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

SJHovey said:
Of course.

What the Republicans propose to do is really just the next step in the elimination of the filibuster, a progression both sides have participated in dating back at least 100 years.

You used to just be able to defeat bills using the filibuster and there wasn't much the other side could do about it. Then the Senate changed the rules to permit cloture votes to end a filibuster.

Next the Senate modified the rules again to change how many votes are necessary to invoke cloture, thus making it easier to terminate filibusters on certain matters.

This is just the final step.

And my question was, is this really a bad thing? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

We're going to find out. My instinct is it's not a bad thing. Well, more accurately my instinct is the bad things this will unleash are not as bad as the bad things that the supermajority allows to take place. The amount of sheer mendacity and posturing that the 60-vote limit allows, with absolutely no accountability, turns the Senate into a farce and only exacerbates the capture of the body by the 1%. A straight up or down vote to terminate debate followed by a straight up or down vote on the bill will dispel a lot of the intentional chaff that legislators put out there.

Anything that forces Members to be grown-ups, and exposes their little gimmicks to the voters, is good on the face of it.
 
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:
We're going to find out. My instinct is it's not a bad thing. Well, more accurately my instinct is the bad things this will unleash are not as bad as the bad things that the supermajority allows to take place. The amount of sheer mendacity and posturing that the 60-vote limit allows, with absolutely no accountability, turns the Senate into a farce and only exacerbates the capture of the body by the 1%. A straight up or down vote to terminate debate followed by a straight up or down vote on the bill will dispel a lot of the intentional chaff that legislators put out there.

Anything that forces Members to be grown-ups, and exposes their little gimmicks to the voters, is good on the face of it.
Click to expand...

I heard that same thing this weekend and I paused and thought that could be true. Then I thought about is some more and realized it won't matter. It'll just get more crap passed that will be impossible to undo.
 
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

ScoobyDoo said:
Really?

So, 8 years of Barack Obama destroyed by the Filibuster and you want Trump to be able to govern without it?

Sure, throw it out.
Click to expand...

There's a decent argument that killing 60 will strengthen the Senate both vs the House and vs the President. With a simple majority the Senate will now more often speak with an authoritative and coherent voice. This may be the voice of Zuul, but it will hamper the President's time-honored practice of playing fault lines within the Senate majority to neuter it.
 
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:
There's a decent argument that killing 60 will strengthen the Senate both vs the House and vs the President. With a simple majority the Senate will now more often speak with an authoritative and coherent voice. This may be the voice of Zuul, but it will hamper the President's time-honored practice of playing fault lines within the Senate majority to neuter it.
Click to expand...

Another argument that makes me pause and hope it's true. Then my doubts creep in.
 
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

There is zero reason to need a supermajority for most of the Senate business. All it does is bog everything down...

Elections have consequences...let the people suffer under the thumb of the majority and see if they learn. They most likely wont because they listen to whatever some numbnuts says on tv and never reasearch, but that is irrelevant. It is time for America to truly deal with its issues and see if it can survive it. The fact that we elected a sexual predator/compulsive liar to lead them doesnt give me much hope though.

If the Dems want any chance in the future they need to take a page from the GOP playbook and tell their supporters/members that this ends now. It seems they feel (especially people like Franken and Klobuchar) that this is where the line is. The Dems need to start unifying or they might as well just split and start over because they have no power to stop the train that is coming. There are going to be millions out of work, losing insurance and their entitlements NOT TO MENTION the debt is about to skyrocket and most likely a recession is on the way. They will have every advantage against a party with an unpopular President...they either use it or they can go into hiding with Hillary.
 
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:
There's a decent argument that killing 60 will strengthen the Senate both vs the House and vs the President. With a simple majority the Senate will now more often speak with an authoritative and coherent voice. This may be the voice of Zuul, but it will hamper the President's time-honored practice of playing fault lines within the Senate majority to neuter it.
Click to expand...

Well it will definitely give certain factions a lot of power. Now every Senator is the equivalent to the Freedumb Caucus in the Health Care vote. The Whips will definitely be busy...
 
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

Handyman said:
It is time for America to truly deal with its issues and see if it can survive it. The fact that we elected a sexual predator/compulsive liar to lead them doesnt give me much hope though.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I liked Bill. ;)

I agree with you and Henry Louis. I am an American patriot. I believe a democratic republic is the best form of government. If it turns out We the People can't be trusted to govern ourselves I want to go down with the ship, not save it by putting buffers between the People and real power. I'm convinced that such buffers, no matter how well-intentioned, in the end are just obvious mechanisms for preserving privilege behind undemocratic walls. F-ck that; America is the project of tearing those walls down and giving everyone equal opportunity, even if it's the opportunity to lead us to hell.
 
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

SJHovey said:
Of course.

What the Republicans propose to do is really just the next step in the elimination of the filibuster, a progression both sides have participated in dating back at least 100 years.

You used to just be able to defeat bills using the filibuster and there wasn't much the other side could do about it. Then the Senate changed the rules to permit cloture votes to end a filibuster.

