April 3, 2017

"Senate Democrats on Monday appeared to secure the votes necessary to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch..."

"... sending the body hurtling toward a bitter partisan confrontation later this week," the NYT reports.

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
Achilles said...

Good. End the Filibuster. Forever and for everything.

Democrats will never be a majority in that chamber again anyway while it matters.

CJinPA said...

The Dems, they smell blood.

And the thing about a Democrat is he’s got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll’s eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn’t even seem to be livin’… ’til he blocks your agenda, and those black eyes roll over white and then… ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin’ about Senate Tradition….

Richard said...

The democrats are playing a game of Russian roulette. It will not end well for them.

Pianoman said...

The Left refuses to let go of Merrick Garland.

The Hatfields / McCoys battle rages on ...

Left Bank of the Charles said...

If there are just three Republican Senators who aren't ready to get rid of the filibuster, then Gorsuch is Garlanded.

WisRich said...

Thank you Dem's for giving the R's the perfect excuse to eliminate this absurd rule.

Invoke the Reid rule.

Balfegor said...

Re: Achilles:

Democrats will never be a majority in that chamber again anyway while it matters.

On the contrary, even if they don't regain the majority in 2018, I expect them to do so in 2020 or 2024 or so . . . and that's precisely why Republicans should go ahead and abolish the filibuster. At this point, Democrats have telegraphed as strongly as they could possibly telegraph that they're going to eliminate the filibuster as soon as they have simultaneous control of both the White House and the Senate.

McCain may fret about the slippery slope, but when the opposition party -- which thought it was going to get unified control but miscalculated badly -- has gloated as hard as Democrats gloated about abolishing the filibuster at the first sign of resistance, you're already at the bottom of the slippery slope. You're done. The cows have already gone.

LYNNDH said...

As Left Bank mentioned above if any Rep (such as Rand Paul, or McCain or Graham or Rubio) defect then bye bye Gorsuch. I would not bet on anything at this point.

Brando said...

Nuke the filibuster now or later, it only lasted until it was no longer convenient. Harry Reid taught us no one really cares about it until their own ox is being gored.

But it also makes sense for the Dems to do this right now--their donors and base want it, and they want to keep them all fired up going into next year. It makes as much sense as a government shutdown in that way.

PB said...

Republicans need to embrace the complete elimination of the filibuster. If we don't do it, the Democrats surely will do it. Then there's nothing to stop a full-on totalitarian nightmare.

Achilles said...

Balfegor said...
Re: Achilles:

Democrats will never be a majority in that chamber again anyway while it matters.

On the contrary, even if they don't regain the majority in 2018, I expect them to do so in 2020 or 2024 or so...


Why? What 8 red states would you expect to become blue in that time? There are 30 red states and 20 blue states and voter fraud is going to be tougher to pull off in 2020 than it was in 2016.

There will be 30+ states with voter ID laws and that basically dooms the democrat party in the senate.

Luke Lea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luke Lea said...

Unlikely the Dems will be so foolish as to trigger the so-called nuclear option. I wish they would though. It would be nice to have majority rule in the Senate at least for a while. Might actually get something done. I bet a lot of other people feel the same way (which probably does not include quite a few Republican senators who are still secretly against Trump and everything he stands for). What a moment in American politics! A moment that may go on forever.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"As Left Bank mentioned above if any Rep (such as Rand Paul, or McCain or Graham or Rubio) defect then bye bye Gorsuch. "

Three Democrat Senators have announced they will vote to confirm, so doesn't that change the equation?

Chuck said...

I could be wrong, but I think this NYT story is badly misleading.

As Althouse knows, I have been following the Committee debate all morning. I hear all of the Democrats saying that they will "oppose the nomination" and that they will be "voting against Judge Gorsuch." There has been almost zero discussion from the Democrats about filibusters. At least no details, in this case. There has been sniping on both sides, about the nature of filibusters. Republicans saying that there's never been a "partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee." Democrats talking about historical filibusters going back to Abe Fortas.

I also heard most of Coons' committee argument. Did Coons really say on the record that he was going to filibuster? I heard him say "oppose." "Oppose" does not equate with "filibuster."

Yancey Ward said...

After McConnell's appearance yesterday, I believe the Republicans have decided to go nuclear if the Democrats filibuster, however, it isn't a done deal. McConnell could have been bluffing or he might be relying on the support of senators who are bluffing themselves. It would not surprise me to find 3 or more Republicans in the Senate who vote against the nuclear option. That the Democrats appear to be ready to filibuster at all gives me pause.

