What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FreshFish said:
As I understand it, aren't there two votes?

First, a vote for "cloture" (end debate)?

Then, a vote on the nominee?

If I'm a Manchin or a Heitkamp, I'm voting yes on the first and no on the second. "The country deserves a vote. That being said, I'll authorize a vote and then vote 'no'."
Click to expand...


A cloture vote, which requires 60 votes to carry, is only necessary if there's a filibuster to prevent bringing the nomination to a vote. I don't believe Obama's nominees (obviously Garland did) faced a filibuster, so there was no cloture motion to end debate necessary. If nobody has anything else to say, it can just be brought to a vote. The actual vote on the SC Justice only requires a simple majority.

Schumer has said he'll filibuster so r's would then need to move for cloture to end that debate. Mitch has said Gorsuch will be confirmed no matter what, so most take that to mean that he would be willing to change the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to pass a cloture motion. The so called "nuclear option."
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Schumer has said he'll filibuster so r's would then need to move for cloture to end that debate. Mitch has said Gorsuch will be confirmed no matter what, so most take that to mean that he would be willing to change the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to pass a cloture motion. The so called "nuclear option."
Click to expand...



I read somewhere that the original vote to require 60 votes for cloture only required a majority vote.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FreshFish said:
I read somewhere that the original vote to require 60 votes for cloture only required a majority vote.
Click to expand...


I would assume so as it only requires a simple majority to change the senate rules.

I believe originally it was set to 2/3 of those present, then was 2/3 of the senate, and then in the 70's Dems had 61 or 62 seats and changed it to 60. I'd guess if one party got back to 60 seats they'd reinstate the rules back to 60 on the stuff Dems removed it from a few years ago.
 
Wisko McBadgerton said:
A cloture vote, which requires 60 votes to carry, is only necessary if there's a filibuster to prevent bringing the nomination to a vote. I don't believe Obama's nominees (obviously Garland did) faced a filibuster, so there was no cloture motion to end debate necessary. If nobody has anything else to say, it can just be brought to a vote. The actual vote on the SC Justice only requires a simple majority.

Schumer has said he'll filibuster so r's would then need to move for cloture to end that debate. Mitch has said Gorsuch will be confirmed no matter what, so most take that to mean that he would be willing to change the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to pass a cloture motion. The so called "nuclear option."
Click to expand...

I've thought since the election, the end game for all this would be that SCOTUS nominees will only need a simple majority and that vacancies will only be filled once one party controls both the Senate and White House. That will be the new status quo.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FreshFish said:
I read somewhere that the original vote to require 60 votes for cloture only required a majority vote.
Click to expand...

It requires only a simple majority to change a chamber's rules. There is a running debate whether the rules can only be set once at the beginning of each Congress (every 2 years) because of procedural details of the body somehow both being in recess and in session during the initial call, or whether the majority could in principle change them at will. IINM the Parliamentarian not only has never ruled on that but has pointedly refused to, essentially arguing that is so significant it would amount to the ability for the Parliamentarian to make law. (Which makes no sense because their ruling is not binding, but it's a well-intentioned dodge to force the Members to be accountable.)


Cloture history is interesting. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 60 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
It requires only a simple majority to change a chamber's rules. There is a running debate whether the rules can only be set once at the beginning of each Congress (every 2 years) because of procedural details of the body somehow both being in recess and in session during the initial call, or whether the majority could in principle change them at will. IINM the Parliamentarian not only has never ruled on that but has pointedly refused to, essentially arguing that is so significant it would amount to the ability for the Parliamentarian to make law. (Which makes no sense because their ruling is not binding, but it's a well-intentioned doge to force the Members to be accountable.)


Cloture history is interesting. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Click to expand...
I googled and got nothing...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FlagDUDE08 said:
Decision just came down about the communication of price differences for paying by cash vs. credit card. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1391_g31i.pdf
Click to expand...

Just scanned it quickly and so may have missed a detail or two....but on first glance, it appears to say that it is illegal for merchants in NY state to impose a surcharge for using credit cards to pay for a transaction, but that it is perfectly legal for merchants in NY state to offer a discount for using cash to pay for a transaction.


I notice that in CT, we see lots of signs at gas stations offering discounts when paying with cash.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FreshFish said:
Just scanned it quickly and so may have missed a detail or two....but on first glance, it appears to say that it is illegal for merchants in NY state to impose a surcharge for using credit cards to pay for a transaction, but that it is perfectly legal for merchants in NY state to offer a discount for using cash to pay for a transaction.


I notice that in CT, we see lots of signs at gas stations offering discounts when paying with cash.
Click to expand...
We have different companies here that will offer the cash discount. Oddly enough, when you see the regular price, and then factor in the 4% transaction surcharge from Visa, MC, etc., it works out to be within a penny or two of that very same cash discount. Hmm...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

PA and MA have different prices depending on how you pay.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

For gas
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

mookie1995 said:
For gas
Click to expand...

I was guessing sex. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

St. Clown said:
We have different companies here that will offer the cash discount. Oddly enough, when you see the regular price, and then factor in the 4% transaction surcharge from Visa, MC, etc., it works out to be within a penny or two of that very same cash discount. Hmm...
Click to expand...

4%? hate to be an operator in Minnie, thats high compared to Maine
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

walrus said:
4%? hate to be an operator in Minnie, thats high compared to Maine
Click to expand...

The top end is 4%. It goes as low as 2%, all dependent upon the contract the seller has with Visa, etc., but companies are clearly basing their cash discounts upon the 4% figure. Likely this has to do with the haggle of people disputing good charges, and the general simplicity of cash having a 0% failure rate to complete the transaction.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
I was guessing sex. Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

Since its mookie, it doesn't hurt to clarify. ;)
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

St. Clown said:
The top end is 4%. It goes as low as 2%, all dependent upon the contract the seller has with Visa, etc., but companies are clearly basing their cash discounts upon the 4% figure. Likely this has to do with the haggle of people disputing good charges, and the general simplicity of cash having a 0% failure rate to complete the transaction.
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, Visa and MC tend to be 2-3%, and AmEx about 4%. The percentage can be much higher for some of the more "boutique" cards like Discover and Diners' Club.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FreshFish said:
Just scanned it quickly and so may have missed a detail or two....but on first glance, it appears to say that it is illegal for merchants in NY state to impose a surcharge for using credit cards to pay for a transaction, but that it is perfectly legal for merchants in NY state to offer a discount for using cash to pay for a transaction.


I notice that in CT, we see lots of signs at gas stations offering discounts when paying with cash.
Click to expand...

Pretty much; most of it stems from, as can be read in Justice Roberts' opinion, when the credit card companies tried to prohibit discriminating pricing based on their usage, which led to the Truth in Lending Act. However, the statute to prohibit credit card companies from contractually prohibiting a surcharge on pricing went away in 1984, so the contracts include that. That's why it has to be worded as a discount for cash.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top