General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsgarland aside, the "nuclear option" is a major middle finger to the democratic majority in the u.s.
aside from the particulars of filling the vacancy on the court, should mcturtle use the "nuclear option" -- getting rid of the remaining filibuster power democrats currently hold to get gorsuch on the court, the move would completely solidify republican control of the federal government.
at the moment, republicans control the white house, the house, and the senate. democrats retain filibuster power in the senate, and we have effectively a 4-4 tie in the supreme court. that should have been a 5-4 majority had mcturtle not been such a jerk, but at least for now we have a 4-4 tie.
if mcturtle goes nuclear, republicans will control everything. we will lose our filibuster power in the senate and the court will go 4-5 in favor of republicans.
hillary beat donnie by nearly 3 million votes, massive media attention lavished on her opponent, insanely biased interference from the fbi director, espionage by the russians, etc.
in that context, taking away the last vestiges of power the democrats hold, reducing the will of the majority into a minority small enough to simply roll over, it inexcusably anti-democratic.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 06:11 PM - Edit history (2)
But, I think it requires two-thirds majority to break a filibuster, according to the Constitution?
It is my understanding that the cloture vote was a rule passed by the Senate a long time ago and is different from a filibuster? Is that not correct?
Is that not what the Constitution orders?
(On Correction) https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q139.html
delisen
(6,043 posts)I see Mitch McConnell as siding with the Russian infiltration and engaging in a coverup to keep white men in power.
We are being attacked by Russia and Mitch McConnell has chosen to benefit from the attack and block our attempts to defend our Democratic Republic.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Except for treaties, and bill disapproved by the pres.
"2/3" mentioned in those cases.
unblock
(52,243 posts)and for about the last 100 years or so, those senate rules have included some type of filibuster procedure where 60 (once 67) votes are needed to bring a vote to the floor, or once upon a time, where one person could talk for as long as he could to delay a vote.
these are all just thanks to senate rules, which the senate can abolish effectively at any point (that's the nuclear option).
the constitution specifies 2/3rd of both houses for a veto override, and 2/3rd in the senate to remove after impeachment, but not much else specifically in terms of actual vote requirements.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)Made correction above:
https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q139.html
delisen
(6,043 posts)Beartracks
(12,814 posts)America is set up for two-party rule, and that generally works well when both parties share common values.
But when one party engineers one-party rule (like communist Russia or Nazi Germany) and propagates non-democratic (i.e. not supportive of democracy) values, that is bad for America, bad for its citizens, and bad for democracy itself.
================
awesomerwb
(139 posts)And the reps couldn't care less. They believe they'll be in power and absolute control for the next 10 years. It's demoralizing at times. They literally don't give a sh*t.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Overrepresentation of rural states, underrepresentation of massive liberal states like CA & NY.
It is filled with the worst rich old white men the nation has to offer, any one of which can single-handedly fuck up something vital. Exhibit A, James Inhofe and Climate Change.
It's our version of the House of Lords. Burn it to the ground.
dalton99a
(81,512 posts)Get rid of the filibuster and we can make real changes next time around.
And then get rid of the electoral college.
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)For once, DAMMIT!
unblock
(52,243 posts)it's the republicans i have a problem with.