The Senate Nuclear option-so it begins

[OldCoyote]

Apr 4, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So do we all just give up and wait for the next civil war to happen?  Or do we all decide that we will, individually, attempt to stop pointing fingers, open dialogues with those we don't agree with, and force our government leaders to do the same?

I'm not much younger than you Tennesseer , but I do remember a time when all of us were more civil to each other.  Does change start at the top or does it start at the bottom?

Value Buy , I'd like to see that coalition, I just don't know how to get there.

Look at the divide on this message board,, Do you think there any possible way any cooperation on the National level??

[buystoys]

Apr 4, 2017 9:31:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So do we all just give up and wait for the next civil war to happen?  Or do we all decide that we will, individually, attempt to stop pointing fingers, open dialogues with those we don't agree with, and force our government leaders to do the same?

I'm not much younger than you Tennesseer , but I do remember a time when all of us were more civil to each other.  Does change start at the top or does it start at the bottom?

Value Buy , I'd like to see that coalition, I just don't know how to get there.

It would help if it started from the top. trump promised to united the country. he has made no effort of leading by example. he has probably poisoned the waters of civility for years to come.

It would be NICE if it started from the top, but don't grass roots efforts have some effect? 

[buystoys]

Apr 4, 2017 9:32:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So do we all just give up and wait for the next civil war to happen?  Or do we all decide that we will, individually, attempt to stop pointing fingers, open dialogues with those we don't agree with, and force our government leaders to do the same?

I'm not much younger than you Tennesseer , but I do remember a time when all of us were more civil to each other.  Does change start at the top or does it start at the bottom?

Value Buy , I'd like to see that coalition, I just don't know how to get there.

Look at the divide on this message board,, Do you think there any possible way any cooperation on the National level??

Yes, I do believe there should be cooperation on a national level.  I also believe there it potential for civil dialogue here on this board if people choose to participate that way.  It's all up to us, isn't it?  If we WANT nasty, then act nasty.  If we WANT civility, then act civilly. 

[Tennesseer]

Apr 4, 2017 10:06:53 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:31:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

It would help if it started from the top. trump promised to united the country. he has made no effort of leading by example. he has probably poisoned the waters of civility for years to come.

It would be NICE if it started from the top, but don't grass roots efforts have some effect? 

The tone was horribly set during the campaign. The buck stops on trump's desk.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 4, 2017 9:32:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So do we all just give up and wait for the next civil war to happen?  Or do we all decide that we will, individually, attempt to stop pointing fingers, open dialogues with those we don't agree with, and force our government leaders to do the same?

I'm not much younger than you Tennesseer , but I do remember a time when all of us were more civil to each other.  Does change start at the top or does it start at the bottom?

Value Buy , I'd like to see that coalition, I just don't know how to get there.

Look at the divide on this message board,, Do you think there any possible way any cooperation on the National level??

That actually might be a fun exercise.

OldCoyote, Value Buy, and AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP, our three most prominent Republican-ish backers, get together with Gardening Grandma, Opti, and Tennesseer, our three most prominent Democrat-ish backers, in a mock vote for the vacant SCOTUS seat.

Each participant will submit a list of candidate judges they like. The names will be compiled into a list. Judge Merrick Garland and Judge Neil Gorsuch will also automatically be on the list. If any four (67%) of the participants can agree to vote "yea" for any judge on the list, that judge will be confirmed. It will restore everyone's faith that compromise is possible and the "nuclear option" isn't necessary.

How about giving it a shot, participants?

[Value Buy]

Apr 4, 2017 10:38:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:32:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Look at the divide on this message board,, Do you think there any possible way any cooperation on the National level??

That actually might be a fun exercise.

OldCoyote , Value Buy , and AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP , our three most prominent Republican-ish backers, get together with Gardening Grandma , Opti , and Tennesseer , our three most prominent Democrat-ish backers, in a mock vote for the vacant SCOTUS seat.

Each participant will submit a list of candidate judges they like. The names will be compiled into a list. Judge Merrick Garland and Judge Neil Gorsuch will also automatically be on the list. If any four (67%) of the participants can agree to vote "yea" for any judge on the list, that judge will be confirmed. It will restore everyone's faith that compromise is possible and the "nuclear option" isn't necessary.

