Posted on 03/23/2017 8:11:43 AM PDT by PghBaldy
As the Senate Judiciary Committee was hearing from witnesses for and against Judge Neil Gorsuch, his Supreme Court nomination was delivered a critical blow: Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he would join with other Democrats in filibustering Gorsuch — a move that would require at least 60 senators to vote to end debate on the nomination.
Idiots? Morons? That’s what teachers are for. I recommend that you watch some of the Gorsuch hearings. He’s a fine gentleman if there ever was.
Will it make him cry?
It’s been a long time since I re-read article five, but I just did. My reading confirms my memory—the way around Congress involves a convention that may propose amendments to go back to the states. As I understand it, we are getting close to the convention point—but who knows what will come out of it.
I don’t see how to get a single amendment in and out without involving a convention that could do all sorts of things, including ignoring the original amendment.
Republicans, make him stand and talk. A REAL filibuster. Not the fake “I just have to say it and not actually do it” kind. Then have the vote ready as soon as he is done with all of the Senators that are present.
Or, just nuke him from space. It’s the only way to be sure!!!!!
Hopefully it will send him into depression.................
Graham, at least, is a huge fan so I think he’d go nuclear.
The Democrats have demonstrated that they will do it when they are in control. That completely eliminates the usefulness of the Filibuster, as if it were not already severely compromised. The Republicans are masochists if they insist that the Filibuster is only usable against Republicans. Well, I guess not masochists, because they are simply doing what the Chamber of Commerce desires. You have to do what the providers of your major source of income want you to do.
A convention is just a ‘meeting’.
Congress itself can propose amendments by having a ‘meeting’.
But Congress will never propose an amendment that limits their terms or transfers power to the states. So it’s up to states to do that. It’s all constitutional and has actually been almost done before on a number of occasions. The 17th Amendment itself started out with states using Article V but Congress seeing it was really going to happen offered to ‘take it out of their hands and get it done’, and they changed it to suit incumbents. Not going to happen this time, though.
The President himself, on the campaign trail called for term limits in Congress. He surely knows Congress will never propose such a thing.
There is nothing wrong with having a ‘meeting’ even if it is called a ‘convention’.
For years, a lot of Chicken Littles have been running about squawking about a ‘Runaway Convention’. They have been moved to the side by States that know better. The 3/4’s ratification threshold is a high bar. so there is nothing to worry about unless you’re a dem or a Senator in Congress.
The state legislators who are working the committees and organization to use Article V are in many ways more competent than their counterparts in Congress. They know rules of order and they are just as disciplined if not more so than members of Congress.
Right now conservatives and republicans hold the cards in 38 states. There are at least that many states that have introduced Article V applications in their legislatures and there are now 9 that have fully passed applications with Texas due to come onboard soon. And Texas will lead many others.
As for me, I respect my state legislators far more than my members of Congress. There’s not even a question. Generally, they are more stable. Many of them could have at any time picked up and moved to the Beltway and been a member of Congress but their families and businesses are right where they are and they don’t want to uproot. So they are more dependable, more genuine, more understanding, more accessible and in most cases more intelligent.
> “It merely shifts the power to the minority party, which is even worse than majority rule.”
You might want to reflect on the above. That minority can be as much as 50 Senators outflanked by 50 other Senators and a VP as a tiebreaker.
You might want to reflect on all the times that causes of conservatives have been preserved because of the filibuster.
That said, as for me, I won’t lose sleep in the short term if the filibuster dies as a 200+ rule of the Senate.
But what is really needed is to see how state legislators and voters can get US Senators to pay attention. That’s why it is important to look at #129 of this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3537360/posts?page=129#129
I looked at it.
I have no problem with it.
It’s completely separate from this issue.
It has no bearing on the filibuster.
Goresuch is a fantastic appointee to the Supreme Court.
There’s no way in hell I’m going to let the Left pull a Judge Bork with this guy. We need him on the court for decades to come.
If you think allowing the Left to get away with that, would help strengthen the nation, you’ve gone down a path I’m not following you on.
If you read through the thread, if you bothered to read any of my posting histories on this subject, you will know I was one of the first here to extol Gorsuch’s nomination.
My purpose here is to educate people about the history of the filibuster and why it has been useful to conservatives in the past.
I’ve also endeavored to educate those that know the filibuster has had in its history a legitimate history in the face of a simple majority or tie.
That said, the amendment in #129 is not a separate issue. It is part and parcel to returning power to voters and state legislatures so that filibusters are defanged as a weapon of obstructionists.
You might look at the number of state legislatures presently in control by conservatives and republicans. In 98 partisan state chambers, republicans hold 67 (68%).
I guarantee you if state legislatures elected their US Senators, there would be a supermajority of GOP US Senators today, and the filibuster would be totally a non-issue.
Now do you see the connection?
So read the amendment illustrated again in #129 and contact your state COS/AOS rep or ALEC local legislator https://www.alec.org and get involved.
You will never have access to a US Senator who is controlled and paid for by lobbyists than you will have when they are influenced by your state legislator. The former can send you a form letter of nonsense. The latter may invite you over for a barbecue. Both are equally as intelligent and competent. But the former is highly susceptible to corruption whereas the latter may be a local neighbor.
No useful purpose is served by permitting the demonic-rats to stall Judge Gorsuch’s election to SCOTUS.
The nuclear option is a tactical victory traded for a strategic loss. I don’t see the long-term value in it.
The dems are dead on their feet.
I am ready for the “Big Get Even”. Stomp them so hard it will be 20 years before we have to tolerate their incessant bitching and moaning and crying.
They said the same about the GOP in 2009.
I have read your post 129 a number of times now.
Sorry, it has nothing to do with the Filibuster.
Thanks for the post.
I want to see Schmuck cry again!
BTW: I have no problem with what you touched on in the bottom of 129.
I agree with your take it would give us a super-majority right now.
My take on it is that we should never have moved to straight up election for our Senators.
In my state, I’d still be stuck with trash, but in most states that wouldn’t be true.
It would improve the situation.
Now..., if we have a super-majority doesn’t that eliminate the ability to filibuster, and wouldn’t that also deliver us into a Democracy situation according to your thoughts.
Yup! And, the next Justice will go through easily too! Schmucky and the rest of the commies in the Senate will rue the day! Good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.