Dems announce plans to filibuster Gorsuch

[Rod1]

Right, you never thought about how it could hurt the Left. Because the hypothetical he described is extremely close to what actually happened, it just was for the other side.

This is precisely why we need people like Gorsuch who decide law cases based on the text of the law and not just the particulars of each case.

No, because i never disagreed with banning the Hillary documentary itself

I disagree with how it extended to for-profit corporations

 

[HomerThompson]

No one is equating money directly to speech, they are arguing that restricting money in many cases has the practical effect of restricting speech. In my example abortion wouldn't be restricted literally, but it would certainly be restricted practically.

Public speech costs money, and so restriction on the money that can be spent on producing or broadcasting books or films is de facto censorship. Why is this hard to understand? And how is it a bad thing especially given that the left benefits from this freedom of discourse every bit as much a s the right?

I don't believe that corporations should be able to inject unlimited money into elections and have it protected as speech. That is my problem here. That is why I find Citizens United to be harmful to our society. I am not against speech, or political films or books. Exxon shouldn't be able to spend $100 million dollars to get a candidate elected to protect their profit margins. It makes no sense. I think it is abhorrent as a concept. Individuals, nonprofits, etc. are different; although I still want public funded campaigns and free airtime given to candidates to disseminate their ideas to the public.

 

[HomerThompson]

Genuinely curious here, how so? And what makes 100k the magic number here?

If his policies are bad for everyone under that number, I can't imagine they'd be completely harmless to people not way above it too.

I had to pick some number, it was just a ballpark. His deregulation of environmental protections and tax cuts will help the very wealthy and the biggest companies. Eliminating a reduction of the FHA mortgage insurance only hurts the poor. Repealing parts of Obamacare will hurt the poor and lower middle class and greatly help the rich.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I had to pick some number, it was just a ballpark. His deregulation of environmental protections and tax cuts will help the very wealthy and the biggest companies. Eliminating a reduction of the FHA mortgage insurance only hurts the poor. Repealing parts of Obamacare will hurt the poor and lower middle class and greatly help the rich.

I've seen people argue that a lot of that trickles back down to the people in terms of companies hiring for more positions and deciding not to outsource.


As for the healthcare issue, I think it all depends on how it's executed. It's believed that it creates competition between insurance companies. Tho I think both sides of this particular issue are moot if nothing is done about what actually drives up health insurance prices (a topic you and I broached a week or two ago). Obamacare didn't address these issues, I can't speak for what Trump/Repubs want to do because it hasn't been done yet (tho I'm not holding my breath).

 

[HomerThompson]

I've seen people argue that a lot if that trickles back down to the people in terms of companies hiring for more positions and deciding not to outsource.


As for the healthcare issue, I think it all depends on how it's executed. It's believed that it creates competition between insurance companies. Tho I think both sides of this particular issue are moot if nothing is done about what actually drives up health insurance prices (a topic you and I broached a week or two ago). Obamacare didn't address these issues, I can't speak for what Trump/Repubs want to do because it hadn't been done yet (tho I'm not holding my breath).

LOL @ trickle down.

As to your second point, I largely agree. I want single payer universal healthcare, or at least a public option. Cost controls are essential. Our healthcare costs in the US are completely absurd.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

What's so bad about Gorsuch that would warrant a filibuster?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

LOL @ trickle down.

Is it not true that regulations have caused some companies to uproot and outsource?


I'm not saying regulations shouldn't exist by the way, but reading both sides of this argument I see this point raised quite a bit.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

What's so bad about Gorsuch that would warrant a filibuster?

They're filibustering because the GOP refused to even conduct hearings on Merrick Garland when Obama appointed him with more than 11 months left in office.

It's not about Gorsuch.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

They're filibustering because the GOP refused to even conduct hearings on Merrick Garland when Obama appointed him with more than 11 months left in office.

It's not about Gorsuch.

