Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Supreme Court nomination
Author Message
gsloth Offline
perpetually tired
*

Posts: 6,654
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice&underdogs
Location: Central VA

Donators
Post: #61
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-07-2017 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Based on today's comment by Schumer it looks like there will be the necessity of 8 democrats to cross and allow a vote on gorsuch.

thoughts now on the SC exception to rhe no filibuster surviving? it will be intrresting to see if this is the end of the road for it, or will we see Kagan/Sotamayor style opposition result.

What's interesting is the word games being played by 8 or 9 Democratic senators that have so far said their willing to give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote, which traditionally means a vote for or against by the full Senate. But then, they later say they mean just having a cloture vote. Going to be interesting to see if Schumer can actually keep his caucus in line.

And these are Senators up in 2018 (like Shaheen, Durbin, and Manchin) and could be at risk. Trying to appear moderate in the run up to their reelection campaign, but ultimately not break ranks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017...ilibuster/

This article only lists 4, but I cannot find the other article I saw that listed I believe 9 Democratic Senators already on record for an up-or-down vote. And that would be filibuster proof, if they mean what they say.

(Which in my experience means no. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)
02-10-2017 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 08:51 AM)gsloth Wrote:  
(02-07-2017 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Based on today's comment by Schumer it looks like there will be the necessity of 8 democrats to cross and allow a vote on gorsuch.

thoughts now on the SC exception to rhe no filibuster surviving? it will be intrresting to see if this is the end of the road for it, or will we see Kagan/Sotamayor style opposition result.

What's interesting is the word games being played by 8 or 9 Democratic senators that have so far said their willing to give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote, which traditionally means a vote for or against by the full Senate. But then, they later say they mean just having a cloture vote. Going to be interesting to see if Schumer can actually keep his caucus in line.

And these are Senators up in 2018 (like Shaheen, Durbin, and Manchin) and could be at risk. Trying to appear moderate in the run up to their reelection campaign, but ultimately not break ranks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017...ilibuster/

This article only lists 4, but I cannot find the other article I saw that listed I believe 9 Democratic Senators already on record for an up-or-down vote. And that would be filibuster proof, if they mean what they say.

(Which in my experience means no. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)

Hard to equate a support of an up or down vote with one for a vote for cloture --- I guess if you define an 'up or down vote' with a minimum of 60 to pass as the 'up or down vote'......

I think its clear that Schumer et al will require cloture for a vote on Gorsuch. To not do so will be an abdication of the 'complete opposition' that has been implicitly promised, and the Democrat's previous nuking of the normal appointment filibuster has relegated to a non-opposition. Kind of ironic that that move is now not just biting them in the ass in the return pass, but has pretty much obliterated their ability to have any opposition to the beginning moves of the Trump administration.

The only thing that will keep the SC filibuster in place will be whether 8 Democrats will go against the overall opposition that Schumer has indicated he wants.

I'm counting Manchin as not just voting for cloture, but voting for Gorsuch at this point. His pass on the Sessions nomination was telling.

My gut says the SC filibuster will be dead. For the Democrats, it is a no-win, no-lose proposition. They have gotten into the 'opposition at any cost', so not to force cloture will be anathema to them for their base. Same for most (close to all) for a straight confirmation. If they hold cloture, Republicans mini-nuke the last vestige, and the Democrats get the "you nuked it to death" card to play as the last card in the deck.

Best they can do with a weak hand and them not being able to back down due to their base.

My prediction is that cloture vote is forced, goes 54-46 (gives Manchin and three others political breathing room). Republicans then kill it. Democrats now get to claim that Republicans 'killed the filibuster'.
02-10-2017 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #63
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 08:51 AM)gsloth Wrote:  
(02-07-2017 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Based on today's comment by Schumer it looks like there will be the necessity of 8 democrats to cross and allow a vote on gorsuch.

thoughts now on the SC exception to rhe no filibuster surviving? it will be intrresting to see if this is the end of the road for it, or will we see Kagan/Sotamayor style opposition result.

What's interesting is the word games being played by 8 or 9 Democratic senators that have so far said their willing to give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote, which traditionally means a vote for or against by the full Senate. But then, they later say they mean just having a cloture vote. Going to be interesting to see if Schumer can actually keep his caucus in line.

And these are Senators up in 2018 (like Shaheen, Durbin, and Manchin) and could be at risk. Trying to appear moderate in the run up to their reelection campaign, but ultimately not break ranks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017...ilibuster/

This article only lists 4, but I cannot find the other article I saw that listed I believe 9 Democratic Senators already on record for an up-or-down vote. And that would be filibuster proof, if they mean what they say.

(Which in my experience means no. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)

Hard to equate a support of an up or down vote with one for a vote for cloture --- I guess if you define an 'up or down vote' with a minimum of 60 to pass as the 'up or down vote'......