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
"As Left Bank mentioned above if any Rep (such as Rand Paul, or McCain or Graham or Rubio) defect then bye bye Gorsuch. "

Three Democrat Senators have announced they will vote to confirm, so doesn't that change the equation?


Damn right it does. And not one single Republican will vote against Gorsuch. Period. Full stop.

Basil Duke said...

I have no doubt whatsoever that a sufficient number of Republican senators will go John Roberts and supplicate themselves before the fascist toddler party - and thereby geld THE key power November 8 gave Trump's supporters. Can you imagine for five seconds the Democrats, if the situation were exactly reversed, fucking this fat pitch up? A Democrat president and majorities in the House and Senate, and STILL not getting their Supreme Court nominee approved? Never. They are vicious and perverted Stalinist swine, but the Democrats DO have party line discipline.

Gahrie said...

A vote to confirm or oppose, and a vote to end a filibuster are not the same thing.

Yancey Ward said...

"Three Democrat Senators have announced they will vote to confirm, so doesn't that change the equation?"

Exiledonmainstreet,

There are three relevant votes- vote for cloture which requires 60, vote for confirmation which requires 50 plus Pence, and vote to change the rules of the Senate to disallow the filibuster which requires 50 plus Pence. A Democrat who claims to vote for confirmation appears to provide a vote for Gorsuch and a vote for cloture, so three of them don't overcome the filibuster with all Republicans voting for both. I think it dead certain, however, that all three of those will vote nay on the nuclear option, so the Republicans will need to provide at least 50 votes for the nuclear route.

mockturtle said...

CJ in PA: And the thing about a Democrat is he’s got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll’s eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn’t even seem to be livin’… ’til he blocks your agenda, and those black eyes roll over white and then… ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin’ about Senate Tradition….

;-) Love that movie!

Chuck said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
If there are just three Republican Senators who aren't ready to get rid of the filibuster, then Gorsuch is Garlanded.


I'd be interested in knowing who the three might be, who are even remote possibilities.

Not McCain. Not Cornyn. Not Graham. Those are your three leading old-hand institutionalists. Not Mitch McConnell, who so strongly opposed the Dems' nuclear option on lower-court judges. Not moderates Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski. Who?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

The Democrats are just butthurt that Garland didn't get a hearing. So would I be in their place. But Gorsuch is obviously qualified.

Yes, Sen. Wyden is miffed that Gorsuch wrote a book against "death with dignity," a.k.a. getting your doctor to prescribe you poison. (Apparently killing yourself any other way, whether with a gun or a plastic bag or via one of the late Kevorkian's killing machines, is now "death without dignity." One might also wait for death to come when it comes. But only the prescribed-poison method qualifies.)

People have been complaining that Gorsuch isn't answering questions forthrightly. But, in all honesty, who would today? Any questions on such topics are always and ever traps. Why step in when you needn't?

David Begley said...

Left Bank:

If three GOP Senators go with the Dems on this in order to preserve the filibuster rule, they are ruined politically. They know it. Maybe McCain and Lindsay, but I don't see a third. McCain just won reelection.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
...
...
There are three relevant votes- vote for cloture which requires 60, vote for confirmation which requires 50 plus Pence, and vote to change the rules of the Senate to disallow the filibuster which requires 50 plus Pence. A Democrat who claims to vote for confirmation appears to provide a vote for Gorsuch and a vote for cloture, so three of them don't overcome the filibuster with all Republicans voting for both. I think it dead certain, however, that all three of those will vote nay on the nuclear option, so the Republicans will need to provide at least 50 votes for the nuclear route.


I gotta say; this is a fair summary. Can't argue with it.

If you told me that Manchin, etc., will vote nay on nuke option, I wouldn't challenge you.

At the same time, I don't think any Republicans will back off the nuke option when push comes to shove.

And, I still say (as you have noted) that a cloture vote is different from the straight up-or-down vote on Gorsuch.

A month ago I predicted that a cloture vote would ultimately fail, that Gorsuch would get a vote, and that he'd be confirmed with 54-56 votes. That's still my position.


readering said...

The main argument for the Democrats to hold off is that they should keep their powder dry in case Trump nominates someone like Napolitano next time. but as the Miers debacle demonstrated, Republican Senators, goaded by the base, won't allow a Republican president to nominate a crony someone who is not seen to have sufficient originalist credentials. So there's nothing for the Democrats to wait for. Except a Democratic Senate and Democratic Administration. The Garland episode indicated that there won't be confirmed Supreme Court nominees any more with divided power between the executive and legislative branches. And precious few court of appeals nominees (which is crazy).

