Posted on 04/06/2017 7:53:11 AM PDT by Dave346
At 11:00 a.m, the Senate will VOTE on cloture for Exec. Cal. #33, Neil Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Senate has a bunch of arcane rules that make it easy for individual senators and the minority to kill or delay legislation. For example, Grassley put a hold on Sessions' deputy so he could force the FBI to provide him with the information he requested.
With the direct election of senators, the states have lost control over their senators. The 17th amendment was a mistake.
I agree with you.
..and Ginsberg one way or another as well.
He knows NSA is following.
Many thanks to you (and others) who are explaining this all in clear terms to those of us who did not get into the weeds of political science and procedures.
...
It was miserable for me to watch (so-called conservative) Fox 25 news from Boston after reading the following:
Dustoff45:
“The Dems are the ones who are really changing the rules by filibustering Gorsuch.
“The headline should be - Republicans in the Senate bring order back after rebellious Democrats break with long-standing tradition and practice to filibuster, for the first time ever, a President’s nomination to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.”
Cboldt:
“...today’s vote didn’t change anything. There is no Senate practice of minority veto of SCOTUS nominees, never was. The DEMs tried to implement that . . . and lost.
“As Cornyn pointed out, the practice of minority veto of nominees is not some “old senate tradition.” It is a Senate dysfunction, started by the DEMs in 2001. Reid abandoning that in 2013 was a bigger deal than today’s vote.”
...
Here’s my objection to Fox 25 in Boston:
Their report on this on tonight’s 4:00 p.m. news showed clips only of Schumer (on the Senate floor, objecting), Lindsay Graham talking about what the horrible future implications of today’s votes will be, and (naturally, for Boston) state representative Markey denouncing it.
The anchor then called it an unprecedented move in the Senate. No mention of how long the precedent has existed. No mention of the Democrats’ unprecedented filibuster.
This is what Fox calls “fair and balanced.”
This is what Dems call “right-wing partisan Fox News.”
Well, if so, thank God for FreeRepublic!
.... I forgot to add:
The Fox anchor called it “in the face of bipartisan criticism” of today’s vote.
So what is the poor viewer supposed to conclude from this report, if they have no other source of news?
Keep in mind, if they get their news from TV, their only other options are the worse alphabet networks.
I expect that the Dems are counting on that.
Is this Baghdad Bob?
Congress sets the number of justices on the SC. This would require a law change.
Nonsense the filibuster has not stopped bad laws. It was concocted by John Calhoun primarily to prevent federal legislation from interfering with slavery. Good riddance.
That is a ridiculous spew of Lies. Some of you people have lost your minds.
They have no choice given the state of the RATs.
It is a version of Roberts Rules of Order used all over the world for deliberative meetings.
Originally the Justices road circuit and handled cases in their assigned states. And, no, what was appropriate for a nation which didn’t have as many people as most states, is not appropriate for one of 330 million. It, should, in my mind be increased by at least two.
They live there.
...rode circuit...
I was referring to the level of animosity in the Senate and how the Dems will move to be even more obstructionist.
>>Congress sets the number of justices on the SC. This would require a law change.
Yes, and WHO controls both houses of Congress plus the Presidency?
Well, they don’t ride circuit any longer.
And I’m guessing your preference for two more has little to do with their workload and a lot to do with packing the court with more conservatives.
Here’s a thought experiment:
If you have only six justices, it takes 67% of them to form a liberal opinion that overturns traditional constitutional law. 4/6.
If you have 11, it only takes 55% of them to do the same (6/11). So, if you add five justices to the original six at the founding, only two of the five have to be liberals, or 40% of them.
When we went to nine justices from six, only one of the three had to be liberals to move from the previously required 4/6ths to the now required 5/9ths to get a liberal overruling of the constitution. As we’ve seen, that’s happened many, many, times. Maybe we should consider returning to six and fixing that number in the Constitution as an amendment?
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.