I think its clear that Schumer et al will require cloture for a vote on Gorsuch. To not do so will be an abdication of the 'complete opposition' that has been implicitly promised, and the Democrat's previous nuking of the normal appointment filibuster has relegated to a non-opposition. Kind of ironic that that move is now not just biting them in the ass in the return pass, but has pretty much obliterated their ability to have any opposition to the beginning moves of the Trump administration.

The only thing that will keep the SC filibuster in place will be whether 8 Democrats will go against the overall opposition that Schumer has indicated he wants.

I'm counting Manchin as not just voting for cloture, but voting for Gorsuch at this point. His pass on the Sessions nomination was telling.

My gut says the SC filibuster will be dead. For the Democrats, it is a no-win, no-lose proposition. They have gotten into the 'opposition at any cost', so not to force cloture will be anathema to them for their base. Same for most (close to all) for a straight confirmation. If they hold cloture, Republicans mini-nuke the last vestige, and the Democrats get the "you nuked it to death" card to play as the last card in the deck.

Best they can do with a weak hand and them not being able to back down due to their base.

My prediction is that cloture vote is forced, goes 54-46 (gives Manchin and three others political breathing room). Republicans then kill it. Democrats now get to claim that Republicans 'killed the filibuster'.

Sounds like it all comes full circle. At this point, there isn't a difference between how any of the parties act, just in the positions they bitterly entrench themselves in.

I hope that it won't come to pass and that the Dems will be the bigger party, and won't follow the Turtle's lead of having one stated goal, and one goal only - to make Trump a one-term president (I think he'll do that on his own anyways). However, I don't have a lot of faith at this point. The only hope I have is that the Dems continue to be worse than the Reps about falling in, lock and step, behind their leadership. If they continue to be more disjointed I think you'll see a more diverse voting record on the less controversial aspects of the Trump administrations decisions (like nominating Gorsuch).
02-10-2017 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #64
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 08:51 AM)gsloth Wrote:  
(02-07-2017 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Based on today's comment by Schumer it looks like there will be the necessity of 8 democrats to cross and allow a vote on gorsuch.

thoughts now on the SC exception to rhe no filibuster surviving? it will be intrresting to see if this is the end of the road for it, or will we see Kagan/Sotamayor style opposition result.

What's interesting is the word games being played by 8 or 9 Democratic senators that have so far said their willing to give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote, which traditionally means a vote for or against by the full Senate. But then, they later say they mean just having a cloture vote. Going to be interesting to see if Schumer can actually keep his caucus in line.

And these are Senators up in 2018 (like Shaheen, Durbin, and Manchin) and could be at risk. Trying to appear moderate in the run up to their reelection campaign, but ultimately not break ranks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017...ilibuster/

This article only lists 4, but I cannot find the other article I saw that listed I believe 9 Democratic Senators already on record for an up-or-down vote. And that would be filibuster proof, if they mean what they say.

(Which in my experience means no. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)

Hard to equate a support of an up or down vote with one for a vote for cloture --- I guess if you define an 'up or down vote' with a minimum of 60 to pass as the 'up or down vote'......

I think its clear that Schumer et al will require cloture for a vote on Gorsuch. To not do so will be an abdication of the 'complete opposition' that has been implicitly promised, and the Democrat's previous nuking of the normal appointment filibuster has relegated to a non-opposition. Kind of ironic that that move is now not just biting them in the ass in the return pass, but has pretty much obliterated their ability to have any opposition to the beginning moves of the Trump administration.

The only thing that will keep the SC filibuster in place will be whether 8 Democrats will go against the overall opposition that Schumer has indicated he wants.

I'm counting Manchin as not just voting for cloture, but voting for Gorsuch at this point. His pass on the Sessions nomination was telling.

My gut says the SC filibuster will be dead. For the Democrats, it is a no-win, no-lose proposition. They have gotten into the 'opposition at any cost', so not to force cloture will be anathema to them for their base. Same for most (close to all) for a straight confirmation. If they hold cloture, Republicans mini-nuke the last vestige, and the Democrats get the "you nuked it to death" card to play as the last card in the deck.

Best they can do with a weak hand and them not being able to back down due to their base.

My prediction is that cloture vote is forced, goes 54-46 (gives Manchin and three others political breathing room). Republicans then kill it. Democrats now get to claim that Republicans 'killed the filibuster'.

Sounds like it all comes full circle. At this point, there isn't a difference between how any of the parties act, just in the positions they bitterly entrench themselves in.

I hope that it won't come to pass and that the Dems will be the bigger party, and won't follow the Turtle's lead of having one stated goal, and one goal only - to make Trump a one-term president (I think he'll do that on his own anyways). However, I don't have a lot of faith at this point. The only hope I have is that the Dems continue to be worse than the Reps about falling in, lock and step, behind their leadership. If they continue to be more disjointed I think you'll see a more diverse voting record on the less controversial aspects of the Trump administrations decisions (like nominating Gorsuch).

