Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will the Democrats fillibuster the Gorsuch nomination?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Liberal groups press party to abandon Dems who back Gorsuch

    A coalition of liberal groups is putting pressure on the Democratic Party not to help centrist Democrats running for reelection next year if they vote for President Trumpís Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

    Liberal activist leaders plan to deliver a petition Monday to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) urging party leaders not to give campaign funds to any senator who votes for Gorsuch or strikes a deal to advance his nomination.

    Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) on Thursday became the first Democrats to say they will back ending debate on Gorsuch and advancing his nomination. Another 37 Democrats have come out in opposition to Trumpís nominee, according to The Hillís Whip List. The remaining nine Democrats are undecided or unclear.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...o-back-gorsuch

    We just saw the same thing with the GOP: ideology is a secondary concern to reelection, especially for those in purple districts. The left and right wings can't force politicians to sacrifice their own careers needlessly.

    Leave a comment:


  • BorderRuffian
    replied
    Democrats have been pining for the "good ole days" of the Cold War...

    Yeehaw...

    Leave a comment:


  • BorderRuffian
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Meanwhile 2 democrats have declared that they will vote FOR the nomination of Gorsuch : Manchin (WV) and Heitkamp (ND ).
    There are a few other Dems in Red States due up for re-election in 2018- Donnelly of Indiana and Tester of Montana. They would need four more but it's not likely...

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
    And what do you have to say about McConnell and the rest of his buddies not even giving Judge Garland a hearing?
    Bass_Man, what goes around, comes around, Schumer is also developing a memory of convenience when it comes to Garland not getting a hearing I seem to remember him saying that no nominee should get a hearing that close to an election, that was just a few years ago, I just cant find the video right now and Biden said essentially the same thing in 1992, see the video below, how quickly they forget.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...1992.html?_r=0

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Meanwhile 2 democrats have declared that they will vote FOR the nomination of Gorsuch : Manchin (WV) and Heitkamp (ND ).
    The Dems are trying to bring a coalition together to resist him, but I'm not seeing much room for it. The Dems just held strong against TrumpCare - going 2 for 2 will be challenging, especially for Dems in purple states. Especially as Gorsuch lacks a big "ah ha!" element to his nomination to rally around. Without it, the Dems will struggle to justify their actions and it could easily be seen as petty obstructionism - or worse, if they filibuster and lose, will give them an air of impotence in Washington.

    The Dems just scored a major victory - they don't want to suffer a defeat now. Though the Dem leadership aren't known for being the most acute of strategists.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Meanwhile 2 democrats have declared that they will vote FOR the nomination of Gorsuch : Manchin (WV) and Heitkamp (ND ).

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    The Dems might, being fired up about their temporary victory against Trumpcare. But I don't think the GOP will take that lying down - they can't afford to suffer back to back electoral upsets, and they will not tolerate an attempt by the Dems to go for the extra point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    I hope they do filibuster. 2018 is a pivotal time; the GOP is unlikely to lose either side of the aisle, but the DNC can really bury itself.

    If they do nothing more than react to GOP initiatives and spout dogma, they will lose big time in coming elections.
    This is posted as the GOP hangs itself in the House and White House over Repeal and Replace....



    God it's a good time not to be a blind party follower...

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    I hope they do filibuster. 2018 is a pivotal time; the GOP is unlikely to lose either side of the aisle, but the DNC can really bury itself.

    If they do nothing more than react to GOP initiatives and spout dogma, they will lose big time in coming elections.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    I noticed the primary reason many Democrats are saying they support a filibuster against Gorsuch is based on Progressive dogma, and little more.

    For instance:

    California Sen. Kamala Harris and Washington Sen. Patty Murray both said that they believe the Denver-based appeals court judge has ruled too often against workers and in favor of corporations.

    Gorsuch "failed to answer questions that are critical for me — his position on the rights of working mothers, whether women can choose their own health care decisions, LGBTQ rights and dark money in our elections, to name a few," (Tom) Udall (D-NM) said.
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp

    That's dogmatic, not questioning his ability to rule fairly under law. The Supreme Court should not be making rulings on the basis of opinions and personal feelings, but rather on what the law is as written and the meaning of those laws.
    To do the former makes the Supreme Court noting but a political outlet for driving the country in the direction those that sit on it want to go. While that's always fine in Leftist governed countries like Cuba or Venezuela, it should hardly sit well with Americans.

    In his rulings for corporations over workers, if the law was on the side of the corporations, then they should of won. That didn't come up. It was simply dogmatic badgering from Democrats that he didn't automatically side with workers. Where are we, the old Soviet Union?
    If Democrats don't like laws that gave corporations their win in court they should work to change them, not expect judges to just throw out the law and do as they please. But, that seems what we've come down to expect from the Left.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
    And what do you have to say about McConnell and the rest of his buddies not even giving Judge Garland a hearing?
    They could have easily drug the process out to ensure he didn't get a vote before the election. Given how Harry Reid ran the Senate, I'd say it's payback. Reid, was easily one of the worst Senate leaders from either party in many decades. His obstruction of everything and anything, along with taking the "nuclear option," really did a lot to destroy any bipartisan efforts in that body.
    In politics, you make the bed you lay on many times through previous actions. Even Obama did that. He didn't work with Congress on virtually anything. So, his previous actions effected his future ones.

    Garland probably deserved a hearing. But, Obama and Reid ensured he wasn't going to get one. Bipartisan cuts both ways. Right now, there is little, if any, bipartisan anything going on in Washington.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
    And what do you have to say about McConnell and the rest of his buddies not even giving Judge Garland a hearing?
    "neener, neener, neener!"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bass_Man86
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Al Franken and Chuck Schumer are idiots. They collectively couldn't solve 2 + 2. Schumer says he'll filibuster. I think that's a malicious mistake here. If the Democrats say "NO!" to everything the Republicans do, they're digging themselves a hole for the midterms.
    It's one thing for the Republicans to screw stuff up on their own, like the botched repeal and replace on Obamacare so far. But, Gorsuch is a reasonable SC candidate. Shooting him down just to spite the Republicans isn't buying them anything.
    And what do you have to say about McConnell and the rest of his buddies not even giving Judge Garland a hearing?

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Al Franken and Chuck Schumer are idiots. They collectively couldn't solve 2 + 2. Schumer says he'll filibuster. I think that's a malicious mistake here. If the Democrats say "NO!" to everything the Republicans do, they're digging themselves a hole for the midterms.
    It's one thing for the Republicans to screw stuff up on their own, like the botched repeal and replace on Obamacare so far. But, Gorsuch is a reasonable SC candidate. Shooting him down just to spite the Republicans isn't buying them anything.
    Not at all. The GOP in the Senate will simple nuke the rules and allow passage of SC Nominee's with only 51 votes. Which is a good thing, now all we need is the nuking of the entire Filibuster concept. Needs to go in the dust bin of history. It worked until political parties devolved from organizations of grown ups and statesmen into the current collection partisan hacks and demands of 'purity' from the extreme 'base' of both parties.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    (...) Schumer has a limited vocabulary and it makes all the dems look bad to their constituents:
    Can't he just read Donald's tweets out loud.

    that should take him into the next term

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X