Anthony Cady
Proud American at The United States of America (1976–present)Wed

Mitch McConnell vowed to "usher in a nuclear winter" if Dems force a
talking filibuster. What will he do? Change the filibuster so he can
approve more GOP federal judges? Not bring up a Dem president's nominees
for SCOTUS?

I can forgive some young people that are just now following politics and
people that don’t live in the US but this stuff is not ancient history.

Whose idea was it to say that if the party in control of the Senate is
different than the President’s party in an election year, the Senate
should let the election decide who gets the SCOTUS pick? Any guesses? It
wasn’t Mitch McConnell that came up with this plan.

It was Joe Biden that came up with that gem.

Next, Why did McConnell jettison the filibuster for Supreme court nominees?

Harry Reid (D-NV) dropped the filibuster for Federal court picks.
McConnell on about the 2:13 mark warns Democrats about the consequences
for dropping the filibuster for Federal court nominees.

McConnell removed the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. It was the
consequence of Harry Reid and Democrats changing the rules. This
nonsense about Harry Reid doing so because of “Republican obstruction,”
just doesn’t cut it. It is part of the system.

Here is Joe Biden in 2005:

Here are other Democrats.

If you want to say something stupid like one single piece of legislation
is the single beautiful snowflake that no rules should get in the way
of, EVERY SENATOR AND REP believes their legislation is just that.
Especially when it is pure partisan tripe. There is no bill so special
the rules should be changed, Just because you are dumb enough to believe
democracy is at stake (which is a giant lie) it is the changing of rules
just because you didn’t get what you wanted that actually kills
democracy. Killing the filibuster is an example of what causes democracy
to fail.

6.8K viewsView 449 upvotesView 1 share
29 comments from
Matthew Jones
and more

Matthew J
· Wed
Democrats are quite short sighted. They can’t see long enough into the
future to realize that someday, the situation may be reversed.

William M
· Thu
Nuking the filibuster is a ‘4th & 10’ move. Democrats are betting they
can follow that with ramming-through the purely partisan “Voting Rights”
legislation that loads the electoral-dice and (unconstitutionally) cedes
all elections-processes to the federal government resulting in no/low
vote-standards and weakened election-integrity.

Fast-tracked citizenship for 30M guaranteed (D)-voting iillegals in time
for the next election should finish the job with permanent
Californication of House, Senate and Oval Office.

Democrats will never again have to worry that Republicans can gain a
majority and so rue the loss of filibuster protections for themselves as
the opposing Minority.

Travis P
· 20h ago
It's like a chess game. You don't give up your king for the queen. The
king is democracy, fair elections. The queen is the fillibuster.

Maybe Dems aren't the short sighted ones.

George Craig
· Thu
It’s funny how certain individuals whine that McConnell was blocking
Obama appointments but are clueless that the same thing was happening
during the Bush years by democrats, then by Republicans during the
Clinton years, then by democrats during the Bush years, and again during
the Reagan years, then by republicans and democrats during the Carter
years, etc… It’s extremely common and has gone on for decades.

And it’s hilarious that you still hear the same excuse that “SCOTUS
judges were different and Reid specified non-SCOTUS federal judges in
his nuclear option.” If the individuals claiming that actually look at
the rules of the Senate, the process for SCOTUS judges and federal
judges are the same… SCOTUS judges do not have a separate designation
under the Senate rules, and even in the constitution the process for
nominating both is the same.

Then we have the issue that “McConnell blocked a SCOTUS judge from
nomination.” If they pulled their head out of their ass, the act of not
entertaining a nomination is a rejection of that nomination meaning
Obama could nominate someone else as Garland didn’t have the votes for
nomination. A nominee isn’t guaranteed a hearing and damned sure not
guaranteed a vote in the Senate especially if the support isn’t there to
waste the Senates time. And like other SCOTUS nominations as well as
federal judge and administration nominations that didn’t have the votes,
Obama had the option to change nominees instead of his failed attempt to
pressure the Senate to approve the nomination. And previous presidents
that had tried to force the Senate using the same tactics ended up in
failure all the way back to the 1930’s and probably before that. 24
SCOTUS judges were withdrawn or didn’t have their “day in front of the
Senate” over the last 240 years with most of them withdrawn and another
nomination made when the Senate told the president to stick the
nomination up their ass as they weren’t going to entertain the
individuals as they didn’t come close to even having the required votes
in the Senate (not a new precedent as the low intelligent and gullible
party plus their lapdogs claim it to be.)

And now that Schumer had his failed attempt at trying to use the
“nuclear option” to impress his fellow half wits , the whining and tears
of the democrats is going to be hilarious.

or of filibuster reform for quite some time. It's only been the last few
years where the issues presented by the filibuster have really been in
the spotlight. I honestly don't think most Democrats flip flop as you
claim. In my opinion, and I pay a great deal of attention to politics,
Democrats, in favor most politicians, are fairly consistent in their
political beliefs. There's a difference between flip flopping out of
convenience and changing your opinion based on new information.

Rob J
· Thu
The 60 vote requirement means at least some of the opposing party think
the legislation is a good idea despite their party affiliation. This
means it probably is a good idea and should be voted on and passed.

If the votes aren’t there I think we are better off not passing anything
rather than passing bills that strictly appeal to one side or the other.
What happens when the opposing party is in power? The same thing, weak
or partisan bills are passed and we end up flip-flopping back and forth
from one partisan, lousy bill to another.

More than just one party needs to think the bill in question is a good
thing for everyone. This is where compromise comes in. If that’s not
possible I would rather they do nothing.

I think the founding fathers were much smarter than we give them credit for.