Well said, I agree with you on both your hope and your lack of faith. However, I think we need to look at the one term thing a little closer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac...2d91c9179e

October 23, 2010 - two years into his term. We have yet to mark the first month of Trump's term.

"NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Is that the current attitude?
02-10-2017 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OldOwlNewHeel2 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Rice/UNC
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 04:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 08:51 AM)gsloth Wrote:  
(02-07-2017 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Based on today's comment by Schumer it looks like there will be the necessity of 8 democrats to cross and allow a vote on gorsuch.

thoughts now on the SC exception to rhe no filibuster surviving? it will be intrresting to see if this is the end of the road for it, or will we see Kagan/Sotamayor style opposition result.

What's interesting is the word games being played by 8 or 9 Democratic senators that have so far said their willing to give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote, which traditionally means a vote for or against by the full Senate. But then, they later say they mean just having a cloture vote. Going to be interesting to see if Schumer can actually keep his caucus in line.

And these are Senators up in 2018 (like Shaheen, Durbin, and Manchin) and could be at risk. Trying to appear moderate in the run up to their reelection campaign, but ultimately not break ranks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017...ilibuster/

This article only lists 4, but I cannot find the other article I saw that listed I believe 9 Democratic Senators already on record for an up-or-down vote. And that would be filibuster proof, if they mean what they say.

(Which in my experience means no. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)

Hard to equate a support of an up or down vote with one for a vote for cloture --- I guess if you define an 'up or down vote' with a minimum of 60 to pass as the 'up or down vote'......

I think its clear that Schumer et al will require cloture for a vote on Gorsuch. To not do so will be an abdication of the 'complete opposition' that has been implicitly promised, and the Democrat's previous nuking of the normal appointment filibuster has relegated to a non-opposition. Kind of ironic that that move is now not just biting them in the ass in the return pass, but has pretty much obliterated their ability to have any opposition to the beginning moves of the Trump administration.

The only thing that will keep the SC filibuster in place will be whether 8 Democrats will go against the overall opposition that Schumer has indicated he wants.

I'm counting Manchin as not just voting for cloture, but voting for Gorsuch at this point. His pass on the Sessions nomination was telling.

My gut says the SC filibuster will be dead. For the Democrats, it is a no-win, no-lose proposition. They have gotten into the 'opposition at any cost', so not to force cloture will be anathema to them for their base. Same for most (close to all) for a straight confirmation. If they hold cloture, Republicans mini-nuke the last vestige, and the Democrats get the "you nuked it to death" card to play as the last card in the deck.

Best they can do with a weak hand and them not being able to back down due to their base.

My prediction is that cloture vote is forced, goes 54-46 (gives Manchin and three others political breathing room). Republicans then kill it. Democrats now get to claim that Republicans 'killed the filibuster'.

Sounds like it all comes full circle. At this point, there isn't a difference between how any of the parties act, just in the positions they bitterly entrench themselves in.

I hope that it won't come to pass and that the Dems will be the bigger party, and won't follow the Turtle's lead of having one stated goal, and one goal only - to make Trump a one-term president (I think he'll do that on his own anyways). However, I don't have a lot of faith at this point. The only hope I have is that the Dems continue to be worse than the Reps about falling in, lock and step, behind their leadership. If they continue to be more disjointed I think you'll see a more diverse voting record on the less controversial aspects of the Trump administrations decisions (like nominating Gorsuch).

Well said, I agree with you on both your hope and your lack of faith. However, I think we need to look at the one term thing a little closer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac...2d91c9179e

October 23, 2010 - two years into his term. We have yet to mark the first month of Trump's term.

"NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Is that the current attitude?

You know this depends on what you define as "the biggest issues," and "halfway." I'd be more than happy to approve half of Trump's cabinet picks in exchange for his agreement to ditch the other half. Although, I guess if you count Pence as part of the cabinet, there's an odd number. Fine. We can saw Pence in half and send his legs back home :-)
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2017 05:02 PM by OldOwlNewHeel2.)
02-10-2017 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #66
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 04:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 08:51 AM)gsloth Wrote:  
(02-07-2017 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Based on today's comment by Schumer it looks like there will be the necessity of 8 democrats to cross and allow a vote on gorsuch.

thoughts now on the SC exception to rhe no filibuster surviving? it will be intrresting to see if this is the end of the road for it, or will we see Kagan/Sotamayor style opposition result.

What's interesting is the word games being played by 8 or 9 Democratic senators that have so far said their willing to give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote, which traditionally means a vote for or against by the full Senate. But then, they later say they mean just having a cloture vote. Going to be interesting to see if Schumer can actually keep his caucus in line.