This is true, and as a conservative I'm OK with it. The Dems have to do what they can as the opposition party. The idea that the Senate should accept any nomination that was reasonable died in the mid eighties.

 

[woodguyatl]

I believe that was just cabinet appointments, but could be lower court judges as well, however never did it for SCOTUS.

It was for lower court nominations, but not SCOTUS.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

This is true, and as a conservative I'm OK with it. The Dems have to do what they can as the opposition party. The idea that the Senate should accept any nomination that was reasonable died in the mid eighties.

McConnell's refusal to even hold hearings on a nominee when a POTUS has nearly a year left in office was an absurd escalation. And yes, I would say the same thing if RBG dies in February of '19 and Trump nominated someone. Furthermore, the fact that the GOP will almost certainly kill the filibuster as a tool to be utilized by the Senate furthers the disintigration of that body's powers.

Anyone who is a strong proponent of the separation of powers should be very concerned. The Senate was derelict in its duties when it refused to give it's advice and consent on Garland. The effects this is having are terrible.

 

[ShoelessRye]

What's so bad about Gorsuch that would warrant a filibuster?

What was so bad about Garland that warranted him being blocked from even a floor vote?

If Garland was confirmed and another opening happened and Gorsuch was nominated, I'm pretty certain he'd have an easy enough confirmation. GOP ruined SCOTUS nominations forever now, it's going to be a case where the filibuster is nuked and partyline majority will confirm nominee. In the case of the WH and Senate being in opposite parties control - well I expect a however long blockade by the Senate Majority party.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

It was for lower court nominations, but not SCOTUS.

True, but this also was a short sighted abdication of a precious procedural tool for the minority body of what is supposed to be the most powerful body in government.

Outside of reconciliation, 60 votes are needed to pass the Senate. The Senate used to be a kind of procedural check on the populist factions represented in the House and POTUS. Relinquishing this tool just furthers neuters an already emaciated legislative branch. It's more a tool for the Executive branch rather than a check on it.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

McConnell's refusal to even hold hearings on a nominee when a POTUS has nearly a year left in office was an absurd escalation. And yes, I would say the same thing if RBG dies in February of '19 and Trump nominated someone. Furthermore, the fact that the GOP will almost certainly kill the filibuster as a tool to be utilized by the Senate furthers the disintigration of that body's powers.

Anyone who is a strong proponent of the separation of powers should be very concerned. The Senate was derelict in its duties when it refused to give it's advice and consent on Garland. The effects this is having are terrible.

In the end it may strengthen the separation of powers. By being more assertive with presidential nominations, the Senate increases its leverage against president. This is an important rebalancing given the growth of executive power over the past decades.

 

[mbinder]

In 2006 he was appointed to a vacant seat in the Tenth Circuit by unanimous senate voice vote.

But now since Trump appointed him everybody has to disagree. I understand the massive distinction between the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court, but it's partisan bullshit.

 

[kpt018]

See what I mean. Libs are insane. We just need to go nuclear and lock up the court for a generation and let these guys die out.

Haha, the guy who wants to go nuclear is calling me insane.

 

[kpt018]

I think you might rue the day that conservatives come to believe this.

I don't know. I think I get what you're saying (their vision of the constitution can be worse than a purest literal view of it) but as someone who wants progress I think it's necessary to view it that way.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Haha, the guy who wants to go nuclear is calling me insane.

Says the guy conflating the context of the term nuclear just to try and save face for the low quality, down syndrome inflicted posters here.

 

[kpt018]

Says the guy conflating the context of the term nuclear just to try and save face for the low quality, down syndrome inflicted posters here.

Dude you're the biggest idiot on here and your attempt to interpret the constitution is laughable. You can't even grasp basic concepts.

 

[waiguoren]

Good. The modern Republican Party is as dishonest and disgusting as it gets. Garland should have been sitting on the bench for 6-8 months already. They stole this pick and would be keeping Clinton's nominee from a vote if she had won.

Bet offer: sig bet, Gorsuch is the next SCOTUS justice. Will you take it?