apr 2017	#46
Fight like hell and blame Republicans for theft	bucolic_frolic	Apr 2017	#51
EXCELLENT point!	NastyRiffraff	Apr 2017	#53

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.