Fillibuster

[ruby59]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

 

[lovedogs]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

The GOP did it for many months with Obama. So I have approximately zero sympathy.

 

[distracts]

Democrats are only returning the consideration shown them when they were in office. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think Republicans can complain when they were the ones who started it. After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

You can't let one party act like a child and then expect the other party to act like an adult. If you're incentivizing acting like children, that's what you're going to get from the political system.

 

[katharath]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Sweet!

Turnabout is fair play, right?

 

[ruby59]

Democrats are only returning the consideration shown them when they were in office. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think Republicans can complain when they were the ones who started it. After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

You can't let one party act like a child and then expect the other party to act like an adult. If you're incentivizing acting like children, that's what you're going to get from the political system.

And that is not childish?

That is exactly when the other party has to act like an adult. Isn't the lib motto, when they go low we go high?

 

[distracts]

Democrats are only returning the consideration shown them when they were in office. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think Republicans can complain when they were the ones who started it. After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

You can't let one party act like a child and then expect the other party to act like an adult. If you're incentivizing acting like children, that's what you're going to get from the political system.

And that is not childish?

That is exactly when the other party has to act like an adult. Isn't the lib motto, when they go low we go high?

Nah, everyone's going low now. Democrats have learned (hopefully!) that the high road just gets them more low blows from the other side, and we're going to play mean too. If the Republicans had stopped misbehaving at any point over the past eight years, I'd say yeah, but acting like the adult got us electoral losses and President Trump so... no.

 

[katharath]

Democrats are only returning the consideration shown them when they were in office. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think Republicans can complain when they were the ones who started it. After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

You can't let one party act like a child and then expect the other party to act like an adult. If you're incentivizing acting like children, that's what you're going to get from the political system.

And that is not childish?

That is exactly when the other party has to act like an adult. Isn't the lib motto, when they go low we go high?

Nah, everyone's going low now. Democrats have learned (hopefully!) that the high road just gets them more low blows from the other side, and we're going to play mean too.

Damn right, Distracts.

 

[lovedogs]

Democrats are only returning the consideration shown them when they were in office. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think Republicans can complain when they were the ones who started it. After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

You can't let one party act like a child and then expect the other party to act like an adult. If you're incentivizing acting like children, that's what you're going to get from the political system.

And that is not childish?

That is exactly when the other party has to act like an adult. Isn't the lib motto, when they go low we go high?

Nah, everyone's going low now. Democrats have learned (hopefully!) that the high road just gets them more low blows from the other side, and we're going to play mean too.

Yup. No point going high when POTUS decides that the constitution is optional and is certifiable.

 

[ruby59]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Sweet!

Turnabout is fair play, right?

So the H*ll with the people whose best interest you are supposedly representing?

 

[distracts]

I also think there's this idea floating around the Democrats are ALWAYS going to play nice and so Republicans can do whatever they want with no consequences, and it is my fondest desire for Democrats to show their teeth.

 

[bunnycat]

Democrats are only returning the consideration shown them when they were in office. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think Republicans can complain when they were the ones who started it. After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

You can't let one party act like a child and then expect the other party to act like an adult. If you're incentivizing acting like children, that's what you're going to get from the political system.

And that is not childish?

That is exactly when the other party has to act like an adult. Isn't the lib motto, when they go low we go high?

Nah, everyone's going low now. Democrats have learned (hopefully!) that the high road just gets them more low blows from the other side, and we're going to play mean too. If the Republicans had stopped misbehaving at any point over the past eight years, I'd say yeah, but acting like the adult got us electoral losses and President Trump so... no.

And the blows get even lower, because I have heard that if the D's don't comply, the R's will just change the Senate rules.

What I don't understand is why the R's were allowed and or able to refuse a hearing most of last year, but the D's are not allowed to refuse a hearing?

 

[lovedogs]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Sweet!

Turnabout is fair play, right?

So the H*ll with the people whose best interest you are supposedly representing?

You mean the people who don't want to see Roe V Wade demolished, people who believe in freedom of religion, who want LGBTQ rights to stand, and are all done taking crap from fools who want to make us into a xenophobic and racist country?? Yeah, I think we're OK with it.

 

[distracts]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Sweet!

Turnabout is fair play, right?

So the H*ll with the people whose best interest you are supposedly representing?

I think it IS in their best interest to not have any of Trump's court picks confirmed, especially given the current attack on the judicial system by the executive branch, and how a justice owing allegiance to Trump could bring the rule of law as we have known it toppling down.

The Republicans were the party who decided to hell with compromise, so don't blame the other side for realizing that's now the only workable strategy.