How about giving it a shot, participants?

I wish I could make a pick on any Judge, but unfortunately, I am not anywhere near knowledgeable on any judges other than Judge Judy or Judge Miliano, from the People's Court, so I have to pass on the request.
How could you leave Dezi off the list for the Democratic side?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 4, 2017 10:49:02 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

I don't see how this benefits the Democrats. It destroys the filibuster on a candidate that doesn't change the balance on the court and may cause some Democratic senators in red states to not be re-elected.

the Democrats have used filibuster far less often than the GOP in the last two decades, so they are seeing this as a "win".  the senators in red states are elected by popular majority, and it is way more difficult for the money machine to buy those races than one might think. 

i think this is, at worst, a draw for Democrats.  it might be a big win.

[midjd]

I fully admit the Republicans did it, just as the Democrats did it.

Two wrongs do not make it right.

VB, I agree, but I struggle with it.

On one hand, I am a big fan of the high road.

On the other hand, if one party does a "wrong" and is then rewarded by the voting populace with even more power, why should the other party refrain from doing the same thing? I don't agree with it, but the voters seem to have sanctioned it.*

*Unless they are like my FIL, who told me over the weekend that he doesn't see what the big deal is since the SCOTUS appointments are only for 4-year terms anyway.  

[buystoys]

midjd, I am also a big fan of the high road.  One of my struggles is with deciding which party did the first "wrong" that has led us to this point.  Was it the Democrats passing ACA even though most of the polled population was not in favor of it?  Was it the Republicans vowing to block everything?  Does it matter at the end of the day? 

It feels like we, the people, are the ones feeding the frenzy.  Schumer stated right after the election that he could support certain proposals from DJT, then did a 180 days later and has maintained that stance.  The rest of the party has dug in.  Schumer was my Senator for many years, and I don't remember him being someone difficult to work with.  (My memory may be bad on that, though.)  I always thought he attempted to look at the big picture and then negotiate for his constituency to have a good spot in the outcome.  I'm not feeling that so much these days.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 4, 2017 10:57:29 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Interesting how judicial appointments have become such a battleground.. A lot of my friends are talking about sending Ginsburg vitamins.

Someone should also hook Ginsburg up with medium to contact Juan Ponce de León to find out exactly where that fountain of youth is supposed to be.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2017 8:58:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 4, 2017 8:55:25 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So, you think there's no possibility the voting population will at some point decide enough is enough and force their elected officials to start working together?  For some reason, I find that more depressing than watching what is happening in Washington.

I don't see it happening in my remaining life time. AndvI am only 66.

Sadly I don't see it happening in my lifetime either... and I'm only 49.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So do we all just give up and wait for the next civil war to happen?  Or do we all decide that we will, individually, attempt to stop pointing fingers, open dialogues with those we don't agree with, and force our government leaders to do the same?

I'm not much younger than you Tennesseer , but I do remember a time when all of us were more civil to each other.  Does change start at the top or does it start at the bottom?

Value Buy , I'd like to see that coalition, I just don't know how to get there.

Change in government starts at the bottom but only on a MASSIVE scale. It's not individuals that can make the change, it's people in groups. Unfortunately though, people in groups tend to go downhill (into more "our way or no way") instead of uphill ("let's work together on this, and meet somewhere in the middle")... which makes improving Washington DC an impossibility.

[NastyWoman]

Apr 4, 2017 8:53:00 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Apr 4, 2017 8:46:54 GMT -5 buystoys said:

And how does that help?  Will that change anything?  Because I don't see that any of the finger pointing for the past decade has done anything other than escalate the mess and cause the rhetoric to go hyperbolic on both sides.

I fully admit the Republicans did it, just as the Democrats did it.
Two wrongs do not make it right.
By all accounts Gorsuch is a good judge. If the Republicans do not go nuclear, how will we ever appoint another Judge to the Supreme Court?
The Democrats will never accept anyone right of Montemayer and company and she is not that far far left to begin with, and vice versa for the Republicans. Eventually we will be down to one Judge making the decisions for us.
A Justice such as Kennedy will never make it to the court at this rate.

