(09-26-2024 08:31 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:25 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

At what point in their development do democrats care whether children die or not?

When they can survive independently of the mother.

At what point do Republicans do anything at all to protect living children?

So around 13 or so?

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(09-26-2024 06:07 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 05:45 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 05:38 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-25-2024 09:05 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Article summary : The Trump tax cuts are expiring, how can we blame that on Harris?

That cannot be a serious question.

I believe this is the same guy that got mad that when Republicans were in power they didn't do anything about gun control but ignored the fact at the time he made the comment the House, Senate, and WH were all Dem controlled.

Too bad the filibuster gives minority parties unlimited veto power

Remember when Harry Reid used the Nuclear Option to push through Obama nominees? I do. Did Republicans lose their minds? They may have. I don't remember.

Remember when Mitch McConnell did the same thing to push through Trump nominees, and the left lost their everloving minds? I do, too. Turnabout is fair play. Same with getting rid of the filibuster. You're going to love it until the other party is in power and is able to bypass it. But hey, fair play and all that.

Be careful what you wish for, American left. You just might get it.

1. There are more conservative judges now because Reid nuked the judicial filibuster. Power grabs breed power grabs.

2. Nobody on the left complained of judicial overreach until 2018. Live by the courts, die by the courts. The overturning of the cases didn’t create law. Congress has the ability to codify these previous rulings into law with enough support.

3. You’re entirely way too focused on short term gains, but are enabling long term losses. If you view the right wing in this country as fascist and evil (not saying you do, but millions of liberals do), why would you want to permanently break the filibuster when the power dynamic inevitably changes over the course of time?

(09-26-2024 12:28 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  3. You’re entirely way too focused on short term gains, but are enabling long term losses. If you view the right wing in this country as fascist and evil (not saying you do, but millions of liberals do), why would you want to permanently break the filibuster when the power dynamic inevitably changes over the course of time?

Because immediate gratification (feelings) outweighs a life time of stability (Common Sense).

I will keep referring to "feelings" because it keeps raising its ugly head on every issue.

(09-26-2024 12:16 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 11:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 10:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 10:06 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Here's some light reading that may explain it better than I can

Link


More details in the article

The problem with that view is that *every* bill in the Senate must be voted out of debate. End of story. Has been the case for hundreds of years. That is everything *except* issues of budget 'reconciliation'.

Most of the time end of debate was accomplished by unanimous consent. Until it wasnt. Nothing was changed at all.

Bummer it was forced into the other path. Why should anything be automatically consented to? Even more so when it has issues in it that one doesnt agree.

Yes McConnell forced the parties to play by the rules. How horrible. I guess.

What it boils down to is that you dont agree with McConnell forcing a political hardball. How dare he play hardball? If so, should he just roll over at your whim and like?

So what should be done by the democrats then? The Republicans control passage of every bill through the senate as long as the Democrats don't have a filibuster proof supermajority, and they control the means to fix the filibuster to work for today's needs. Should democrats just accept that the only ones allowed to make law are Republicans and their unelected judges?

You are missing the very present equal and opposite power the Dems hold in the situation.

The next cycle the Rs will probably hold a 51, maybe 52, outside shot at 53 seat majority in the next Senate. With that in mind -- here is the situation in terms of your own words then:

The Democrats control passage of every bill through the senate as long as the Republicans don't have a filibuster proof supermajority, and they control the means to fix the filibuster to work for today's needs. Should Republicans just accept that the only ones allowed to make law are Democrats and their unelected judges?

And yes, there are many instances of Democrat judges acting in activist manner.

With respect to the control of the Senate passing legislation -- *both* sides are equally hampered currently.

The *next* party to ditch further provisions of the filibuster will be the party increasing the problem. And to the Ds credit this last 4 years -- they havent done so.

You're missing one thing. The filibuster gridlock only prevents the passage of bills. Democrats could play the same game as the Republicans and in the end, the only thing that will happen is exactly what's been happening since Sandy Hook. Absolutely. Nothing. Which is perfectly ok for Republicans, because the conservative judges they've packed into every level of the judiciary does the law writing for them.

If you insist on continuing to both sides this, then surely you can point me to a democratic judge, legislating from the bench, with as much authority that Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito enjoy? They've put out such great hits like Presidential Immunity, overturning Roe v Wade, Chevron Deference... with a court like that who needs a Republican majority in the senate?

Let me ask you the same question then worded differently: What tools, beyond the Senate, do democrats have to effectively pass laws when the filibuster blocks them? Republicans have another option, do the democrats? From my perspective, it is only the ability to govern the budget (as mentioned in the article I posted, Inflation Reduction Act, Chips Act, etc.), which is only possible when Democrats win the White House... which (as often noted on this board) Democrats need a +3% popular vote to even have a chance at the electoral college.

With respect, you are mixing and matching processes.

Chevron deference was not written into law. Nor did a court short circuit a written law. The Chevron deference issue is/ was a matter of Constitutional separation of powers. And now, Article 1 judges cannot exercise the power reserved in the Constitution for Art 3.

Presidential Immunity — not a legislative issue.

RvW— now properly noted as the province of the legislatures, the states and Congress.

How dare the courts determine those questions? And simply put those issues have zero to do with dealing with a court supposedly writing and implementing a legislative action.

(09-26-2024 12:35 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 12:28 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  3. You’re entirely way too focused on short term gains, but are enabling long term losses. If you view the right wing in this country as fascist and evil (not saying you do, but millions of liberals do), why would you want to permanently break the filibuster when the power dynamic inevitably changes over the course of time?

Because immediate gratification (feelings) outweighs a life time of stability (Common Sense).

I will keep referring to "feelings" because it keeps raising its ugly head on every issue.

