CSNbbs

I gotta think the future of the filibuster for supreme court nominations is going to be short lived. Dems are going to block everyone or else their base will revolt. That is the only forseeable outcome

Whom ever the individual will be ,.... the will be in,,,,,,after a lot of b----ing and delaying. Just keep winning!

It's about to get absolutely delicious!

It's going to be a stalemate from here on out (whenever possible, that is). He's pushed so much through in such a short time and has offered nothing to the other side of the aisle. Every single Democrat in office will dedicate their remaining time to filibustering and delaying every single new piece of legislation.

Trump will soon need an executive order barring/weakening the filibuster - unless he just plans to sign a bunch of 4 year long executive orders.

Time to grab your pop corn because this is gonna be real interesting.

Tim Kaine OK'd the use of the nuclear option on SCOTUS filibusters as follows:

Quote:Vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine warned on Thursday that his party would move to eliminate rules allowing a minority of Senate Republicans to block Supreme Court nominees should they refuse to consider those nominated by a future president Hillary Clinton.

Huff Post link

It can be a real b***h when you believe the polls.

(01-30-2017 09:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]It's about to get absolutely delicious!

They should announce and go straight to the nuclear option. Why waste time letting the looney bins act out their skit?

As I said a week ago or so, I originally felt that all of Trump's Cabinet picks would be confirmed eventually without too much opposition. But the SC nominee was going to be a different deal. I later amended that statement to say that I believe the Secretary of Education nominee is in trouble just because she tanked her hearing. I still think everyone else will get confirmed, but maybe not as quickly as Trump wants.

I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

(01-30-2017 10:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

Probably won't happen; he will want someone who will not care what he does. Any strict constitutionalist will be too "helicopter justice" for Trump to let him do whatever he wants to do.

(01-30-2017 10:36 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

Probably won't happen; he will want someone who will not care what he does. Any strict constitutionalist will be too "helicopter justice" for Trump to let him do whatever he wants to do.

I just want what is best for the court and the country in the long haul. Constitutionalists.

(01-30-2017 10:01 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]It's going to be a stalemate from here on out (whenever possible, that is). He's pushed so much through in such a short time and has offered nothing to the other side of the aisle. Every single Democrat in office will dedicate their remaining time to filibustering and delaying every single new piece of legislation.

Trump will soon need an executive order barring/weakening the filibuster - unless he just plans to sign a bunch of 4 year long executive orders.

Not within his (the executive's) purview. But you already knew that.

(01-30-2017 10:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]Time to grab your pop corn because this is gonna be real interesting.

Only if the nominee is Pryor. Anyone else will be for show.

(01-30-2017 10:36 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

Probably won't happen; he will want someone who will not care what he does. Any strict constitutionalist will be too "helicopter justice" for Trump to let him do whatever he wants to do.

He's got a list. The nominee is coming from that list, no matter how much you want Trump to go rogue.

(01-30-2017 11:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:36 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

Probably won't happen; he will want someone who will not care what he does. Any strict constitutionalist will be too "helicopter justice" for Trump to let him do whatever he wants to do.

I just want what is best for the court and the country in the long haul. Constitutionalists.

I know that's what you want, but have any actions by Trump so far lead you to believe he cares about a strict interpretation of the constitution?

(01-30-2017 11:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 11:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:36 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

Probably won't happen; he will want someone who will not care what he does. Any strict constitutionalist will be too "helicopter justice" for Trump to let him do whatever he wants to do.

I just want what is best for the court and the country in the long haul. Constitutionalists.

I know that's what you want, but have any actions by Trump so far lead you to believe he cares about a strict interpretation of the constitution?

Not directed at me, but to answer your question...all of them.

(01-30-2017 11:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:01 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]It's going to be a stalemate from here on out (whenever possible, that is). He's pushed so much through in such a short time and has offered nothing to the other side of the aisle. Every single Democrat in office will dedicate their remaining time to filibustering and delaying every single new piece of legislation.

Trump will soon need an executive order barring/weakening the filibuster - unless he just plans to sign a bunch of 4 year long executive orders.

Not within his (the executive's) purview. But you already knew that.

Actually, that's a good catch. That was sloppy wording from me.

Pence is currently the Presiding Officer of the US Senate. Trump can try to bully Pence into using his legislative role to override or interpret the rules of the US Senate (and this is the lead-in to the nuclear option that became ingrained in US politics in 1975).

It's been used before when a President wants to get a controversial appointment into office. Obama AND Bush VPs both threatened to use it - so there's modern precedent here.

(01-30-2017 11:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 11:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:36 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

Probably won't happen; he will want someone who will not care what he does. Any strict constitutionalist will be too "helicopter justice" for Trump to let him do whatever he wants to do.

I just want what is best for the court and the country in the long haul. Constitutionalists.

I know that's what you want, but have any actions by Trump so far lead you to believe he cares about a strict interpretation of the constitution?

yes

(01-30-2017 11:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 11:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:36 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

Probably won't happen; he will want someone who will not care what he does. Any strict constitutionalist will be too "helicopter justice" for Trump to let him do whatever he wants to do.

I just want what is best for the court and the country in the long haul. Constitutionalists.

I know that's what you want, but have any actions by Trump so far lead you to believe he cares about a strict interpretation of the constitution?

He's not broken the Constitution to date. You can debate if he's being unfair or a bad leader, but there needs to be evidence before that big of a statement.

(01-30-2017 11:18 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:36 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2017 10:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I hope he chooses someone as young as possible and and nothing other than being a strict constitutionalist. We need an entire bench full of them.

Probably won't happen; he will want someone who will not care what he does. Any strict constitutionalist will be too "helicopter justice" for Trump to let him do whatever he wants to do.

He's got a list. The nominee is coming from that list, no matter how much you want Trump to go rogue.

completely agree. he is politically insulated if he chooses from that list because he ran on it. Dems can cry, literally and figuratively, but it is risky for 2018 if they choose to push back too much. Some of their members have to be given an opportunity to vote for the nominee because they are up for reelection in Trump states and after all of the bellyaching over Merrick Garland, they would look silly. My guess is that there will be a lengthy confirmation hearing with heated questions and a 60/65-40/35 vote.