By all accounts Gorsuch is a good judge if you are a (moderately or better?) well to-off dude. If not --- forget it

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2017 20:21:31 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Apr 4, 2017 8:53:00 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I fully admit the Republicans did it, just as the Democrats did it.
Two wrongs do not make it right.
By all accounts Gorsuch is a good judge. If the Republicans do not go nuclear, how will we ever appoint another Judge to the Supreme Court?
The Democrats will never accept anyone right of Montemayer and company and she is not that far far left to begin with, and vice versa for the Republicans. Eventually we will be down to one Judge making the decisions for us.
A Justice such as Kennedy will never make it to the court at this rate.

By all accounts Gorsuch is a good judge if you are a (moderately or better?) well to-off dude. If not --- forget it

He's also not that great at separating religion from government (he was part of the Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius process, The Supreme Court upheld his flawed ruling).

[OldCoyote]

Apr 4, 2017 10:08:31 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:32:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Look at the divide on this message board,, Do you think there any possible way any cooperation on the National level??

Yes, I do believe there should be cooperation on a national level.  I also believe there it potential for civil dialogue here on this board if people choose to participate that way.  It's all up to us, isn't it?  If we WANT nasty, then act nasty.  If we WANT civility, then act civilly. 

Did you read about the great ice berg breaking from the ice sheet in Antarctica?

The crack grows wider ever day, It is the same with the divide in politics every day, the crack grows wider!!

O.C. tries very hard to keep his dialogue civil, Because of this, I don't respond to certain posters,

If you see O.C. being less than so, Please

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Since the left is about winning at all costs, and they've essentially revealed they're not interested in, nor with they ever "play fair"-- then the GOP may treat them accordingly with no pushback from me. I happen to think the Democratic Party is an illegitimate party. I think at best it's an organized crime syndicate using politics as cover; and at worst they're subversives.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 4, 2017 21:03:43 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Apr 4, 2017 20:21:31 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

By all accounts Gorsuch is a good judge if you are a (moderately or better?) well to-off dude. If not --- forget it

He's also not that great at separating religion from government (he was part of the Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius process, The Supreme Court upheld his flawed ruling).

The First Amendment right to freedom of religion is "flawed"? 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 4, 2017 9:32:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So do we all just give up and wait for the next civil war to happen?  Or do we all decide that we will, individually, attempt to stop pointing fingers, open dialogues with those we don't agree with, and force our government leaders to do the same?

I'm not much younger than you Tennesseer , but I do remember a time when all of us were more civil to each other.  Does change start at the top or does it start at the bottom?

Value Buy , I'd like to see that coalition, I just don't know how to get there.

Look at the divide on this message board,, Do you think there any possible way any cooperation on the National level??

No. 

20% or so of the country who align themselves with liberal causes are literally, as in would be institutionalized 30 years ago, mentally ill. They are shown reality and they don't see it. The Susan Rice revelations are a sanity test. It is now a fact that the Obama regime which weaponized the IRS and the EPA also used the foreign intelligence assets of the United States government to do oppo research on Donald J. Trump and his campaign starting back before he was the nominee, and then used the "YouTube Video Sparked A Protest"-like lie of a "Russian link to Donald Trump" to cover up the crime. That's what happened. If you accept the truth, you're sane. If you're still denying it- you need help. It's not the first such test- there have been many, many, many others-- and a large swath of Democratic voters are way out on the ledge.

[Tennesseer]

Unbelievable nonsense.

[Opti]

Apr 3, 2017 22:26:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Apr 3, 2017 17:52:36 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You knew what he was like before the election. You voted for him. You have been proting him since the get go.

The mess is all yours.

While I don't know who Value Buy voted for like you apparently do... I do know that this mess isn't "all his" nor even "all Republicans", nor even "All those that voted for Trump".

No. This mess is all OURS, collectively, as a country... because we couldn't get our collective shit together and nominate good, upstanding and QUALIFIED people, and most of us couldn't be bothered to not waste our votes.

And the saddest part... this problem isn't new. "The mess" that is modern day Washington DC, started decades ago.

Disagree. Unless you have deep pockets and/or are involved in one of the political parties you have no say in who self nominates themselves to run. All you can do really is vote for the best of the field and perhaps volunteer to help that person. It takes name recognition, financial support, and a team to do well as a candidate and that isn't always enough. Sometimes it is just not the time for candidate X. Jeb is a big example for that. He was not the guy I anticipated and Trump went after him from the start.

