Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

Dear Chuck and Harry

Recommended Posts

Just now, sactowndog said:

Except if McConnell was willing to kill it now he would have killed it later.   The 60 was a charade that offered no protection.  Better to make that clear to voters now.

That's not necessarily true at all. It was Scalia's seat and McConnell risked his career keeping it open, he damn sure wasn't going to let a stupid political play deny a great nominee like Gorsuch. But a later seat, after the Dems had swallowed some pride and voted for a good judge? There is no way anyone can say McConnell would have pushed the button, at least right away, over a genuinely objectionable candidate.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NVGiant said:

Under McConnell/Obama the filibuster rate more doubled from the Reid/Bush era. And doing away with the legislative filibuster is next. 

You're not wrong, but you're not right either. Trying to put the blame solely on one side is ludicrous and exactly how these assholes get away with it.

we were going to get nut jobs because that's who we're voting for.

I'm only blaming those for that which they are responsible. If he we end up with a Pryor or two on the bench for the next 3 decades, that is on Reid and Schumer. However, in 2021 when President West nominated the honorable Judge Dunham and there isn't anything that can be done to prevent it, you can bet I am going to kick the first turtle I see. McConnell will own that.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

That's not necessarily true at all. It was Scalia's seat and McConnell risked his career keeping it open, he damn sure wasn't going to let a stupid political play deny a great nominee like Gorsuch. But a later seat, after the Dems had swallowed some pride and voted for a good judge? There is no way anyone can say McConnell would have pushed the button, at least right away, over a genuinely objectionable candidate.

Come on. McConnell announced there would be no hearings to replace Scalia before his body was cold. That should have been a career killer. And he got away with it. If anything, McConnell was emboldened. He gives zero +++++s what the Democrats do. @sactowndog is right. 60 was a charade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I'm only blaming those for that which they are responsible. If he we end up with a Pryor or two on the bench for the next 3 decades, that is on Reid and Schumer. However, in 2021 when President West nominated the honorable Judge Dunham and there isn't anything that can be done to prevent it, you can bet I am going to kick the first turtle I see. McConnell will own that.

This is just silly. Democrats were never going to stop anything. It's naive to think otherwise. Nice though that McConnell gets no blame in your view for his use of the nuclear option or his abuse of the filibuster. While the Dems get all the blame for their use of the nuclear option and their abuse of the filibuster. Seems reasonable.

Maybe we should blame Trump, the clown show in the senate that will rubber stamp the lunatic he nominates, and the voters who voted them all into office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NVGiant said:

Come on. McConnell announced there would be no hearings to replace Scalia before his body was cold. That should have been a career killer. And he got away with it. If anything, McConnell was emboldened. He gives zero +++++s what the Democrats do. @sactowndog is right. 60 was a charade.

McConnell plays chess. There is a big difference between whiny opposition to a good nominee because you lost an election, and opposing a sketchy nominee. The Gorsuch choice was hailed across the spectrum. It was basically the only thing pretty much everybody agreed Trump did right in those first few months. Of course McConnell was emboldened, the Dems were playing their only hand at the dumbest time possible. But a controversial pick for the next seat would have been an entirely different situation.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

This is just silly. Democrats were never going to stop anything. It's naive to think otherwise. Nice though that McConnell gets no blame in your view for his use of the nuclear option or his abuse of the filibuster. While the Dems get all the blame for their use of the nuclear option and their abuse of the filibuster. Seems reasonable.

Maybe we should blame Trump, the clown show in the senate that will rubber stamp the lunatic he nominates, and the voters who voted them all into office.

Blaming is all the minority voice can do now. That is my point. The guy who is currently responsible for the minority voice being heard, punted away for all time the only tool in the arsenal, over ground of no value. There was no outcry over the nuclear option because everyone could see the filibuster was political. I don't blame the Dems for using the filibuster, I blame them for being idiots about it and destroying the thing for no good reason.

And I like the filibuster, I think it's great the majority can't run roughshod over the minority. That is why I never had a problem with McConnell's use of it. But when Reid throws a century of precedent away to try and stifle the minority voice, it's clear as day he opened the door for reprisal in the same fashion. Going political tit for tat is not equivalent to trashing a century of precedent.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

McConnell plays chess. There is a big difference between whiny opposition to a good nominee because you lost an election, and opposing a sketchy nominee. The Gorsuch choice was hailed across the spectrum. It was basically the only thing pretty much everybody agreed that Trump did right in those first few months. Of course McConnell was emboldened, the Dems were playing their only hand at the dumbest time possible. But a controversial pick for the next seat would have been an entirely different situation.

