Posted on 03/28/2017 5:19:25 AM PDT by drewh
I am just LOVING this!
Even when a few, somewhat sober, Dem Senators begin to talk about a little bit of compromise, a little bit of reasoned and logical behavior, the Leftist groups organize calls to them and force them to become as batshit crazy as those Leftists are themselves.
GOOD! Let there be an attempted filibuster - it’ll not only show the Dems for who they are, but the filibuster rule will be killed. When that old bat, RBG, decides to retire, strokes out or dies (and I’m rooting for “retire” as of July 1), then Trump will be able to nominate a judicial Genghis Khan and the Dems won’t be able to do anything but stamp their feet and wail about it. Furthermore, the hated (by many) filibuster rule will be history - a rule that allows 41 Senators to hold everyone in the nation hostage...a more anti-democratic rule than perhaps any other among the official (i.e. public) rules that our government uses.
Please, Dems, DON’T throw us in that briar patch. [wink, wink].
“It’s called “going Reid”.”
Time to stop playing with these people. The old-time, civil rules of politics have long since become not just quaint relics of a better time, but more than that they have become chains of slavery binding the GOP to play by a set of rules that the Dems have never had any intention of abiding by. Time to play by THEIR rules.
Maybe they should announce they are giving Schumer their lowest rating.
McConnell has no guts. He should save us all time and money and invokve the nuke option immediately. Why wait for Dems. they are only stalling and obstructing. Do it now.
Oh, come on, now!You do understand that Democrats make the rules to suit themselves, and expect that the Republicans will abide by them.
Reid didn’t have any SCOTUS nominees to confirm while he was in the majority and making the rules - so he “retained" the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
Now the shoe is on the other foot; the Republicans have the majority and the filibuster is a problem for Republicans. But as you well know, sauce for the Democrat goose is never to be sauce for the Republican gander; the one immutable rule is that it would be wrong for a Republican to change the rules.
Even tho Hillary’s running mate, arrogantly assuming that the Democrat would win the election both of the Senate and of the WH, warned that after the Democrats won they would not leave the filibuster in place for SCOTUS nominees to their own disadvantage.
Devos, for example, was not filibustered was she? She won on a straight majority vote.
She was not filibustered, because several years ago, the Democrats and Harry Reid did the “nuclear option” for lower court judges and other presidential nominees who need Senate confirmation. So filibustering was a moot point for Trump’s cabinet nominees.
When the Democrats did the nuclear option to do away with filibustering presidential nominees, it was left intact for only Supreme Court nominees.
Is there some rule that says they must declare a filibuster before voting begins?
See #47
Should have pinged you to it
You're assuming that McTurtle will be true to his word and actually pull the trigger on the nuke option. I'm not so sure he will.
Good question. As I understand it, they call for a vote for the end to debate, and if that vote fails, then the filibuster is in effect. I think at that point, someone, perhaps the parliamentarian, declares that the issue of the Gorsuch nomination is in filibuster status.
If the vote to end debate gets at least 60 votes, then they proceed to a final vote on the Gorsuch nomination.
Everyone needs to remember that it was McConnell who held up the nomination of Merrick Garland, turning the Supreme Court into a major election issue, which may have pushed Trump over the top on November 8th. I will give him the benefit of the doubt this time.
I never knew that anyone believed that he would get 60 votes.
The 60 vote requirement is needed to end a filibuster. The Senate, in, IIRC the mid 70's, cooked up this "procedural filibuster" bullchit. All this is is a group of Senators expressing their intent to filibuster, and whatever they are doing gets shelved so they can go on with other stuff.
It's hokey, and entirely consistent with the way the Senate has fallen apart since the 17A negated the whole purpose of the body.
But when do they have to declare their hokey filibuster? I assume before any vote begins. They cannot do it mid-vote. Right?
Yep, they tell the majority leader that they’re going to filibuster and the ML does the rest.
So it’s easy for McConnell to turn to the nuke.
A filibuster-by-declaration must be declared before a vote.
Your absolutely correct it’s all about revenge.
Crush them to dust to be blown away by their fetid yelping and whining,
A filibuster is a refusal to end debate and “call the question.” If the vote never occurs, you never lose. The cloture vote exists, on the issue of “calling the question” - and a cloture vote can be called any time (after, IIRC, a preset minimum time). But the cloture vote fails if you don’t get 61 votes.
So, anything that goes to vote is by simple majority.
The vote can be held up by talking nonstop before the vote.
What’s it called when they limit each speaker’s time?
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.