Senate Democrats block confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Neil Grosuch

[Edge-]

I don't really care, tbh; I'm not your research assistant. If you were not following the story then, I can't recap it all for you now. This story goes back years now.

I will still sleep if you disagree with me.

Alternatively, you could tell me what you think about it, now that you know what I think about it.

So basically, you're just going to make a ton of bullshit claims and then peace out when you get asked to back any of them up?

That's pretty shitty, dude. Can't really discuss anything that way. But go to sleep I guess, I see no reason to bother continuing the conversation if you're not going to make any effort to engage in honest discussion.

[Zeek Daniels]

https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q138.html

If everything in our incredibly complex government can just be referenced back to, "Well, it's not in the Constitution!", taking a very literal interpretation of a 200 year old document in the 21st century, then we're in for a rough ride.

When it comes to what the 3 branches can and cant do you very well bet that 200 year old constitution is the only thing protecting us from a rougher ride.
The specific instances in which the US Constitution requires a super-majority are limited to:

• Convicting an Impeachment (2/3 majority in the Senate — Article 1, Section 3)
• Expulsion of a member of one house of Congress (2/3 vote of the house in question — Article 1, Section 5)
• Override a Presidential Veto (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate — Article 1, Section 7)
• Ratify a treaty (2/3 majority in the Senate — Article 2, Section 2)
• Passing of a Constitutional Amendment by Congress (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate — Article 5)
• Calling for a Constitutional Convention (2/3 of the state legislatures — Article 5)
• Ratifying a Constitutional Amendment (3/4 of the states — Article 5)
• Restore the ability of certain rebels to serve in the government (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate — 14th Amendment)
• Approval of removal of the President from his position after the Vice President and the Cabinet approve such removal and after the President contests the removal (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate 25th Amendment)

Additionally, it should be noted the in a few cases, the Constitution requires a super-majority for a quorum. A quorum is that number of members of a body that are required for the body to do any work. For example, there is usually a 50% quorum requirement in the House and Senate — at least half the members must be present. In the Constitution, super-majority quorums are required as follows:

• Choice of a President in the House when no majority of electoral votes is achieved (member or members from 2/3 of the states 12th Amendment)
• Choice of a Vice President in the Senate when no majority of electoral votes is achieved (2/3 of all Senators 12th Amendment)

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -





- - - Updated - - -



It's too bad, really. The filibuster was the main reason the world viewed the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body. Now you can put any hack judge you want up there, and the decisions will be about the math of the courts, instead of the letter of the law. I expect wild swings in legislation to follow. This is literally a bedrock of American stability that was tossed away.

I agree it is not a good thing. But it is also not so bad ether to the extent, it is still done in a democratic way. The Senators are elected in their state with a democracy method, by winning the most votes. Now in the Senate they can approve judges based on a simple majority, which is still a democratic process. But no matter, the democrats started this crap with Reid.

[Tijuana]

So basically, you're just going to make a ton of bullshit claims and then peace out when you get asked to back any of them up?

That's pretty shitty, dude. Can't really discuss anything that way. But go to sleep I guess, I see no reason to bother continuing the conversation if you're not going to make any effort to engage in honest discussion.

I mean, at this point you could have googled...

But, if that's the only thing you have to say about the topic (source please), I guess I can live without hearing more of what you think about it.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree it is not a good thing. But it is also not so bad ether to the extent, it is still done in a democratic way. The Senators are elected in their state with a democracy method, by winning the most votes. Now in the Senate they can approve judges based on a simple majority, which is still a democratic process. But no matter, the democrats started this crap with Reid.

Eh, you never know I guess. I could see the return of the filibuster if there was huge public outcry. On the rare occasions the public is in agreement with each other, and in disagreement with Washington, we rather quickly get what we want. Unfortunately, it's rare that we agree.

[Osmeric]

Everything is legal until someone calls you on it. But, the fact remains that changing the filibuster rules require 67 votes

You are incorrect. Changing the rules NEVER required 67 votes. Not when the Dems changed the rules earlier for lower court judges and cabinet picks, and not now when the GOP changed it for supreme court picks.

[Barnabas]

For both parties the so called "nuclear option" is total BS. The people in Washington just like all fellow Americans need to learn how to compromise again.

[Hammerfest]

You don't care how it's done, so long as your team wins.