And these are Senators up in 2018 (like Shaheen, Durbin, and Manchin) and could be at risk. Trying to appear moderate in the run up to their reelection campaign, but ultimately not break ranks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017...ilibuster/

This article only lists 4, but I cannot find the other article I saw that listed I believe 9 Democratic Senators already on record for an up-or-down vote. And that would be filibuster proof, if they mean what they say.

(Which in my experience means no. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)

Hard to equate a support of an up or down vote with one for a vote for cloture --- I guess if you define an 'up or down vote' with a minimum of 60 to pass as the 'up or down vote'......

I think its clear that Schumer et al will require cloture for a vote on Gorsuch. To not do so will be an abdication of the 'complete opposition' that has been implicitly promised, and the Democrat's previous nuking of the normal appointment filibuster has relegated to a non-opposition. Kind of ironic that that move is now not just biting them in the ass in the return pass, but has pretty much obliterated their ability to have any opposition to the beginning moves of the Trump administration.

The only thing that will keep the SC filibuster in place will be whether 8 Democrats will go against the overall opposition that Schumer has indicated he wants.

I'm counting Manchin as not just voting for cloture, but voting for Gorsuch at this point. His pass on the Sessions nomination was telling.

My gut says the SC filibuster will be dead. For the Democrats, it is a no-win, no-lose proposition. They have gotten into the 'opposition at any cost', so not to force cloture will be anathema to them for their base. Same for most (close to all) for a straight confirmation. If they hold cloture, Republicans mini-nuke the last vestige, and the Democrats get the "you nuked it to death" card to play as the last card in the deck.

Best they can do with a weak hand and them not being able to back down due to their base.

My prediction is that cloture vote is forced, goes 54-46 (gives Manchin and three others political breathing room). Republicans then kill it. Democrats now get to claim that Republicans 'killed the filibuster'.

Sounds like it all comes full circle. At this point, there isn't a difference between how any of the parties act, just in the positions they bitterly entrench themselves in.

I hope that it won't come to pass and that the Dems will be the bigger party, and won't follow the Turtle's lead of having one stated goal, and one goal only - to make Trump a one-term president (I think he'll do that on his own anyways). However, I don't have a lot of faith at this point. The only hope I have is that the Dems continue to be worse than the Reps about falling in, lock and step, behind their leadership. If they continue to be more disjointed I think you'll see a more diverse voting record on the less controversial aspects of the Trump administrations decisions (like nominating Gorsuch).

Well said, I agree with you on both your hope and your lack of faith. However, I think we need to look at the one term thing a little closer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac...2d91c9179e

October 23, 2010 - two years into his term. We have yet to mark the first month of Trump's term.

"NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Is that the current attitude?

The current attitude right now is that about 9 appointees have been confirmed and 13 have not, so 41%. Trump has enacted a lot of EOs and there has been no major legislation passed through Congress.

As such, too early to tell - looks like the Dems have caved to at least 40% of his choices (some of which have actually received significant Dem support!), which is close to half way.

The Gorsuch decision will be a good indicator of what way things will fall. Plus, when Trump stops using EOs and starts working on legislation, we'll see how it goes. I imagine they will work together on things like infrastructure upgrades if Trump wants to do that.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2017 05:12 PM by RiceLad15.)
02-10-2017 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #67
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 04:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 08:51 AM)gsloth Wrote:  What's interesting is the word games being played by 8 or 9 Democratic senators that have so far said their willing to give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote, which traditionally means a vote for or against by the full Senate. But then, they later say they mean just having a cloture vote. Going to be interesting to see if Schumer can actually keep his caucus in line.

And these are Senators up in 2018 (like Shaheen, Durbin, and Manchin) and could be at risk. Trying to appear moderate in the run up to their reelection campaign, but ultimately not break ranks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017...ilibuster/

This article only lists 4, but I cannot find the other article I saw that listed I believe 9 Democratic Senators already on record for an up-or-down vote. And that would be filibuster proof, if they mean what they say.

(Which in my experience means no. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)

Hard to equate a support of an up or down vote with one for a vote for cloture --- I guess if you define an 'up or down vote' with a minimum of 60 to pass as the 'up or down vote'......

I think its clear that Schumer et al will require cloture for a vote on Gorsuch. To not do so will be an abdication of the 'complete opposition' that has been implicitly promised, and the Democrat's previous nuking of the normal appointment filibuster has relegated to a non-opposition. Kind of ironic that that move is now not just biting them in the ass in the return pass, but has pretty much obliterated their ability to have any opposition to the beginning moves of the Trump administration.

The only thing that will keep the SC filibuster in place will be whether 8 Democrats will go against the overall opposition that Schumer has indicated he wants.

