The Senate Nuclear option-so it begins

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2017 8:05:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

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

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"? 

There's nothing wrong with freedom of religion. That's not what was flawed. His ruling is what was flawed.

The ruling should have axed the requirement for EVERYONE, not JUST "those with deeply held religious beliefs". Deeply held NON-belief is also protected by the First Amendment... is it not?

[Deleted]

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. 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.

The same could be said of those that align themselves with conservative causes, though... matter of fact, I'd guess that it's likely higher than 20%.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2017 8:35:16 GMT -5 Opti said:

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

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.>

If you chose Hillary, then you wasted your vote, just as people that chose Trump wasted theirs.

And yes, I agree that anyone can "Self nominate", however, no one that "self nominated" became a nominee for a major party that was a practical candidate actually on the ballot in enough states to win the Presidency. That's the nominations I was referring to. Of the four parties that had a legitimate shot at the Presidency (due to being on enough ballots to get the required electoral votes), not a single one nominated a worthwhile candidate for the November Ballot. None of them.

[Phoenix84]

Apr 3, 2017 17:27:06 GMT -5 busymom said:

So, the GOP plans to implement the nuclear option.  Fine, but what happens when the Democratic Party has control, votes in THEIR choice of a Supreme Court Judge?  How much gnashing of teeth will we see from the GOP when that happens?  (It's only a matter of time.)

Probably about as much as gnashing of teeth as democrats are doing about the republican nominees of the Trump administration.

[Phoenix84]

McConnel is just finishing the job Harry Reid started in 2013.

Just another Litmus test as to how partisan Washington has become.

[Phoenix84]

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

Apr 3, 2017 17:43:44 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I can only imagine Hamilton ,Jefferson, and the Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves right now. I do not agree or like what is happening either.

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.

This was going to happen sooner or later regardless of who won. The prize of tipping the Supreme Court is too tantalizing. Harry Reid opened the Pandora's box long before Trump.

[Virgil Showlion]

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.

I'm just amazed by how many people seemed to take it seriously.

[tallguy]

Apr 5, 2017 20:02:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

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

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.

The same could be said of those that align themselves with conservative causes, though... matter of fact, I'd guess that it's likely higher than 20%.

Case in point.

[Value Buy]

And so it begins today....

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-poised-to-go-nuclear-for-gorsuch-confirmation/ar-BBzt2I3?li=BBnb7Kz

[Wisconsin Beth]

NYTimes is reporting the vote to end debate at 55 yes and 45 no.

[Value Buy]

Apr 6, 2017 10:38:13 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

NYTimes is reporting the vote to end debate at 55 yes and 45 no.

So, the Dems that crossed over either bolted from Schumer, or decided they wanted to make sure the Republicans own the 51 vote majority decision?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

What happened: The Senate was returned to normal. The judicial filibuster was introduced by Democrats in 2003. There's no long-standing tradition of judges requiring a 60 vote threshold. Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. The filibuster of judicial nominees didn't start until Democrats began to filibuster George W. Bush's nominees starting with Miguel Estrada in 2003.

That's it. That's the news. We're going back to normal.\

This is a political calculation by Democrats who desperately need to alter the course of the 2018 mid-terms which currently have Democrats losing as many a 10 Senate seats giving the GOP a super-majority in the Senate- 60 seats. This is a situation Democrats greatly fear because, to put it in perspective: the GOP could actually amend the Constitution; and with the state legislative control, actually ratify the amendment. The 2nd Amendment could be clarified permanently and for all time. Less likely would be something like a life amendment which would effectively ban abortion nation-wide. The income tax could be repealed. All sorts of nightmare scenarios for the left loom large in just a few short months.

I think the Democrats have miscalculated. I think this puts them in a worse position. Obstinance usually does.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 6, 2017 10:38:13 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

NYTimes is reporting the vote to end debate at 55 yes and 45 no.

That would beat the confirmation of Clarence Thomas by 3 votes. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 5, 2017 22:49:07 GMT -5 Phoenix84 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.