This idea is laughable to me. Look, the filibuster was silly because it was pointless. But it also had no real consequences. Somehow the GOP was going to play nice with the Dems on the next nomination? Why? What in recent history leads you to believe that? The filibuster of Gorsuch had nothing to do with Gorsuch himself nor the election. And the nuclear option certainly had nothing to with the qualifications of Gorsuch. It was just the inevitable next step, which was always going to happen the moment Dems tried to use the filibuster. 

Both sides have had numerous opportunities to deescalate the process. Instead, both sides have always chosen to do the opposite. So again, why should I blame Dems alone when both sides are so clearly guilty?

You want to applaud McConnell for playing chess? Go for it. But there are no heroes in this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

This idea is laughable to me. Look, the filibuster was silly because it was pointless. But it also had no real consequences. Somehow the GOP was going to play nice with the Dems on the next nomination? Why? What in recent history leads you to believe that? The filibuster of Gorsuch had nothing to do with Gorsuch himself nor the election. And the nuclear option certainly had nothing to with the qualifications of Gorsuch. It was just the inevitable next step, which was always going to happen the moment Dems tried to use the filibuster. 

Both sides have had numerous opportunities to deescalate the process. Instead, both sides have always chosen to do the opposite. So again, why should I blame Dems alone when both sides are so clearly guilty?

You want to applaud McConnell for playing chess? Go for it. But there are no heroes in this. 

I've never applauded McConnell. Here what I said at the time.

On 4/6/2017 at 6:17 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

I loved the Gorsuch pick. I don't think you could pick a better judge from my ideological viewpoint. But I'd have rather kept the filibuster and seen if they'd give Hardiman a fair shake. This sucks. 

You can blame who you want. Both sides are at fault for the atmosphere in Washington. But it's clear to me that Reid bears the most burden for the nuclear option even being a thing, and Schumer owns giving Trump a free pass on the next seat (should it come up).

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Blaming is all the minority voice can do now. That is my point. The guy who is currently responsible for the minority voice being heard, punted away for all time the only tool in the arsenal, over ground of no value. There was no outcry over the nuclear option because everyone could see the filibuster was political. I don't blame the Dems for using the filibuster, I blame them for being idiots about it and destroying the thing for no good reason.

And I like the filibuster, I think it's great the majority can't run roughshod over the minority. That is why I never had a problem with McConnell's use of it. But when Reid throws a century of precedent away to try and stifle the minority voice, it's clear as day he opened the door for reprisal in the same fashion. Going political tit for tat is not equivalent to trashing a century of precedent.

Blaming is all they could ever do. Everything else was an illusion. Still, McConnell's minority trashed a century of precedent, too, with their record use of the filibuster. McConnell not only trashed precedent by refusing to hear Garland, he refused to fulfill the Senate's Constitutional responsibility. And McConnell too trashed a century of precedent when he used the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees.

You say you like the filibuster, and yet you give no blame to the Republicans for their part in it? That is an indefensible position, in my opinion. +++++ every one of them I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I've never applauded McConnell. Here what I said at the time.

You can blame who you want. Both sides are at fault for the atmosphere in Washington. But it's clear to me that Reid bears the most burden for the nuclear option even being a thing, and Schumer owns giving Trump a free pass on the next seat (should it come up).

Reid just escalated. McConnell would have done the same, as he has proven time and time again since gaining the majority. Just two sides of the same shitty coin. And the Supreme Court filibuster died the night Trump and the Republicans won the election. Blame voters if you don't like it. It was their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Reid just escalated. McConnell would have done the same, as he has proven time and time again since gaining the majority. Just two sides of the same shitty coin. And the Supreme Court filibuster died the night Trump and the Republicans won the election. Blame voters if you don't like it. It was their choice.

Using the filibuster on this was dumb, spectacularly dumb.  It wasn't even in their own self interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

Using the filibuster on this was dumb, spectacularly dumb.  It wasn't even in their own self interest.