I'm counting Manchin as not just voting for cloture, but voting for Gorsuch at this point. His pass on the Sessions nomination was telling.

My gut says the SC filibuster will be dead. For the Democrats, it is a no-win, no-lose proposition. They have gotten into the 'opposition at any cost', so not to force cloture will be anathema to them for their base. Same for most (close to all) for a straight confirmation. If they hold cloture, Republicans mini-nuke the last vestige, and the Democrats get the "you nuked it to death" card to play as the last card in the deck.

Best they can do with a weak hand and them not being able to back down due to their base.

My prediction is that cloture vote is forced, goes 54-46 (gives Manchin and three others political breathing room). Republicans then kill it. Democrats now get to claim that Republicans 'killed the filibuster'.

Sounds like it all comes full circle. At this point, there isn't a difference between how any of the parties act, just in the positions they bitterly entrench themselves in.

I hope that it won't come to pass and that the Dems will be the bigger party, and won't follow the Turtle's lead of having one stated goal, and one goal only - to make Trump a one-term president (I think he'll do that on his own anyways). However, I don't have a lot of faith at this point. The only hope I have is that the Dems continue to be worse than the Reps about falling in, lock and step, behind their leadership. If they continue to be more disjointed I think you'll see a more diverse voting record on the less controversial aspects of the Trump administrations decisions (like nominating Gorsuch).

Well said, I agree with you on both your hope and your lack of faith. However, I think we need to look at the one term thing a little closer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac...2d91c9179e

October 23, 2010 - two years into his term. We have yet to mark the first month of Trump's term.

"NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Is that the current attitude?

The current attitude right now is that about 9 appointees have been confirmed and 13 have not, so 41%. Trump has enacted a lot of EOs and there has been no major legislation passed through Congress.

As such, too early to tell - looks like the Dems have caved to at least 40% of his choices (some of which have actually received significant Dem support!), which is close to half way.

The Gorsuch decision will be a good indicator of what way things will fall. Plus, when Trump stops using EOs and starts working on legislation, we'll see how it goes. I imagine they will work together on things like infrastructure upgrades if Trump wants to do that.

Compared to previous administrations, both the number and p-ercentage are historically low. I believe Obama had 7 confirmed on Inauguration Day. I have seen the numbers on only a few, but 40-50 no votes is unusually negative.

EOs. Nobody ever used those before Trump. But it will be interesting to how/if congress works with him and on what.

EOs by president
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2017 05:29 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
02-10-2017 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #68
RE: Supreme Court nomination
OO - regarding Cabinet picks, I posted this in my other response: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709

One of the biggest issues in speed of approval right now has been that Trump was late in getting his nominees selected, and therefore slower to get them confirmed. There is some obstruction too.

Quote: Of the past five presidencies, Mr Trump has by far the fewest confirmed cabinet selections at this point. Only two of his nominees - Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly - were approved on inauguration day. Mr Clinton had three, Mr Obama had six, and George W Bush had seven. By mid-February, Mr Obama had all but three of his picks seated. Mr Clinton had all but one. George HW Bush was missing four.

Part of the reason it took so long to fit those last pieces into their cabinets is because those past presidents had to withdraw initial selections due to scandal or insurmountable political opposition. George HW Bush's defence pick, John Tower, was voted down by the Senate. Mr Clinton swung and missed twice on attorney general before settling on Janet Reno. Mr Obama withdrew commerce nominees twice and health and human services once.

So far, Mr Trump has stuck with his original picks - although labour secretary nominee Andrew Puzder has yet to complete his ethics review and has had his confirmation hearing delayed four times.

Puzder isn't the only one of Mr Trump's wealthy nominees who has had difficulty completing the Office of Government Ethics' vetting paperwork, which has contributed to confirmation delays. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were among those who were tardy in complying with background-check requirements.

Mr Trump was also remarkably slow to come up with several cabinet picks. He didn't announce Veterans Affairs nominee David Shulkin until 11 January. Agriculture pick Sonny Perdue was unveiled just two days before inauguration on 20 January - an astounding fact, considering of Mr Trump's four predecessors, only four original nominations came after New Year's Day (George HW Bush's energy pick James Watkins was the latest, on 12 January).
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2017 05:49 PM by RiceLad15.)
02-10-2017 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - regarding Cabinet picks, I posted this in my other response: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709

One of the biggest issues in speed of approval right now has been that Trump was late in getting his nominees selected, and therefore slower to get them confirmed. There is some obstruction too.

Quote: Of the past five presidencies, Mr Trump has by far the fewest confirmed cabinet selections at this point. Only two of his nominees - Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly - were approved on inauguration day. Mr Clinton had three, Mr Obama had six, and George W Bush had seven. By mid-February, Mr Obama had all but three of his picks seated. Mr Clinton had all but one. George HW Bush was missing four.