This was going to happen sooner or later regardless of who won. The prize of tipping the Supreme Court is too tantalizing. Harry Reid opened the Pandora's box long before Trump.

The underlying problem is the politicization of the SCOTUS over time. They are not supposed to be a law-making body, and while we can argue about Roe v. Wade, the worst decisions by far have been the invention of gay marriage and the re-writing of ObamaCare- which the court is not authorized to do. These two rulings have made it absolutely necessary to appoint only strict constructionists to the court.

[dondub]

How dare gay people be treating equally under the Constitution! Fortunately that great decision on Citizen's United gave those rights to corporations. No politicized legislation there.

[Value Buy]

Apr 6, 2017 13:26:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

What happened: The Senate was returned to normal. The judicial filibuster was introduced by Democrats in 2003. There's no long-standing tradition of judges requiring a 60 vote threshold. Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. The filibuster of judicial nominees didn't start until Democrats began to filibuster George W. Bush's nominees starting with Miguel Estrada in 2003.

That's it. That's the news. We're going back to normal.\

This is a political calculation by Democrats who desperately need to alter the course of the 2018 mid-terms which currently have Democrats losing as many a 10 Senate seats giving the GOP a super-majority in the Senate- 60 seats. This is a situation Democrats greatly fear because, to put it in perspective: the GOP could actually amend the Constitution; and with the state legislative control, actually ratify the amendment. The 2nd Amendment could be clarified permanently and for all time. Less likely would be something like a life amendment which would effectively ban abortion nation-wide. The income tax could be repealed. All sorts of nightmare scenarios for the left loom large in just a few short months.

I think the Democrats have miscalculated. I think this puts them in a worse position. Obstinance usually does.

Disagree about 60 seat Republican super majority.
Even if they get to 60 seats, the Pubs will never vote totally as a block. Republicans are like that. If they do not like the bill, they do not vote with the majority leader.
60 Republicans in the Senate is a cinch for a 55 vote number. After that you have to twist and break some arms......

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 6, 2017 13:37:25 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Apr 6, 2017 13:26:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

What happened: The Senate was returned to normal. The judicial filibuster was introduced by Democrats in 2003. There's no long-standing tradition of judges requiring a 60 vote threshold. Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. The filibuster of judicial nominees didn't start until Democrats began to filibuster George W. Bush's nominees starting with Miguel Estrada in 2003.

That's it. That's the news. We're going back to normal.\

This is a political calculation by Democrats who desperately need to alter the course of the 2018 mid-terms which currently have Democrats losing as many a 10 Senate seats giving the GOP a super-majority in the Senate- 60 seats. This is a situation Democrats greatly fear because, to put it in perspective: the GOP could actually amend the Constitution; and with the state legislative control, actually ratify the amendment. The 2nd Amendment could be clarified permanently and for all time. Less likely would be something like a life amendment which would effectively ban abortion nation-wide. The income tax could be repealed. All sorts of nightmare scenarios for the left loom large in just a few short months.

I think the Democrats have miscalculated. I think this puts them in a worse position. Obstinance usually does.

Disagree about 60 seat Republican super majority.
Even if they get to 60 seats, the Pubs will never vote totally as a block. Republicans are like that. If they do not like the bill, they do not vote with the majority leader.
60 Republicans in the Senate is a cinch for a 55 vote number. After that you have to twist and break some arms......

We'll see. I'm not predicting it, but I do think that the more Trump is frustrated after everyday Americans FINALLY put a non-politician in office, the worse 2018 is going to be for Democrats. The 10 seats are just the expectations based on Red states that Trump won- Florida's Bill Nelson is going to be sent packing almost for sure.  It could be worse. The Dems have 25 seats to defend (if you count the two independents that caucus with the Dems)

[Phoenix84]

Apr 6, 2017 13:34:13 GMT -5 dondub said:

How dare gay people be treating equally under the Constitution! Fortunately that great decision on Citizen's United gave those rights to corporations. No politicized legislation there.

