• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Filibuster broken: Props to McConnell and the Senate for saving the High Court

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Let's give credit where credit is due. This was a home run for the Republican Senate and the President. The Senate and McConnell also deserve props for stopping the nomination Merrick Garland.

They take a lot of criticism, some deserved, but they deserve to be praised for this. All of them, even the more liberal faction stuck together and saved the High Court, and, in essence, the country. This unties Trump's hands in so many ways I can't count them. Serious game changer. Answer to prayer.

Congress is still proving to be inept, but the Senate just moved way up on my scale.

Gorsuch Nom. Forces Historic Change to Senate Rules

Judge-Neil-Gorsuch-640x480.jpg

AP/David Zalubowski
by IAN MASON6 Apr 2017WASHINGTON, D.C.3,294

Senate Republicans used the “constitutional option” to change longstanding cloture rules around 12:30pm Thursday, clearing the way for Judge Neil Gorsuch to receive a vote of the full Senate on his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Republicans resorted to the party-line 52-48 vote after weeks of wrangling over Gorsuch’s nomination in which Senate Democrats threatened the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in American history. After the Democrats assembled the forty-one votes needed to prevent the end of debate under current rules, the constitutional option allowing cloture on a simple majority became the only remaining path to placing Gorsuch on the Court.

Vice-President Mike Pence, who would have been needed to break a tie should any two Republicans have voted to maintain the 60-vote cloture rule, was not present for the vote, indicating Republican confidence their entire caucus would agree to the change.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) moved for a point of order after his first attempt to invoke cloture failed with only 55 votes. From the podium, he cited the need to “restore Senate norms” in light of the Democrats’ “unprecedented partisan filibuster” of a Supreme Court nominee.

McConnell invoked the precedent of Senate Democrats’ own change to same simple majority cloture rule for all presidential nominees but those to the Supreme Court in 2013 in calling for an override of the Senate chair’s determination sixty votes were needed for cloture. That appeal passed on a party-line 52-48 vote.

Thursday’s historic move harmonized Senate rules, removing the possibility of minority filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. Given the reluctance, in the past, for either party to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee with majority support, the constitutional option restored, as a practical matter, traditional Senate custom in this area.

A successful cloture vote quickly followed the rule change. The 55-45 vote began a thirty hour countdown to a vote of the full Senate. Judge Gorsuch is, therefore, slated for the final vote on his confirmation no later than seven o’clock Friday evening. All 52 Republicans and three Democrats are expected to vote for his confirmation, allowing him to replace Antonin Scalia as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: 777

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Democrats asked for it. They got it.

Yeah, in some ways they were doomed either way, but I'm glad it's done and over with. The sooner that rule is gone, the better. You never know what's going to happen in 2018.

This now opens a lot of doors for Trump. I wonder if the Republicans would be open to 11 seats on the Supreme Court. Considering the damage Obama did to our lower courts, it may be justified.
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The cloture rule was just a lazy politicians way to filibuster.

They can still filbuster the old fashioned way. Literally talk it to death.

That's not against the rules.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The cloture rule was just a lazy politicians way to filibuster.

They can still filbuster the old fashioned way. Literally talk it to death.

That's not against the rules.

Let em try. Maybe a new senate seat will open up. :Smile
 

777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Really dumb move on the part of the Democrats, now the next vacancy will be to replace RBG or Breyer (or Kennedy, rumors are he wants to retire but didn't want to under a D POTUS), and they'll go nuclear on that one without blinking. Completely short-sighted move, thought Schumer et al were just bluffing but they was out-smarted by Mitch.

Don't want them to stack the SCOTUS like FDR tried to do, that is responsible in part for what the Ninth Circus has become out here, a monster in more ways than one. After Gorsuch is seated, they may move to correct this too.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Really dumb move on the part of the Democrats, now the next vacancy will be to replace RBG or Breyer (or Kennedy, rumors are he wants to retire but didn't want to under a D POTUS), and they'll go nuclear on that one without blinking. Completely short-sighted move, thought Schumer et al were just bluffing but they was out-smarted by Mitch.

Don't want them to stack the SCOTUS like FDR tried to do, that is responsible in part for what the Ninth Circus has become out here, a monster in more ways than one. After Gorsuch is seated, they may move to correct this too.

Isn't it a done deal for all SC appointments now? I don't think they'll need to do it again, but correct me if I'm wrong.
 

777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Isn't it a done deal for all SC appointments now? I don't think they'll need to do it again, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, unless some future Majority Leader suspends it - just a procedural move so that it only requires 51, not 60, to get through. Liberals should blame Harry Reid for the idea, and Joe Biden for thinking it was such a great thing.
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeah, in some ways they were doomed either way, but I'm glad it's done and over with. The sooner that rule is gone, the better. You never know what's going to happen in 2018.

This now opens a lot of doors for Trump. I wonder if the Republicans would be open to 11 seats on the Supreme Court. Considering the damage Obama did to our lower courts, it may be justified.
Court packing is a bad idea.
1. If FDR, a very popular president could not get it done there is no way that Trump and the GOP could get it done (they can't even deliver on repealing Obamacare)
2. If they managed to increase the size of the SCOTUS, there would be nothing to stop the Dems from playing the same trick when they have power.
3. It would further destabilize the checks and balances between the 3 branches of government.


On another note I do say good on the GOP for doing away with the filibuster. Thanks to Reed for putting it on the table. Now they just need to use their new found backbone and fulfill the promise they have made for 7 years and repeal Obamacare.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Court packing is a bad idea.
1. If FDR, a very popular president could not get it done there is no way that Trump and the GOP could get it done (they can't even deliver on repealing Obamacare)
2. If they managed to increase the size of the SCOTUS, there would be nothing to stop the Dems from playing the same trick when they have power.
3. It would further destabilize the checks and balances between the 3 branches of government.