I didn't waste my vote. I chose Hillary. She's a politician and I wasn't looking for perfection. I was however interested in better than Trump. Better than what is happening, as I saw this coming but apparently too many Americans wanted to live it instead of just seeing it as a cautionary theoretical exercise. <Sigh.>

[Opti]

Apr 4, 2017 9:31:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5 buystoys said:

So do we all just give up and wait for the next civil war to happen?  Or do we all decide that we will, individually, attempt to stop pointing fingers, open dialogues with those we don't agree with, and force our government leaders to do the same?

I'm not much younger than you Tennesseer , but I do remember a time when all of us were more civil to each other.  Does change start at the top or does it start at the bottom?

Value Buy , I'd like to see that coalition, I just don't know how to get there.

It would help if it started from the top. trump promised to united the country. he has made no effort of leading by example. he has probably poisoned the waters of civility for years to come.

Good point. The great marketer is too worried about it all means about him to care about the country as a whole or even think about bringing people together.

[dondub]

Considering the abrogation the Repos brought to the Garland nomination, under the bogus "Why it's an election year y'all", the demos should be able to do anything they can to muck up this process.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2017 10:52:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 4, 2017 10:49:02 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

I don't see how this benefits the Democrats. It destroys the filibuster on a candidate that doesn't change the balance on the court and may cause some Democratic senators in red states to not be re-elected.

the Democrats have used filibuster far less often than the GOP in the last two decades, so they are seeing this as a "win".  the senators in red states are elected by popular majority, and it is way more difficult for the money machine to buy those races than one might think. 

i think this is, at worst, a draw for Democrats.  it might be a big win.

Why this timeframe ?

[Virgil Showlion]

Pres. Trump should call the senate Democrats into his office and present them a deal: if they agree to confirm Gorsuch, he flips a coin; if it comes up heads, he'll nominate and back Garland for the next vacancy; if it comes up tails, he'll nominate whoever he wants. If they don't agree, he puts in Gorsuch and whoever else he wants, and bulldozes them both through.

To sweeten the deal, rather than flipping a coin he could use a die and give them Garland if they roll 4 or less.

[steff]

Like trump would honor any deal he made with a Dem.  LMAO! 

Yeah, we're not that naive.   The man doesn't honor shit & openly lies to get what he wants & then goes back on his word.  

[dondub]

Consider the veracity Trump brings to the table...

[Virgil Showlion]

I guess the idea is a little silly.

[billisonboard]

Apr 5, 2017 8:18:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 4, 2017 9:32:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Look at the divide on this message board,, Do you think there any possible way any cooperation on the National level??

No. 

20% or so of the country who align themselves with liberal causes are literally, as in would be institutionalized 30 years ago, mentally ill. ...

I think there is some truth here. There was the day that society, through governmental action, lock people up who didn't conform properly. It was a little more extreme form of control than not allowing them to give speeches on college campuses (although that happened also).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 5, 2017 15:38:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Pres. Trump should call the senate Democrats into his office and present them a deal: if they agree to confirm Gorsuch, he flips a coin; if it comes up heads, he'll nominate and back Garland for the next vacancy; if it comes up tails, he'll nominate whoever he wants. If they don't agree, he puts in Gorsuch and whoever else he wants, and bulldozes them both through.

To sweeten the deal, rather than flipping a coin he could use a die and give them Garland if they roll 4 or less.

That is a terrible idea.

[Value Buy]

Apr 5, 2017 17:30:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 5, 2017 15:38:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Pres. Trump should call the senate Democrats into his office and present them a deal: if they agree to confirm Gorsuch, he flips a coin; if it comes up heads, he'll nominate and back Garland for the next vacancy; if it comes up tails, he'll nominate whoever he wants. If they don't agree, he puts in Gorsuch and whoever else he wants, and bulldozes them both through.

To sweeten the deal, rather than flipping a coin he could use a die and give them Garland if they roll 4 or less.

That is a terrible idea.

Here is the solution and I am surprised Trump has not used it publicly.
Call the Democratic Senators in for a meeting at the WH.
Tell them to vote for Gorsuch, or he will pull the nomination, leave it a tie vote on future decisions, and wait for any of the elderly Liberal Judges to die, and then have a conservative vote majority for all future decisions.