Part of the reason it took so long to fit those last pieces into their cabinets is because those past presidents had to withdraw initial selections due to scandal or insurmountable political opposition. George HW Bush's defence pick, John Tower, was voted down by the Senate. Mr Clinton swung and missed twice on attorney general before settling on Janet Reno. Mr Obama withdrew commerce nominees twice and health and human services once.

So far, Mr Trump has stuck with his original picks - although labour secretary nominee Andrew Puzder has yet to complete his ethics review and has had his confirmation hearing delayed four times.

Puzder isn't the only one of Mr Trump's wealthy nominees who has had difficulty completing the Office of Government Ethics' vetting paperwork, which has contributed to confirmation delays. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were among those who were tardy in complying with background-check requirements.

Mr Trump was also remarkably slow to come up with several cabinet picks. He didn't announce Veterans Affairs nominee David Shulkin until 11 January. Agriculture pick Sonny Perdue was unveiled just two days before inauguration on 20 January - an astounding fact, considering of Mr Trump's four predecessors, only four original nominations came after New Year's Day (George HW Bush's energy pick James Watkins was the latest, on 12 January).

The article really doesnt stand for the proposition that the lack of response for the Cabinet overall -- all it says is that only some were 'late to the game'. DeVos, Sessions, and a host of others dont fit that statement.

Overall, the notable delays were 'not' 'late to the game' as the implication seems to be -- albeit implication by selective isolated fact.

Put your big boy pants on and just say there has been a LOT of obstruction -- I mean, how many Obama nominees were held in waiting due to Republicans having a press conference advertising their 'organized' absence in committee, and how many times did the Democrats have to hold the rule in abeyance to allow a committee vote without any opposition member around? I know the answer and a singular hint -- it was less than one......

One can use this fact alone to note pretty much unique levels of obstructionism. So please don't sugar coat the turd with "oh lots were named late, and there has been 'some' obstruction." Just call it what it is.
02-10-2017 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #70
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 08:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - regarding Cabinet picks, I posted this in my other response: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709

One of the biggest issues in speed of approval right now has been that Trump was late in getting his nominees selected, and therefore slower to get them confirmed. There is some obstruction too.

Quote: Of the past five presidencies, Mr Trump has by far the fewest confirmed cabinet selections at this point. Only two of his nominees - Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly - were approved on inauguration day. Mr Clinton had three, Mr Obama had six, and George W Bush had seven. By mid-February, Mr Obama had all but three of his picks seated. Mr Clinton had all but one. George HW Bush was missing four.

Part of the reason it took so long to fit those last pieces into their cabinets is because those past presidents had to withdraw initial selections due to scandal or insurmountable political opposition. George HW Bush's defence pick, John Tower, was voted down by the Senate. Mr Clinton swung and missed twice on attorney general before settling on Janet Reno. Mr Obama withdrew commerce nominees twice and health and human services once.

So far, Mr Trump has stuck with his original picks - although labour secretary nominee Andrew Puzder has yet to complete his ethics review and has had his confirmation hearing delayed four times.

Puzder isn't the only one of Mr Trump's wealthy nominees who has had difficulty completing the Office of Government Ethics' vetting paperwork, which has contributed to confirmation delays. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were among those who were tardy in complying with background-check requirements.

Mr Trump was also remarkably slow to come up with several cabinet picks. He didn't announce Veterans Affairs nominee David Shulkin until 11 January. Agriculture pick Sonny Perdue was unveiled just two days before inauguration on 20 January - an astounding fact, considering of Mr Trump's four predecessors, only four original nominations came after New Year's Day (George HW Bush's energy pick James Watkins was the latest, on 12 January).

The article really doesnt stand for the proposition that the lack of response for the Cabinet overall -- all it says is that only some were 'late to the game'. DeVos, Sessions, and a host of others dont fit that statement.

Overall, the notable delays were 'not' 'late to the game' as the implication seems to be -- albeit implication by selective isolated fact.

Put your big boy pants on and just say there has been a LOT of obstruction -- I mean, how many Obama nominees were held in waiting due to Republicans having a press conference advertising their 'organized' absence in committee, and how many times did the Democrats have to hold the rule in abeyance to allow a committee vote without any opposition member around? I know the answer and a singular hint -- it was less than one......

One can use this fact alone to note pretty much unique levels of obstructionism. So please don't sugar coat the turd with "oh lots were named late, and there has been 'some' obstruction." Just call it what it is.

It is not obstruction for obstruction sake, IMO. If it was, you would have seen obstruction with every single appointee, and did you? No.

Instead you saw fairly quick confirmation of appointments that were obviously qualified and uncontroversial.

But what do you expect the opposition party to do when you are either nominating candidates with ethical concerns (Price, DeVos), those who have been openly hostile to the Department they will run (DeVos, Pruitt), those who have significant ideological differences from the Dems (Puzder), or those that don't necessarily seem qualified for the Cabinet they are being nominated for (Carson, Perry).