Next the Senate modified the rules again to change how many votes are necessary to invoke cloture, thus making it easier to terminate filibusters on certain matters.

This is just the final step.
Click to expand...

Good summary. But I think you kind of lose me here:
SJHovey said:
And my question was, is this really a bad thing? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I think it is a necessary form of protection but it's far overused. I wish I had the time to write a full dissertation on why I think it's important, but I have to look like I'm paying attention in this meeting.
 
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

dxmnkd316 said:
Good summary. But I think you kind of lose me here:


I think it is a necessary form of protection but it's far overused. I wish I had the time to write a full dissertation on why I think it's important, but I have to look like I'm paying attention in this meeting.
Click to expand...

In short, it's to protect the minority form the tyranny of the masses, as has been uttered so many times in the past. It's a good thing to avoid the potential for mob rule.
 
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:
We're going to find out. My instinct is it's not a bad thing. Well, more accurately my instinct is the bad things this will unleash are not as bad as the bad things that the supermajority allows to take place. The amount of sheer mendacity and posturing that the 60-vote limit allows, with absolutely no accountability, turns the Senate into a farce and only exacerbates the capture of the body by the 1%. A straight up or down vote to terminate debate followed by a straight up or down vote on the bill will dispel a lot of the intentional chaff that legislators put out there.

Anything that forces Members to be grown-ups, and exposes their little gimmicks to the voters, is good on the face of it.
Click to expand...

This sums it up pretty nicely.
 
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:
We're going to find out. My instinct is it's not a bad thing. Well, more accurately my instinct is the bad things this will unleash are not as bad as the bad things that the supermajority allows to take place. The amount of sheer mendacity and posturing that the 60-vote limit allows, with absolutely no accountability, turns the Senate into a farce and only exacerbates the capture of the body by the 1%. A straight up or down vote to terminate debate followed by a straight up or down vote on the bill will dispel a lot of the intentional chaff that legislators put out there.

Anything that forces Members to be grown-ups, and exposes their little gimmicks to the voters, is good on the face of it.
Click to expand...

Holy ****... I agree with you.

I never understood this whole thing with the 60 votes. And my understanding this doesn't eliminate the possibility of an actual filibuster. Do it the old fashioned way and just keep talking for as long as you can.
 
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:
In short, it's to protect the minority form the tyranny of the masses, as has been uttered so many times in the past. It's a good thing to avoid the potential for mob rule.
Click to expand...
In principle the filibuster was to prevent the majority from simply jamming it's desires down the throat of the party out of power, and forcing compromise. I have no problem with that principle. The problem is, that principle was discarded decades before any of us were born when the Senate decided that if you could get a large enough majority, jam away. Ever since it's just been a question of how big that majority should be before you get to do what you want.
 
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

Tiggsy said:
Holy ****... I agree with you.

I never understood this whole thing with the 60 votes. And my understanding this doesn't eliminate the possibility of an actual filibuster. Do it the old fashioned way and just keep talking for as long as you can.
Click to expand...

LOL. Hello? Anyone home?
 
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:
To be fair, I liked Bill. ;)
Click to expand...

Well played :D
 
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:
So much for the old maxim, "choose your battles wisely." IMHO, a really basic process mistake for the Ds this round:
-- Gorsuch is widely praised to be "highly qualified" outside the hyperpartisan echo chamber
-- he is "replacing" Scalia so that the former status quo remains unchanged
-- Ds themselves introduced the "nuclear option" in the first place
-- Most importantly, had they acted with any amount of class and dignity this time, they'd have a much stronger message next time.
-- now, when "next time" comes up, they are just the little kid who cried wolf.

Why would they not make a short-term tactical concession here to shore up their resources for the one that will really count later? :confused:
Click to expand...

How much respect for the process was afforded Obama's nominee and how much did you protest the c-blocking the cowards in charge provided?

Not saying I support what may happen with Gorsuch but one of the biggest problems we have with R's is they have the memory of a goldfish.
 
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

I heard Mitch McConnell on the drive home. He can go Fark himself. Ted Cruz may be more hated, Steve King more of a *******, but McConnell is the biggest farking hypocritical piece of crap to walk the face of this Earth.

How he can say anything with a straight face is beyond me.
 
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

Handyman said:
Civil Rights Act Does Cover LGBT Rights In The Workplace

eta: The vote was 8-3...and that court is not considered liberal.
Click to expand...

I assume Kennedy will chew some scenery and come down in favor. Sweet issue for the Thumpers to fundraise on. So, everybody wins.
 
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

Mitch moving to go nuclear. Also heard Gorsuch is far right of Scalia by any measure.
 
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

ScoobyDoo said:
Mitch moving to go nuclear. Also heard Gorsuch is far right of Scalia by any measure.
Click to expand...

The former is inevitable, let it happen.

The latter I'd like to see some data. 538 graded Gorsuch as a virtual Scalia clone: the same results but without the ideological jibber-jabber.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top