Extraordinarily dumb? It was useless, I agree. But it doesn't matter. Not a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Blaming is all they could ever do. Everything else was an illusion. Still, McConnell's minority trashed a century of precedent, too, with their record use of the filibuster. McConnell not only trashed precedent by refusing to hear Garland, he refused to fulfill the Senate's Constitutional responsibility. And McConnell too trashed a century of precedent when he used the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees.

You say you like the filibuster, and yet you give no blame to the Republicans for their part in it? That is an indefensible position, in my opinion. +++++ every one of them I say.

McConnell deserves judgement for the things he did with using normal procedure a lot, and for not hearing Garland. But it doesn't absolve Reid and Schumer for what they are responsible for. Just because there is blame to go around, doesn't mean blame falls equally upon all for every single instance. These guys made choices, ones they didn't have to make. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

McConnell deserves judgement for the things he did with using normal procedure a lot, and for not hearing Garland. But it doesn't absolve Reid and Schumer for what they are responsible for. Just because there is blame to go around, doesn't mean blame falls equally upon all for every single instance. These guys made choices, ones they didn't have to make. 

All of them them have done that. I just don't know what else to say. Both sides have been awful. You keep believing that the filibuster meant a thing, but clearly that was never the case.

In January, before Gorsuch was nominated:

WALLACE:  But would you consider extending the nuclear option and saying, even for Supreme Court justices, just a simple majority?

MCCONNELL: The nominee will be confirmed.

Trump was always going to get his nominees. No filibuster was going to change that. The Dems made the decision to fire up their base, knowing that it meant the end to the filibuster, figuring that the nuclear option would piss off the base.

I would also give better than 50/50 odds that the legislative filibuster will be a thing of the past, too, within two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

I guess that helps you sleep better.  I don't think it's true though.

I sleep fine either way. Base politics work. Both sides are playing it. Trump was always going to get his nominees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

All of them them have done that. I just don't know what else to say. Both sides have been awful. You keep believing that the filibuster meant a thing, but clearly that was never the case.

In January, before Gorsuch was nominated:

WALLACE:  But would you consider extending the nuclear option and saying, even for Supreme Court justices, just a simple majority?

MCCONNELL: The nominee will be confirmed.

Trump was always going to get his nominees. No filibuster was going to change that. The Dems made the decision to fire up their base, knowing that it meant the end to the filibuster, figuring that the nuclear option would piss off the base.

I would also give better than 50/50 odds that the legislative filibuster will be a thing of the past, too, within two years.

I think it will be a lot sooner than that. I definitely think it will happen this year. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Old_SD_Dude said:

I think it will be a lot sooner than that. I definitely think it will happen this year. 

You're probably right, but if I'm giving odds I want to protect myself. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

All of them them have done that. I just don't know what else to say. Both sides have been awful. You keep believing that the filibuster meant a thing, but clearly that was never the case.

In January, before Gorsuch was nominated:

WALLACE:  But would you consider extending the nuclear option and saying, even for Supreme Court justices, just a simple majority?

MCCONNELL: The nominee will be confirmed.

Trump was always going to get his nominees. No filibuster was going to change that. The Dems made the decision to fire up their base, knowing that it meant the end to the filibuster, figuring that the nuclear option would piss off the base.

I would also give better than 50/50 odds that the legislative filibuster will be a thing of the past, too, within two years.

I think you're right about the legislative filibuster. And it bums me out. Might as well scrap the Senate at that point.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NVGiant said:

Come on. McConnell announced there would be no hearings to replace Scalia before his body was cold. That should have been a career killer. And he got away with it. If anything, McConnell was emboldened. He gives zero +++++s what the Democrats do. @sactowndog is right. 60 was a charade.

And such was the feeling of the majority of the Democratic Party.   McConnell completely destroyed any trust left.  At that point if you believe he would over ride it anyway better to kill it now and remove any pretense.   

Reid was an ass but the turtle was no better and they both deserve blame for destroying the Senate.  It will be the legacy of both.   

As for the legislative filibuster, McConnell will keep it around so he doesn't have that blood on his hands.  Instead he will over ride the parliamentarian and stretch the budget reconciliation rules so far the filibuster will be a dead man walking.   I expect to see that occur during the health care or tax overhaul debate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...