I don't want to get side tracked by a discussion on gay marriage. It's not about gay marriage, but this top down, ruling from the bench, from people we don't elect that scares the shit out of people. And it's not just republicans that are worried. A conservative Supreme Court could put restrictions on bith control and abortions, for example.

Gay marriage was legal in several states and likely to be legal in even more as time went on. But the SC unilaterally changed the rules.

A common misconception of conservatives from liberals is that conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to things like environmental protection, gun control, or even gay marriage, but prefer those things be decided by the states rather than dictated unilaterally by the courts or the president.

[giramomma]

Apr 7, 2017 8:03:01 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

A common misconception of conservatives from liberals is that conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to things like environmental protection, gun control, or even gay marriage, but prefer those things be decided by the states rather than dictated unilaterally by the courts or the president.

IMVHO, having the states control everything is totally worse.

Shit, I can't be packing up my kids and moving ever couple of years based on what (our) state lawmakers (who are in the pockets of billionaires) think is a good idea. What kind of life is that?

 And to say "OMG Gira, don't go off the deep end. Of course state lawmakers are good and pure and do what's best for the people." All you have to do is google Walker and Koch brothers. Then come back and tell me how decisions, even at the state level aren't made unilaterally? (And then please explain why it's so much better to be under the influence of billionaires at the state level, but so bad when we talking the SC and POTUS.)

It's much easier to say "Oh, who cares gay rights? I'm straight. Environmental protection. I'll be dead in 50 years, plus I'm just not a fan of the outdoors. What does it matter. Gun control. Well, of course I need to have a gun, any way I choose."

Than to stop and think
"Hmm...I might have kids that could be LBGT. How hard of a life do I want them to have?"

[Tennesseer]

Apr 7, 2017 8:03:01 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Apr 6, 2017 13:34:13 GMT -5 dondub said:

How dare gay people be treating equally under the Constitution! Fortunately that great decision on Citizen's United gave those rights to corporations. No politicized legislation there.

I don't want to get side tracked by a discussion on gay marriage. It's not about gay marriage, but this top down, ruling from the bench, from people we don't elect that scares the shit out of people. And it's not just republicans that are worried. A conservative Supreme Court could put restrictions on bith control and abortions, for example.

Gay marriage was legal in several states and likely to be legal in even more as time went on. But the SC unilaterally changed the rules.

A common misconception of conservatives from liberals is that conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to things like environmental protection, gun control, or even gay marriage, but prefer those things be decided by the states rather than dictated unilaterally by the courts or the president.

Prior to the SCOTUS ruling on the Obergefell v. Hodges case in June 2015, same sex marriage was legal in thirty-six states, Washington D.C. and Guam either through voter initiatives, state legislative acts or lower court rulings. 36 states is not "several states". Just like inter-racial marriage was not just legal in several states at the time of the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v. Virginia back in 1967 but legal in 36 non-southern states prior to the SCOTUS ruling.

[Value Buy]

The kicker is you guys think he is a conservative........

He is a moderate.
Now Pence, would give you a conservative nominee.

Trump threw the Dems an olive branch and they stuck it up Trump's ass.

[Value Buy]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-senate-set-to-approve-trumps-conservative-supreme-court-pick/ar-BBzvZlr?li=BBnb7Kz


Just in case everyone forgot this since we are on to other things in the world today

[dondub]

VB,

Merrick Garland.Not.Even.Acted.Upon. The Repos should now stop whining like newborns.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 7, 2017 11:15:03 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing 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.

I'm sorry you feel this way. Obama and his administration were strong dividers and seperators of people into different groups, and almost never talked about all americans.

Trump has certainly battled with many, but he's made overtures to democrats in the legislature (which is foolhardy).  He also CONSISTENTLY talks about creating opportunities for all americans.