 

[distracts]

Democrats are only returning the consideration shown them when they were in office. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think Republicans can complain when they were the ones who started it. After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

You can't let one party act like a child and then expect the other party to act like an adult. If you're incentivizing acting like children, that's what you're going to get from the political system.

And that is not childish?

That is exactly when the other party has to act like an adult. Isn't the lib motto, when they go low we go high?

Nah, everyone's going low now. Democrats have learned (hopefully!) that the high road just gets them more low blows from the other side, and we're going to play mean too. If the Republicans had stopped misbehaving at any point over the past eight years, I'd say yeah, but acting like the adult got us electoral losses and President Trump so... no.

And the blows get even lower, because I have heard that if the D's don't comply, the R's will just change the Senate rules.

What I don't understand is why the R's were allowed and or able to refuse a hearing most of last year, but the D's are not allowed to refuse a hearing?

Double standards.

 

[katharath]

I also think there's this idea floating around the Democrats are ALWAYS going to play nice and so Republicans can do whatever they want with no consequences, and it is my fondest desire for Democrats to show their teeth.

I'm right there with you.

 

[ruby59]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Sweet!

Turnabout is fair play, right?

So the H*ll with the people whose best interest you are supposedly representing?

You mean the people who don't want to see Roe V Wade demolished, people who believe in freedom of religion, who want LGBTQ rights to stand, and are all done taking crap from fools who want to make us into a xenophobic and racist country?? Yeah, I think we're OK with it.

You missed my point. He intends to filibuster even before knowing who the person is. And look at the responses on here. Many of your fellow posters are saying turnaround is fair play.

How about judging based on the candidate himself?

 

[distracts]

To quote from a blog post I read earlier today - "the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. ... If one side has breached another’s rights, the injured party is no longer bound to respect the treaty rights of their assailant — and their response is not an identical violation of the rules, even if it looks superficially similar to the original breach."

 

[lovedogs]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Sweet!

Turnabout is fair play, right?

So the H*ll with the people whose best interest you are supposedly representing?

You mean the people who don't want to see Roe V Wade demolished, people who believe in freedom of religion, who want LGBTQ rights to stand, and are all done taking crap from fools who want to make us into a xenophobic and racist country?? Yeah, I think we're OK with it.

You missed my point. He intends to filibuster even before knowing who the man is. And look at the responses on here. Many of your fellow posters are saying turnaround is fair play.

How about judging based on the candidate himself?

Nope, I got your point. But we know who the choices are, and what they would do on the bench. If Cheeto picks this person, I can 99.9% guarantee I'm against them. Because that person will further his insane agenda.

 

[bunnycat]

Democrats are only returning the consideration shown them when they were in office. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think Republicans can complain when they were the ones who started it. After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

You can't let one party act like a child and then expect the other party to act like an adult. If you're incentivizing acting like children, that's what you're going to get from the political system.

And that is not childish?

That is exactly when the other party has to act like an adult. Isn't the lib motto, when they go low we go high?

Nah, everyone's going low now. Democrats have learned (hopefully!) that the high road just gets them more low blows from the other side, and we're going to play mean too. If the Republicans had stopped misbehaving at any point over the past eight years, I'd say yeah, but acting like the adult got us electoral losses and President Trump so... no.

And the blows get even lower, because I have heard that if the D's don't comply, the R's will just change the Senate rules.

What I don't understand is why the R's were allowed and or able to refuse a hearing most of last year, but the D's are not allowed to refuse a hearing?

Double standards.

Ahh- I reread the article. McConnel is in charge of scheduling hearings, so any hearing he didn't feel like scheduling he just didn't...

 

[ruby59]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Sweet!

Turnabout is fair play, right?

So the H*ll with the people whose best interest you are supposedly representing?

You mean the people who don't want to see Roe V Wade demolished, people who believe in freedom of religion, who want LGBTQ rights to stand, and are all done taking crap from fools who want to make us into a xenophobic and racist country?? Yeah, I think we're OK with it.

You missed my point. He intends to filibuster even before knowing who the man is. And look at the responses on here. Many of your fellow posters are saying turnaround is fair play.

How about judging based on the candidate himself?

Nope, I got your point. But we know who the choices are, and what they would do on the bench. If Cheeto picks this person, I can 99.9% guarantee I'm against them. Because that person will further his insane agenda.

I have to look but I believe 2 candidates were mentioned?

Any comment on them?

 

[E B]

After all, there is another presidential election in four years - given the president's approval ratings, don't you think we should wait until a nominee who won both the popular vote and electoral college can choose the next justice?