But here's something I honestly don't know - why haven't we had Senate votes on those nominees who have passed their committees? Carson, Perry, Zinke, Ross, and Pruitt, at the moment, have all passed their committees but have not had a vote on the floor of the Senate.

Since the Reps run the Senate, why aren't they voting ASAP? At this point, it seems like the block would be with them, or am I missing something?
02-10-2017 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OldOwlNewHeel2 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Rice/UNC
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-10-2017 08:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - regarding Cabinet picks, I posted this in my other response: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709

One of the biggest issues in speed of approval right now has been that Trump was late in getting his nominees selected, and therefore slower to get them confirmed. There is some obstruction too.

Quote: Of the past five presidencies, Mr Trump has by far the fewest confirmed cabinet selections at this point. Only two of his nominees - Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly - were approved on inauguration day. Mr Clinton had three, Mr Obama had six, and George W Bush had seven. By mid-February, Mr Obama had all but three of his picks seated. Mr Clinton had all but one. George HW Bush was missing four.

Part of the reason it took so long to fit those last pieces into their cabinets is because those past presidents had to withdraw initial selections due to scandal or insurmountable political opposition. George HW Bush's defence pick, John Tower, was voted down by the Senate. Mr Clinton swung and missed twice on attorney general before settling on Janet Reno. Mr Obama withdrew commerce nominees twice and health and human services once.

So far, Mr Trump has stuck with his original picks - although labour secretary nominee Andrew Puzder has yet to complete his ethics review and has had his confirmation hearing delayed four times.

Puzder isn't the only one of Mr Trump's wealthy nominees who has had difficulty completing the Office of Government Ethics' vetting paperwork, which has contributed to confirmation delays. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were among those who were tardy in complying with background-check requirements.

Mr Trump was also remarkably slow to come up with several cabinet picks. He didn't announce Veterans Affairs nominee David Shulkin until 11 January. Agriculture pick Sonny Perdue was unveiled just two days before inauguration on 20 January - an astounding fact, considering of Mr Trump's four predecessors, only four original nominations came after New Year's Day (George HW Bush's energy pick James Watkins was the latest, on 12 January).

The article really doesnt stand for the proposition that the lack of response for the Cabinet overall -- all it says is that only some were 'late to the game'. DeVos, Sessions, and a host of others dont fit that statement.

Overall, the notable delays were 'not' 'late to the game' as the implication seems to be -- albeit implication by selective isolated fact.

Put your big boy pants on and just say there has been a LOT of obstruction -- I mean, how many Obama nominees were held in waiting due to Republicans having a press conference advertising their 'organized' absence in committee, and how many times did the Democrats have to hold the rule in abeyance to allow a committee vote without any opposition member around? I know the answer and a singular hint -- it was less than one......

One can use this fact alone to note pretty much unique levels of obstructionism. So please don't sugar coat the turd with "oh lots were named late, and there has been 'some' obstruction." Just call it what it is.

If you want to call a turd a turd, you might as well start with DeVos and Sessions. Let's take DeVos, for example. Prior to her, we had:
  • John King, Jr (former New York Education Commissioner and Acting Deputy Secretary of Education)
  • Arne Duncan (former CEO of Chicago Public Schools)
  • Margaret Spellings (previously a special advisor on domestic policy and education issues to Governor/President Bush)
  • Rod Paige (former HISD Superintendent)

Now we have DeVos, who 1) has never had any kind of administrative or managerial role regarding public education, 2) bankrolled and lobbied for the expansion of one of the worst charter school programs in the country, and 3) quite possibly doesn't know what the IDEA is. Surely you jest when you imply that the only reason anyone opposes her is partisan obstructionism. The better question might be why only two Republicans voted against her.

And, as for Sessions, well . . . the guy was rejected for a judicial nomination on allegations that he was a racist, and now he's going to be in charge of "enforcing" civil rights and voting laws. Pardon me if I also see some distinctions between Sessions and his predecessors that might warrant extra scrutiny given the recent spate of voter suppression efforts across the country and his boss's "alternate facts" reality that "millions" of illegal immigrants voted for Hillary.

So yeah, you can argue that it's partisan obstructionism all you want, but you're simply ignoring that neither Trump, nor many of his nominees, smell like roses.
02-11-2017 07:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Barrett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,584
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Rice, SJS
Location: Houston / River Oaks

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #72
RE: Supreme Court nomination
Yes, I see a profound, meaningful difference between DeVos compared not only to her predecessors but, heck, even compared to the other inexperienced nominees (such as Tillerson). Sessions will be a bad AG, I think, but at least he has an idea of what the AG does. Perry is another puzzling choice, when the guy's words previously made clear that he had no idea what the DOE even does.