On a micro scale, I was at a local town hall on a local issue that is pretty polarizing and a big deal in my area.  about 40 citizens each spoke for 3 minutes.  the first 30 were 90% against the new regulations.  With 1-2 exceptions, they were earnest, heartfelt, sympathetic to the other side (acknowledging the frustration felt by those seeking these new regulations), etc.

then the "pro this new regulation" people got up.  during their turns, 4 of the 6 of them included ad-hominin attacks, accusing anyone in the group opposing the new regulations as
" not very sophisticated"
" greedy and shortsighted"
" self centered and not caring about their neighbors"

it's the usual script, when progressives want something, they generally debate by attacking the other speakers, impugning the morality of people who have differing philosophies than them, and can't seem to admit that perhaps the other person's perspective is just as valid and well informed as their is, it's just informed by different experiences and priorities.

carry on.  i see thorugh it all now

Examples please and thanks.

[dondub]

Myth.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 7, 2017 8:16:05 GMT -5 giramomma said:

Apr 7, 2017 8:03:01 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

A common misconception of conservatives from liberals is that conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to things like environmental protection, gun control, or even gay marriage, but prefer those things be decided by the states rather than dictated unilaterally by the courts or the president.

IMVHO, having the states control everything is totally worse.

Shit, I can't be packing up my kids and moving ever couple of years based on what (our) state lawmakers (who are in the pockets of billionaires) think is a good idea. What kind of life is that?

 And to say "OMG Gira, don't go off the deep end. Of course state lawmakers are good and pure and do what's best for the people." All you have to do is google Walker and Koch brothers. Then come back and tell me how decisions, even at the state level aren't made unilaterally? (And then please explain why it's so much better to be under the influence of billionaires at the state level, but so bad when we talking the SC and POTUS.)

It's much easier to say "Oh, who cares gay rights? I'm straight. Environmental protection. I'll be dead in 50 years, plus I'm just not a fan of the outdoors. What does it matter. Gun control. Well, of course I need to have a gun, any way I choose."

Than to stop and think
"Hmm...I might have kids that could be LBGT. How hard of a life do I want them to have?"

The thing is, when the states do it, if it becomes utterly unbearable for you, you can move to another state. There are left-leaning states, there are right-leaning states, and there are middle-of-the-road states. I'm pretty sure one move would be enough to find something you could live with.

When the federal government makes it the law of all the land, not only does the law become far more intractable, it becomes inescapable as long as you reside inside the country.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 7, 2017 11:44:53 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Apr 7, 2017 11:34:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The thing is, when the states do it, if it becomes utterly unbearable for you, you can move to another state. There are left-leaning states, there are right-leaning states, and there are middle-of-the-road states. I'm pretty sure one move would be enough to find something you could live with.

When the federal government makes it the law of all the land, not only does the law become far more intractable, it becomes inescapable as long as you reside inside the country.

for example, the major reason i live in the state I live in is lack of state income tax.  if our comrades in Olympia ever get their way and amend the state constitution to add it, it will be a MAJOR change in the value proposition to living in our state, and will cause a precipitous drop as wealth flees the state

I suspect when states' resistance to travel bans, sanctuary cities bans, etc. are ultimately shot down by federal courts, some people will come around to seeing the pitfalls of federalism.

[dondub]

  I doubt 'wealth' will flee our state which has a very regressive tax structure. Instead, there would be a reorganization which would repeal sales taxes, which effect the poor at a much higher level,

and a reduction in property taxes which are used to fund schools.

 

 I doubt anyone actually lives here because of no state income tax, but it makes a nice story.

 

[tallguy]

I am actually in favor of a state income tax.  At this point, we are continually increasing both the sales tax and the property tax to pay for everything.  And yes, it is regressive.  I am a firm believer that everything should be taxed a little bit.  Doing so means that everybody pays something.  In addition, it would avoid the question each year of whether state sales taxes will be deductible on one's federal return or not.  An income tax makes a lot more sense and greatly reduces the likelihood that people will be taxed out of their homes.  Bring it on.     

[dondub]

Maybe ABO will move to another state!