Someone mentioned Trump already filed his 2020 papers (unusually early) so, technically, he's campaigning, no?

McConnell can stuff it where the sun don't shine. I cannot BELIEVE he thinks he can get away with whining about this given what they did to Garland.

 

[ruby59]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/30/nearly-half-of-voters-were-supportive-of-immigration-restriction/21703166/


Nearly half the voters agree with the ban, so do not count him out just yet.

 

[E B]

You missed my point. He intends to filibuster even before knowing who the person is. And look at the responses on here. Many of your fellow posters are saying turnaround is fair play.

How about judging based on the candidate himself?

Given Trump's other reasonable, moderate picks, I'm sure we can expect the same for the justice.



Who's the craziest from the list he made? That's the one he'll pick.

 

[lovedogs]

You missed my point. He intends to filibuster even before knowing who the person is. And look at the responses on here. Many of your fellow posters are saying turnaround is fair play.

How about judging based on the candidate himself?

Given Trump's other reasonable, moderate picks, I'm sure we can expect the same for the justice.



Who's the craziest from the list he made? That's the one he'll pick.

Or he will pick a random billionaire not even from the list. Because apparently that's how we choose cabinet members now.

 

[jaaron]

Ruby,

I'm honestly interested in your take on this.

Why should the Dems be held to a different (higher) standard of behaviour than the Repubs?

 

[distracts]

That poll is not about the ban as enacted, which also tried to ban people legally already residing in the US from returning, or as it was carried out, which in some cases resulted in American citizens being detained. Not to mention that it left out many countries that are hotbeds of terrorism recruitment Details matter. I suspect (hope) that suspending immigration from terror-prone regions is much less controversial than suspending the return of lawful US citizens and residents.

 

[Matata]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/30/nearly-half-of-voters-were-supportive-of-immigration-restriction/21703166/


Nearly half the voters agree with the ban, so do not count him out just yet.

The study you linked surveyed 899 voters. Half of 899 is not statistically significant and is yet another example of fake news.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-poll-popularity-favourability-us-voters-immigration-latest-a7553961.html
Almost half of US voters are in support of an immigration policy like the one President Donald Trump has implemented, reports have suggested.

A move by the new President to ban refugees from entering the US sparked global outrage on Friday and was condemned by judges as “unconstitutional and unlawful”.

But in a poll surveying 899 voters nationwide, researchers from the University of Quinnipiac found between 42 and 48 per cent were in support of “suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees”.

 

[Maria D]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Are you for real? You've already forgotten what Mitch McConnell did with Merrick Garland, a man that many Republican leaders agreed would be an excellent choice until Obama chose him? Let me refresh your memory -

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-merrick-garland-lame-duck/

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his chief deputy, John Cornyn, both insisted this week that GOP leaders won't take up President Barack Obama's choice of Garland in an end-of-year session, no matter what happens in the November elections."

Based on Trumps cabinet picks so far, I would say there's zero chance that he'll choose a qualified, respectable, moderate candidate like Garland for the SC. If he does, I'd be surprised if the Dems actually filibuster because Dems stupidly think that you can work with modern day Republicans (this was Obama's biggest flaw). If Trump's choice is as polarized and unqualified as many of his cabinet picks are, then the Dems HAD BETTER DO EVERYTHING THEY POSSIBLY CAN TO STOP IT. The future of this country is at stake.

 

[lovedogs]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

Are you for real? You've already forgotten what Mitch McConnell did with Merrick Garland, a man that many Republican leaders agreed would be an excellent choice until Obama chose him? Let me refresh your memory -

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-merrick-garland-lame-duck/

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his chief deputy, John Cornyn, both insisted this week that GOP leaders won't take up President Barack Obama's choice of Garland in an end-of-year session, no matter what happens in the November elections."

Based on Trumps cabinet picks so far, I would say there's zero chance that he'll choose a qualified, respectable, moderate candidate like Garland for the SC. If he does, I'd be surprised if the Dems actually filibuster because Dems stupidly think that you can work with modern day Republicans (this was Obama's biggest flaw). If Trump's choice is as polarized and unqualified as many of his cabinet picks are, then the Dems HAD BETTER DO EVERYTHING THEY POSSIBLY CAN TO STOP IT. The future of this country is at stake.

Agreed. It seems like selective memories are running rampant today. Oh, and alternative facts.

 

[Calliecake]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368


Dems are going to fillibuster supreme court pick no matter who he is.


Now who is acting like a child?

The GOP did it for many months with Obama. So I have approximately zero sympathy.

This +1000