While I think I understand the allure of bringing in "outsiders," I do think it's a dangerous mindset to believe that, not only are experience/expertise unnecessary to run a federal department, but in fact experience/expertise are almost disqualifiers to running a federal department.

Gorsuch I feel is an acceptable choice. His main handicap is something he had no control over: the Garland BS.
02-11-2017 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #73
RE: Supreme Court nomination
It's almost as if it can be both! The horror of a gray area!
02-11-2017 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #74
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-11-2017 08:47 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Yes, I see a profound, meaningful difference between DeVos compared not only to her predecessors ...

Given the track record of her predecessors, I certainly hope so. I doubt it, though. I see no reason to believe that she will be able to turn things around when they were not. I think education is a bigger disaster than our supposedly "failed" health care system was. And I'm quite certain that throwing more money at failed programs is not a viable solution.

Quote:While I think I understand the allure of bringing in "outsiders," I do think it's a dangerous mindset to believe that, not only are experience/expertise unnecessary to run a federal department, but in fact experience/expertise are almost disqualifiers to running a federal department.

Given the performance of those with experience/expertise in several areas, I'm not at all convinced that this idea is as bad as you seem to think. Right now, I think well over half of our federal government functions--specifically including defense, intelligence, health care, education, welfare, and infrastructure--are so dysfunctional and counterproductive that they need to be rethought completely and totally redesigned and restructured. I don't think we're going to get that from insiders.

At this time, I am refraining from comment on parts of your post that I did not quote.
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017 10:07 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-11-2017 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #75
RE: Supreme Court nomination
Can somebody explain to me why DeVos is unacceptable to Black Lives Matter?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/...chool.html
02-11-2017 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #76
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-11-2017 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Can somebody explain to me why DeVos is unacceptable to Black Lives Matter?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/...chool.html

Not sure if BLM as a whole has an issue or just these people.

As the article states, there were a few BLM protestors spattered in the crowd, so it sounds like it was mostly people I associated with that group. Also, it was nice to see that the protestors chastised someone with them when that protestor tried to block DeVos from getting into her car.
02-11-2017 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-11-2017 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Can somebody explain to me why DeVos is unacceptable to Black Lives Matter?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/...chool.html

Not sure if BLM as a whole has an issue or just these people.

As the article states, there were a few BLM protestors spattered in the crowd, so it sounds like it was mostly people I associated with that group. Also, it was nice to see that the protestors chastised someone with them when that protestor tried to block DeVos from getting into her car.

Lolz -- initially read your post as Bureau of Land Management --- made the post both puzzling and humorous at the same time -- then the realization of the brain fart on this end took over.
02-11-2017 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #78
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-11-2017 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Can somebody explain to me why DeVos is unacceptable to Black Lives Matter?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/...chool.html

Not sure if BLM as a whole has an issue or just these people.

As the article states, there were a few BLM protestors spattered in the crowd, so it sounds like it was mostly people I associated with that group. Also, it was nice to see that the protestors chastised someone with them when that protestor tried to block DeVos from getting into her car.

Lolz -- initially read your post as Bureau of Land Management --- made the post both puzzling and humorous at the same time -- then the realization of the brain fart on this end took over.

DeVos is trying to back to those one-room prairie classrooms. BLM ain't having it.
02-11-2017 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-11-2017 03:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Can somebody explain to me why DeVos is unacceptable to Black Lives Matter?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/...chool.html

Not sure if BLM as a whole has an issue or just these people.

As the article states, there were a few BLM protestors spattered in the crowd, so it sounds like it was mostly people I associated with that group. Also, it was nice to see that the protestors chastised someone with them when that protestor tried to block DeVos from getting into her car.

Lolz -- initially read your post as Bureau of Land Management --- made the post both puzzling and humorous at the same time -- then the realization of the brain fart on this end took over.

DeVos is trying to back to those one-room prairie classrooms. BLM ain't having it.

Thank you teeing off and launching on my self-deprecating softball..... :smile:
02-11-2017 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #80
RE: Supreme Court nomination
(02-11-2017 03:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 02:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Can somebody explain to me why DeVos is unacceptable to Black Lives Matter?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/...chool.html

Not sure if BLM as a whole has an issue or just these people.

As the article states, there were a few BLM protestors spattered in the crowd, so it sounds like it was mostly people I associated with that group. Also, it was nice to see that the protestors chastised someone with them when that protestor tried to block DeVos from getting into her car.

Lolz -- initially read your post as Bureau of Land Management --- made the post both puzzling and humorous at the same time -- then the realization of the brain fart on this end took over.

DeVos is trying to back to those one-room prairie classrooms. BLM ain't having it.


Link?

THE BLM guy chanted "Shame" at her. Why?
02-11-2017 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.