Current Events > Official DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTERING GORSUCH topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

They're currently talking about climate change.

Let's watch.

http://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1
---

:thinking:
---

Yeah isn't this pretty much purely symbolic? They have no real path to stop the nominee at this point. Republicans are free to change the rules to avoid democratic input.
---

Kombucha posted...

Yeah isn't this pretty much purely symbolic? They have no real path to stop the nominee at this point. Republicans are free to change the rules to avoid democratic input.

Which would potentially fuck them over in the future and some oppose it for that reason
---

McCain called any Republican in favor of going nuclear "a complete idiot"

God bless those who chose to go down swinging.
---

Ampelas posted...

McCain called any Republican in favor of going nuclear "a complete idiot"

McCain sometimes seems like the only Republican with a spine and then sometimes he just completely folds.
---

Minute posted...

McCain sometimes seems like the only Republican with a spine and then sometimes he just completely folds.

There's never been an instance where he hasn't folded. Even here, he's already said he'd vote for the nuclear option.
---

He has lots of graphs
---

Ampelas posted...

McCain called any Republican in favor of going nuclear "a complete idiot"

Well then that spot isn't getting filled.

It's not like the GOP filibustered Garland, they used their majority to deny the minority candidate (for a stupid reason, but it was within their power to do).

The Democrats have now upped the stupidly one notch by blocking the majority from pushing their candidate through.

But the real focus here should be America's poorly designed government that even allows this to happen.
---

whitewimmin posted...

Minute posted...

McCain sometimes seems like the only Republican with a spine and then sometimes he just completely folds.

There's never been an instance where he hasn't folded. Even here, he's already said he'd vote for the nuclear option.

What a maverick.
---

I'm actually learning a lot from this filibuster lol

A lot more Americans support renewable energy than I thought
---

Frostshock posted...

But the real focus here should be America's poorly designed government that even allows this to happen.

If American's system wasn't poorly designed, Gorsuch wouldn't be nominated. Some Democrat judge would be.
---

Global warming?! What a novel idea!
---

Frostshock posted...

Ampelas posted...

McCain called any Republican in favor of going nuclear "a complete idiot"

Well then that spot isn't getting filled.

It's not like the GOP filibustered Garland, they used their majority to deny the minority candidate (for a stupid reason, but it was within their power to do).

The Democrats have now upped the stupidly one notch by blocking the majority from pushing their candidate through.

But the real focus here should be America's poorly designed government that even allows this to happen.

So what would be a better design? Just changing the rules to keep a minority party from having a voice on the decision?

Seems like if anything the current rules would create a situation where a more moderate nominee would need to be chosen to get through, better reflecting the will of the people.
---

Minute posted...

Frostshock posted...

But the real focus here should be America's poorly designed government that even allows this to happen.

If American's system wasn't poorly designed, Gorsuch wouldn't be nominated. Some Democrat judge would be.

Even a moderate judge would get the nomination easy

lilORANG posted...

Global warming?! What a novel idea!

All of the Trumps believed in it 7 years ago, I just learned
---

Kombucha posted...

Frostshock posted...

Ampelas posted...

McCain called any Republican in favor of going nuclear "a complete idiot"

Well then that spot isn't getting filled.

It's not like the GOP filibustered Garland, they used their majority to deny the minority candidate (for a stupid reason, but it was within their power to do).

The Democrats have now upped the stupidly one notch by blocking the majority from pushing their candidate through.

But the real focus here should be America's poorly designed government that even allows this to happen.

So what would be a better design? Just changing the rules to keep a minority party from having a voice on the decision?

Seems like if anything the current rules would create a situation where a more moderate nominee would need to be chosen to get through, better reflecting the will of the people.

Exactly. Gorsuch was too conservative. Trump needs to nominate a more palatable, more moderate candidate.

Ampelas posted...

Kombucha posted...

Frostshock posted...

Ampelas posted...

McCain called any Republican in favor of going nuclear "a complete idiot"

Well then that spot isn't getting filled.

It's not like the GOP filibustered Garland, they used their majority to deny the minority candidate (for a stupid reason, but it was within their power to do).

The Democrats have now upped the stupidly one notch by blocking the majority from pushing their candidate through.

But the real focus here should be America's poorly designed government that even allows this to happen.

So what would be a better design? Just changing the rules to keep a minority party from having a voice on the decision?

Seems like if anything the current rules would create a situation where a more moderate nominee would need to be chosen to get through, better reflecting the will of the people.

Exactly. Gorsuch was too conservative. Trump needs to nominate a more palatable, more moderate candidate.

He doesn't need to though. Gorsuch is going through no matter what.
---

Kombucha posted...

Frostshock posted...

Ampelas posted...

McCain called any Republican in favor of going nuclear "a complete idiot"

Well then that spot isn't getting filled.

It's not like the GOP filibustered Garland, they used their majority to deny the minority candidate (for a stupid reason, but it was within their power to do).

The Democrats have now upped the stupidly one notch by blocking the majority from pushing their candidate through.

But the real focus here should be America's poorly designed government that even allows this to happen.

So what would be a better design? Just changing the rules to keep a minority party from having a voice on the decision?

Seems like if anything the current rules would create a situation where a more moderate nominee would need to be chosen to get through, better reflecting the will of the people.

Parliament. Parliament is a better design.

The leader of the country always has a plurality in the House and Senate instead of the gigantic roadblocks that American partisanship causes.
---

Kombucha posted...

Seems like if anything the current rules would create a situation where a more moderate nominee would need to be chosen to get through, better reflecting the will of the people.

A couple flaws with this idea

1) The will of the people is not reflected by an amalgam of the two major parties' legislators. Something like 90% of the country disapproves of the internet privacy bill; that includes most Republicans. Those in office passed it anyway. A majority is in support of legalizing weed, single-payer healthcare, and a whole bunch of issues that, if you just looked at DC, are on the fringe.

2) The Senate is particularly poor at reflecting the will of the people because it gives equal power to Wyoming and California. It is entirely possible to achieve a fillibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate with only a minority of the voting public's support.
---

This guy's getting deep with the history
---

Antifar posted...

Kombucha posted...

Seems like if anything the current rules would create a situation where a more moderate nominee would need to be chosen to get through, better reflecting the will of the people.

A couple flaws with this idea

1) The will of the people is not reflected by an amalgam of the two major parties' legislators. Something like 90% of the country disapproves of the internet privacy bill; that includes most Republicans. Those in office passed it anyway. A majority is in support of legalizing weed, single-payer healthcare, and a whole bunch of issues that, if you just looked at DC, are on the fringe.

2) The Senate is particularly poor at reflecting the will of the people because it gives equal power to Wyoming and California. It is entirely possible to achieve a fillibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate with only a minority of the voting public's support.

If there were no ways to change the current rules, the candidate would be more moderate than the one being offered now as that would essentially be required for them to get the required votes to nominate a pick. I think that point is not problematic. I get what you're saying though.
---

Franken is on
---