General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAny chance the GOP does not have the votes to change the filibuster?
I've read the McCain, Collins and Corker all disagree with eliminating the 60-vote cloture requirement. Anybody else see this as a possibility or am I missing something?
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)onenote
(42,715 posts)nomination to be blocked.
They needed a win, no matter what it took.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)Could we come up with some sort of grand bargain that would be more beneficial to the country?
Say seat Gorsuch for Scalia
Garland for Kennedy
Group Ginsberg and Thomas together and have the Dems select Ginsberg's replacement.
Something like that would make too much sense though. Is Garland that much more liberal than Kennedy?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Dems are very adept at giving the Republicans what they want right now in return for the Republicans promising to do or not do something down the road. But when we get down the road, the rules change. In this instance, who knows whether Kennedy or Ginsburg or Thomas will vacate their seats in the next few years? What if they don't? Or what if the Dems take over the Senate in two or four years. Or we get a Democratic president while they're all still on the Court? The Dems would have rolled over for nothing.
I think it would be a mistake for the Dems to give the Republicans Gorsuch in the hope that later on, they'll get something out of it.
I'm proud of the Democrats for standing their ground today. If the filibuster is going to blow up and become useless, let it be because the Republicans actually did something to mess it up, not because the Democrats caved in and decided not to use it out of fear that the Republicans MIGHT do something mean to them if they do.
The Republicans own this now ...
herding cats
(19,565 posts)It's over, a done deal, finished.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)2 may.. for cover as pence would be tie breaker.