Thank Harry Reid.

[Daelak]

I agree it is not a good thing. But it is also not so bad ether to the extent, it is still done in a democratic way. The Senators are elected in their state with a democracy method, by winning the most votes. Now in the Senate they can approve judges based on a simple majority, which is still a democratic process. But no matter, the democrats started this crap with Reid.

It is bad because the republican party has stymied the democratic process by forcing the senate to have a simple majority vote to fill critical roles in the government. There is nothing democratic about these actions, nor should it be a surprise to anyone who knows the history of US conservatism. They are authoritarians, and they despise liberal democracy. They are doing these anti-democratic actions to force their influence because they cannot legitimately win support from a majority of the electorate.

- - - Updated - - -

For both parties the so called "nuclear option" is total BS. The people in Washington just like all fellow Americans need to learn how to compromise again.

False equivalence, the democrats put in a simple majority vote because over 70 judicial appointments were stonewalled up to Obama's 2nd term. The republicans want federal dysfunction to further their pet state interests.

[Osmeric]

It is bad because the republican party has stymied the democratic process by forcing the senate to have a simple majority vote to fill critical roles in the government. There is nothing democratic about these actions, nor should it be a surprise to anyone who knows the history of US conservatism.

Were they elected? Yes.

Were they following the constitution? Yes.

Stop calling actions that conform to the rules of under which this democracy works "undemocratic".

[Daelak]

Were they elected? Yes.

Were they following the constitution? Yes.

Stop calling actions that conform to the rules of under which this democracy works "undemocratic".

Elected using a strategy to push voters away from the polls and also to win elections when voter engagement is at their lowest levels. There is nothing in the constitution that gives guidance when one branch is being stopped from operating in its intended manner because of an anti-democratic political party wants their to be federal dysfunction to further their interests.

The republican party is subverting the powers vested by the constitution to further their own ends on the state level. They are a neo-confederacy party.

[ati87]

For both parties the so called "nuclear option" is total BS. The people in Washington just like all fellow Americans need to learn how to compromise again.

Sorry but why should Democrats try to even compromise with republicans? With the SCOTUS thing for example, how should democrats have compromised? By nominating a conservatie? Or how should democrats have compromised with republicans when the only thing they wanted is to obstruct?

Also the healthcare bill of Trump/Ryan proves that you can't compromise with Republicans because republicans can't agree with themselves on basic policy.

[Macaquerie]

The fact that the vote to remove the filibuster did not itself pass with a filibuster-proof majority makes it a fundamentally bullshit in many ways. Granted, it's pretty amazing that the filibuster managed to survive for as long as it did, given that it was basically protected by nothing more than the honor system.

[Spectral]

For both parties the so called "nuclear option" is total BS. The people in Washington just like all fellow Americans need to learn how to compromise again.

There are plenty of things that aren't actually feasible to compromise on or where compromising is just plain losing. If I have a cake, you ask me for the cake, and I decline, negotiating to you eventually receiving half of the cake would not in any sense be morally virtuous on my end. It would just be flat out losing.

- - - Updated - - -

Elected using a strategy to push voters away from the polls and also to win elections when voter engagement is at their lowest levels. There is nothing in the constitution that gives guidance when one branch is being stopped from operating in its intended manner because of an anti-democratic political party wants their to be federal dysfunction to further their interests.

The republican party is subverting the powers vested by the constitution to further their own ends on the state level. They are a neo-confederacy party.

You seem to have gleaned a whole bunch of information about how the branch is supposed to operate that isn't actually part of any real set of permanent rules.

[Orlong]

Elected using a strategy to push voters away from the polls and also to win elections when voter engagement is at their lowest levels. There is nothing in the constitution that gives guidance when one branch is being stopped from operating in its intended manner because of an anti-democratic political party wants their to be federal dysfunction to further their interests.

The republican party is subverting the powers vested by the constitution to further their own ends on the state level. They are a neo-confederacy party.

If youre trying to allude to gerrymandering, then your barking up the wrong tree. Senators are elected 2 per state, and its a straight popular state vote. Just because the other 90% of the country doesnt believe in your Ca and NY hippy values doesnt make them all stupid.

Also Nothing theyve done to get Gorsuch installed has subverted the Constitution. The Constitution only says that a majority of Quorum must approve judicial appointees and cabinet members