67
68

Schumer’s Machiavellian filibuster gambit (americanthinker.com)

Clatsopvincit omnia veritas が 投稿

全 40 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]EverlovinConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Whos to say the Democrats wont invoke the nuclear option anyways?

[–]jonesrr2 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

They would, if they get the Senate back with a Dem President.

[–]FallOutShelterBoy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Everyone is SO certain it's gonna happen, yet Dems never do well in the midterms. I'm not the biggest fan of Trump but I think it's ridiculous that a lot of people think it's certain Trump will be impeached by next year. It's hard being Republican in New York

[–]PlasmaBurnz [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Democrats don't care about tradition in general. They will change the rule as needed even if Republicans don't. Laws come and go, but the Constitution is the heart of this nation. The Democrats are destroying it.

[–]jub-jub-bird [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

To be fair the filibuster has nothing to do with the constitution.

[–]PlasmaBurnz [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Supreme Court Justices do. Particularly when some candidates to that office think they can amend it to match (Liberal)public sentiment.

[–]FePeak [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The GOP wanted to break the filibuster under Bush, but relented.

And were betrayed.

Who do you think lead the effort to compromise instead? JOHN McCAIN.

[–]FePeak [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

I hope Democrats filibuster. We need more gridlock.

Let's get the people so sick of Washington D.C, terrible candidates on a visceral level, and Judicial Tyranny that a miseducated populace wakes up and we pave the path for limited government in line with the founding notions.

As an aside, wonder if anyone here links that view to my username.

[–]ITranscendRaceHombre [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I wish what you were saying could happen. I wish the complete distrust of government, how scared people are of omg fascist le Drumpf, etc. would cause them to think "maybe if the federal government weren't such a leviathan, in complete contradiction to the founding philosophies of this country, we wouldn't be in this mess." But no. Leftists will continue to believe, "If we just get my/the right person in there, we can finally enact our totalitarian utopia!" Since leftism/collectivism/totalitarianism/communism/progressivism/whichever tyrannical flavor you want to go with operates so contrary to natural law, it necessitates the rule of the iron fist. I believe that suggesting a leftist could ever subscribe to limited government is to completely misunderstand the core of their ideology. Government is their God. At best they don't understand liberty and at worst they abhor it. To accept federalism, limited enumerated powers, private property rights, capitalism, unalienable God given rights would be to reject their entire belief structure.

Even for the truly center lined, moderate "miseducated populace", I don't see this magical epiphany just happening. First of all, hardly anyone in our government ever talks about liberty and true American exceptionalism. If they do they're branded a "right wing" lunatic and not taken seriously. So where would they get these ideas from? It's not like they're going to trip and fall onto a copy of Locke's 2nd Treatise of Gov't. The other problem is the Progressives have dragged politics so far left in this country that the so called "Republicans" of today would've been the radical leftists of years past. Our population is so utterly clueless on basic economics and history. They can only conceive of a world where the federal government continues to be the biggest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health care provider, and pension guarantor. Every solution they scheme up inevitably involves more government action and more confiscation of liberty.

[–]FePeak [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

First of all, hardly anyone in our government ever talks about liberty and true American exceptionalism. If they do they're branded a "right wing" lunatic and not taken seriously.

Ron Paul.

Love that man. Oh, I may tag you in a post which may explain some of this later. I already spend more time on Reddit/Twitter/politics than I should, it's become a hobby, but I don't have enough to make half the posts I wish to.

[–]jub-jub-bird [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

There won't be a gridlock though, the Republicans will just change the rule to prevent the filibuster. At this point I think that would cost them significantly less political capital than losing this fight would.

Ideally they can get a handful of Democrats to cross line and vote for Gorsuch and have the best of both worlds but I just don't see that happening in the current environment.

[–]jonesrr2 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I think breaking the filibuster would cost them zero political capital actually.

[–]jub-jub-bird [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, I think the Democrats and their allies in media will spin it hard and that will hurt Republicans with some moderates. But, that would cost them less than a defeat would. The ideal would still be to get some Democrats to cross the aisle which would be a costly defeat for the Democrats.

[–]DoitforthechestyGuest User [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Honestly for the most part grid lock is a good thing! Less laws not more.

The founders intended it to be difficult to pass legislation and we did a pretty good job post ACA.

[–]EdConcannon [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

There isn't an incentive to go nuclear. If the midterms were in a couple of months and polls were showing the GOP might lose the Senate, that would be one thing. As it stands, the Democrats would have to filibuster until November 2018 and count on the retaking the Senate. They might grandstand for a bit while their base is still fired up, but they'll cave.

[–]ozric101 [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

To play political games with a man as qualified as Gorsuch is a National Shame. This is why never ever get the best people in place and we end up with shit.

[–]FePeak [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

To play political games with a man a qualified as Gorsuch is a National Shame.

Bork.

What the Democrats did to him is the reason we are in this retarded world.

[–]EdConcannon [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

You're not wrong, but let's not pretend we didn't do the same thing with Garland.

[–]jub-jub-bird [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It's not that kind of filibuster. It just means that Republicans need a 60 vote majority to approve Gorsuch. Technically the approval itself is a simple majority but you need 60 votes to end the debate and call the vote for approval. But since you can table the matter and move on to other things it's really that you need 60 votes to approve anything in the Senate.

Your comment suggests another option other than the simplest "nuclear option" of just changing the rule to a simple majority can end debate. Allow the filibuster but require it to be an old-fashioned reading-the-phone-book from the well of the senate style filibuster: Make the rule: "If a majority wants to end debate but a minority blocks it the debate must go on. The Senate cannot table the debate or conduct any other business until the current matter is resolved". Filibusters are an OK tradition but they MUST be reserved only for extreme situations so they must impose a cost.

[–]EdConcannon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, yeah, but it looks terrible to filibuster indefinitely. If the Democrats haven't approved him in a month (to pull a period of time out of nowhere) we can then say "we didn't want to remove the filibuster, but they forced our hand". Removing it straight away allows them to frame it as a power grab.

[–]Racheakt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think Democrats are in the worse position in miderms. I too think they will cave.

But the modern filibuster (it is not the romantic mr. smith goes to Washington anymore) days are numbered and Reid started the deathclock. Nuke it now or Nuke it when RBG retires; but rest assured the Dems will nuke it when they get back in power -- they have proven they will.

Just do it and get who we want on the court.

[–]NosuchRedditorA Republic, if you can keep it. [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Since when is Amy Schumer allowed to fillabuster?

Oh you mean Uncle Chuck.

[–]Poinciana_Tree [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Schumer can live with that – after all, Kennedy sided with liberals in *blockbuster* cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring that anal intercourse and gay marriage are "constitutional rights.*

Good thing he waded into the waters of whether or not anal sex among consenting adults is protected under the 4th Amendment. I was worried for a second the author wasn't also a social conservative and if he didn't weave fetuses or anal sex into the narrative he would quickly lose my attention.

[–]DoitforthechestyGuest User [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Needs more .jpeg

[–]ThomasFowl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

From his perspective the seat was stolen, so this overreaction isn't really surprising.