Yeah, how dare the other side be against my views?

To be completely honest, a simple majority in the senate would make the body even more obsolete. I get they play a role in confirming judges, etc, but legislatively they would be no different than the House.

(09-26-2024 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 12:16 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 11:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 10:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 10:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The problem with that view is that *every* bill in the Senate must be voted out of debate. End of story. Has been the case for hundreds of years. That is everything *except* issues of budget 'reconciliation'.

Most of the time end of debate was accomplished by unanimous consent. Until it wasnt. Nothing was changed at all.

Bummer it was forced into the other path. Why should anything be automatically consented to? Even more so when it has issues in it that one doesnt agree.

Yes McConnell forced the parties to play by the rules. How horrible. I guess.

What it boils down to is that you dont agree with McConnell forcing a political hardball. How dare he play hardball? If so, should he just roll over at your whim and like?

So what should be done by the democrats then? The Republicans control passage of every bill through the senate as long as the Democrats don't have a filibuster proof supermajority, and they control the means to fix the filibuster to work for today's needs. Should democrats just accept that the only ones allowed to make law are Republicans and their unelected judges?

You are missing the very present equal and opposite power the Dems hold in the situation.

The next cycle the Rs will probably hold a 51, maybe 52, outside shot at 53 seat majority in the next Senate. With that in mind -- here is the situation in terms of your own words then:

The Democrats control passage of every bill through the senate as long as the Republicans don't have a filibuster proof supermajority, and they control the means to fix the filibuster to work for today's needs. Should Republicans just accept that the only ones allowed to make law are Democrats and their unelected judges?

And yes, there are many instances of Democrat judges acting in activist manner.

With respect to the control of the Senate passing legislation -- *both* sides are equally hampered currently.

The *next* party to ditch further provisions of the filibuster will be the party increasing the problem. And to the Ds credit this last 4 years -- they havent done so.

You're missing one thing. The filibuster gridlock only prevents the passage of bills. Democrats could play the same game as the Republicans and in the end, the only thing that will happen is exactly what's been happening since Sandy Hook. Absolutely. Nothing. Which is perfectly ok for Republicans, because the conservative judges they've packed into every level of the judiciary does the law writing for them.

If you insist on continuing to both sides this, then surely you can point me to a democratic judge, legislating from the bench, with as much authority that Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito enjoy? They've put out such great hits like Presidential Immunity, overturning Roe v Wade, Chevron Deference... with a court like that who needs a Republican majority in the senate?

Let me ask you the same question then worded differently: What tools, beyond the Senate, do democrats have to effectively pass laws when the filibuster blocks them? Republicans have another option, do the democrats? From my perspective, it is only the ability to govern the budget (as mentioned in the article I posted, Inflation Reduction Act, Chips Act, etc.), which is only possible when Democrats win the White House... which (as often noted on this board) Democrats need a +3% popular vote to even have a chance at the electoral college.

With respect, you are mixing and matching processes.

Chevron deference was not written into law. Nor did a court short circuit a written law. The Chevron deference issue is/ was a matter of Constitutional separation of powers. And now, Article 1 judges cannot exercise the power reserved in the Constitution for Art 3.

Presidential Immunity — not a legislative issue.

RvW— now properly noted as the province of the legislatures, the states and Congress.

How dare the courts determine those questions? And simply put those issues have zero to do with dealing with a court supposedly writing and implementing a legislative action.

Yes, I probably am mixing and matching processes, but I'm not mixing intent and the ends-justify-the-means approach. It doesn't matter which process Republicans exploit, all that matters is they have the means to circumvent the Senate when they can't vote the results they want in that Senate. The Courts are that means for them, a means which is not available to any other party.

To your last paragraph, I don't give the courts credit for answering questions that only they are asking (beyond the obvious Roe v Wade). Clarence Thomas makes his intent very clear when you read his opinion on Roe v Wade.

(09-26-2024 08:17 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:49 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:33 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2024 06:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Powerless against the filibuster? Yes. Or are you saying they gave away a Supreme Court nomination for funsies?

I gotta know now.. What SCOTUS nomination you referring to?

Don't play dumb.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256...atters-now

If you make it all the way to the bottom, you'll realize McConnell didn't even need to use the filibuster here, because they had control of the House Judiciary committee and didn't even let the process get to a filibuster. That didn't stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees in 2017 though, conveniently before two more conservative Supreme Court picks

There's not a precedence saying that the Senate had to confirm a SCOTUS nomination during a President's Lame Duck year/term.

I'm not playing dumb at all, but apparently you don't have to play cause you make horrible arguments. But the Senate had the majority and decided they didn't need to review the nomination. But go ahead and continue to explain your pointless argument.. I'll play dumb.. You don't need to... Have a wonderful day sunshine..

It's amazing the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to condone Republican hypocrisy.

Sure is a shame that democrats couldn't filibuster Amy Coney Barrett's warp speed nomination/appointment to both positions she was appointed to, one of them in a lame duck year.

Ya know what else is a shame? All the kids that have died in school waiting for the Republicans to value human lives over NRA money

What's that comment that the Left's messiah once stated ..... Oh yeah, it was "Elections have consequences". What happened in blocking the Garland appointment was par for the course in D.C. Here's a bit of a history less for you so that you can start sounding like you know what you are talking about.

Dan McLaughlin wrote in the National Review that 29 times there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration.

“The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases,” he wrote. McLaughlin added that “19 times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the 10 were successful.”

By contrast, when the president and Senate were from opposite parties, there have been 10 vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination. In six of the 10 cases, the president made a nomination before Election Day, but only one of those was confirmed by the Senate controlled by the opposite party. That was President Grover Cleveland’s nomination of Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller in 1888.

https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/h...tion-years