On another note I do say good in the GOP for doing away with the filibuster. Thanks to Reed for putting it on the table. Now they just need to use their new found backbone and fulfill the promise they have made for 7 years and repeal Obamacare.

I think all presidents try to stack the court. Obama did and had great success in lower federal courts. That's why judges are blocking Trump left and right right now, throwing the law to the wind.

No doubt 11 SCJ would be difficult, but it could also do a lot of good, if they pull it off. That would mean abortion rights could be immediately challenged. I'm old fashioned about this. I believe the wrath of God is storing up for our country over this issue. It's a holocaust.

But I agree, I think it will be difficult and virtually impossible. I don't think all Senators would back it.

That said, let's give props where props are due. McConnell just hit it out of the park. Maybe some of his magic can rub off on Ryan.
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think all presidents try to stack the court. Obama did and had great success in lower federal courts. That's why judges are blocking Trump left and right right now, throwing the law to the wind. [/ QUOTE]
There is a difference between stacking the courts and purposefully adding more judges to get what you want. It was a bad idea when FDR came up with it and it's a bad idea now. The letter after the name doesn't change that fact.
No doubt 11 SCJ would be difficult, but it could also do a lot of good, if they pull it off. That would mean abortion rights could be immediately challenged. I'm old fashioned about this. I believe the wrath of God is storing up for our country over this issue. It's a holocaust.
[/ QUOTE]

I'm more in favor of a Constitution amendment, we only need one more Republican governor to call for a convention of states to put a person amendment. You always ignore the fact that the SCOTUS will not change baby killing in NY or California as all overturning Roe v. Wade does is send the issue back to the states. That is why it is ultimately the Gospel that must be shared (go ahead call me Smug for that position again) truly end the Holocaust of babies in this land.





Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Brent W

Active Member
What comes around, goes around. I hope your political bias doesn't come back to haunt you when Democrats regain the White House one day and they can pick more than one Supreme Court nominee now with only 51 votes.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What comes around, goes around. I hope your political bias doesn't come back to haunt you when Democrats regain the White House one day and they can pick more than one Supreme Court nominee now with only 51 votes.

They may anyway, regardless of what Republicans do. What would stop them? It's not illegal. Look at what they did with cloture on the lower courts. There was no precedent there. Should conservatives always passive in their approach? It's a debate worth having.

That's the government we have. That's the game. You do what you can with the limited power you have for the greater good.
 

Brent W

Active Member
They may anyway, regardless of what Republicans do. What would stop them? It's not illegal. Look at what they did with cloture on the lower courts.

That's the government we have. That's the game. You do what you can with the limited power you have for the greater good.

I hope your political bias doesn't come back to haunt you

Good luck. Now they don't have to be the bad guys when Republicans are wailing in the streets about how 2-3 Democratic Supreme Court picks made it through with only 51 votes.

Donald Trump is one of the least popular Presidents in recent history who hasn't even been able to pass Healthcare reform or issue a travel ban with a Republican majority. It isn't out of the question that he isn't here in 2020 and a more liberal person, like Elizabeth Warren or Sanders has control of the White House.

Like I said, hope this doesn't come back to haunt the Republican party the way I think it will.
 

777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, the Democrats never needed to go nuclear on SCOTUS, that's the only reason why they didn't. Their appointees always get through, for good or for bad (really wish the last guy Obama tried to appoint was there instead of Kagan, or Sotomayor especially).

I don't think there is a magic number that says there have to be nine, but from what I remember being told, FDR just withdrew his proposal to stack the court after he got the okay from SCOTUS for his New Deal programs. There is an argument that I think is reasonable - the population of the US is much larger than it was before, maybe there should be more SCOTUS judges then. But the political climate is too polarizing so I don't think you should go there.

I do want the Ninth Circus broken up because it covers too much land and too many people to the point it really resembles a circus. One problem with breaking it up, or what AZ wants to do, get a new district is that one SCOTUS judge would have to up the number to 10 or else have double the power in jurisdiction cases. But this topic is about the nuclear option, I think the Democrats lost all present and future leverage by not confirming this one.
 

Brent W

Active Member
Any poll you see. He also received just 46% of the popular vote in the election. He isn't rolling around in popularity. I don't expect someone as biased as you to accept anything else though. If it doesn't fit your agenda, it is fake. With that, me and you are done with conversations on here. I won't waste anymore time with someone who has clearly closed his mind to anything different than his current political bias.
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What comes around, goes around. I hope your political bias doesn't come back to haunt you when Democrats regain the White House one day and they can pick more than one Supreme Court nominee now with only 51 votes.

Agreed. It's pure hubris to think that Republicans will always have the Whitehouse to control the packed court. Dems had the same hubris after the election of Obama and in the end it destroyed most of their party. As I said packing the courts would created a situation where the court grows with each new turn of the Whitehouse, and further destabilize the checks and balances the founders wantes. But than again I'm just a Constitutional Conservative who thinks government is too big as it is.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Any poll you see. He also received just 46% of the popular vote in the election. He isn't rolling around in popularity. I don't expect someone as biased as you to accept anything else though. If it doesn't fit your agenda, it is fake. With that, me and you are done with conversations on here. I won't waste anymore time with someone who has clearly closed his mind to anything different than his current political bias.

All the state to state polls were wrong, and they were busted because of the election. These recent polls don't have to worry about that, as there's nothing to keep them honest. Trump won the popular vote is 30 states. That's a huge victory.

And yes Trump lost the popular vote because of California, alone, which has a lot of illegal voting. Take out the illegal vote, and he'll win the electoral college and the popular vote.

My suggestion is, stop with the sour grapes. Trump won, and he's rescued the High Court. Just accept it.
 
Top