Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 06:46:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)  (Read 56977 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,678
United States


WWW
« on: April 07, 2017, 01:35:49 PM »
« edited: April 07, 2017, 01:41:58 PM by Frodo »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control. 
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,678
United States


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2017, 02:31:09 PM »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control. 

And it would've gone down identically...

Better to use the filibuster on a nominee who could change the composition of the court as opposed to wasting it on someone who wouldn't have. 
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,678
United States


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2017, 02:50:31 PM »

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control.  

And it would've gone down identically...

Yes, agreed. The Filibuster had to end eventually for the Republic to continue to function. It had outlived its usefulness and its intended purpose, and when it got to where any controversial legislation was being filibustered, it was contributing to the gridlock and paralysis which has afflicted congress for the past 20 years, the result being an increasingly - dangerously - powerful executive branch. And in the long run, this gridlock benefits Republicans for ideological reasons: by making government look broken and ineffective, low-information swing voters will gravitate towards the party that claims all government is inherently broken and ineffective. Just think what the Democratic trifecta could have accomplished in 2009-2010 without the filibuster: we could have gotten a public option, comprehensive immigration reform, gun safety legislation, more robust regulation of Wall Street, and possibly much else besides.

And yes, I know we technically have the filibuster for legislation, though I don't expect that to be the case a year or two from now. In any case, long run it has to end, and it's better for Republicans to take the heat for ending it. At the rate things are going, I don't think we'll have to wait long for the next Democratic Trifecta.

I fear what Republicans would do once they get rid of the legislative filibuster as well.  And I'm not sure I want to find out. 

This is why I wanted Democrats to keep their powder dry.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 11 queries.