AprilApple said...

Bye bye Claire McCatkill(D-MO)

AprilApple said...

The Reid Rule cometh.

Pro-democrat hack press will ignore.

rhhardin said...

How come nobody calls it Rule 22?

That's what it was when I wrote a term paper on it ("Should Senate Rule 22 Be Repealed?") from a list of topics.

readering said...

I will be somewhat curious to find out afterwards whether Schumer was sincere when he said he didn't think Republicans would pull the trigger on the nuclear option. I doubt very much that he was. Which would be pointless of him when he could just have said that it's payback for Garland and leave it at that.

rhhardin said...

bitter partisan confrontation = Monty Python black knight scene.

David Begley said...

Mitch said Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. He has the votes to repeal Rule 22.

bagoh20 said...

"... sending the body hurtling toward a bitter partisan confrontation later this week," the NYT reports.

OMG! What would such a thing look like? It must be horrible, excruciatingly horrible in its banality - banality piled on top of normality, smothered in mediocrity, and topped with a spattering of sequels. This should be so exciting and informative, and fresh and interesting. Maybe it should run on all the networks and get huge ratings.

David Baker said...

Bold action terrifies republicans.

Yancey Ward said...

Readering,

Sincere, truly? Probably not, but he is also negotiating with at least 3 Republicans when he makes the statement, so it is a case where he stating his hope even if he might believe the hope is low probability.

I believe it is a mistake to filibuster Gorsuch, but one can make the argument that waiting for a more polarizing candidate would itself be a mistake- such a candidate might never come- the next Trump nomination might just be another Gorsuch, or might not be made at all. So I can't blame the Democrats for pushing it now- it does serve the purpose of firing up the base to some extent.

I Callahan said...

I have no doubt whatsoever that a sufficient number of Republican senators will go John Roberts and supplicate themselves before the fascist toddler party - and thereby geld THE key power November 8 gave Trump's supporters.

No way in hell. If they can get past the filibuster, there won't be a single GOP senator who'll vote against Gorsuch. Not one.

Michael K said...

I was convinced all along that Janice Rogers Brown should be nominated to the USSC. I know she is too old but I want to see Democrats filibuster a black woman nominee.

Paul said...

Nuke 'em baby. Nuke 'em high!

Steve Uhr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Static Ping said...

I will note that eliminating the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees does not really change anything from a traditional perspective. Supreme Court nominees have never been filibustered in the past. Even someone like Clarence Thomas, who only received 52 votes, was not filibustered. Robert Bork, who was treated horribly, was simply voted down. The only filibuster of note was the Abe Fortas one and (a) he was already on the Supreme Court and the filibuster was preventing his elevation to Chief Justice, (b) the filibustering side promised an eventual vote once the questions of importance were addressed, so this was using the filibuster in good faith (i.e. continuing a legitimate debate), (c) the filibuster was bipartisan, and (d) the ethics questions around Abe proved to be completely accurate and eventually forced his resignation.

Now if the filibuster was removed for legislation, then we get into ugly territory. The "nuclear option" here is simply restoring the status quo.

Amadeus 48 said...

Again, I'm with Chuck on this one. I think he has it figured right. The great thing about this one is that we are going to be able to see what happens (although not the horse-trading behind the scenes). For what it is worth, I think that all the GOPers will fall in line on the filibuster for the same reason that so many Dems will vote no on Gorsuch--if you don't vote with the party, you are letting down the people who nominated and elected you.
Manchin (WV), Heitcamp(ND), and Donnelly(IN) are history for sure if they don't vote for Gorsuch on the up-and-down vote.
McCaskill (MO) is playing with fire, but the GOP has a long history of Senate failure in Missouri. Brown (OH), Casey(PA), Stabenow -who may not run(MI), and Baldwin(WI) will not help themselves by voting for Gorsuch. I would think both Tester(MT) and Nelson(FL) would be nervous, but both have been around for awhile and know what they are doing.
So I think Chuck is right.

Gretchen said...

If the Democrats were honorable, I'd say don't end the filibuster, it is an important safeguard, however, if the Democrats were honorable they wouldn't be filibustering a well-qualified main stream candidate. I bet Gorsach's views are more mainstream than Ginsberg or Sotomayor.

Regardless of what the Republicans do, the Democrats will eliminate the filibuster when they regain control, which, eventually they will. Might as well get some decent justices in place now. You cannot play by the rules when your opponent cheats.

buwaya puti said...

The Democrats can offer something the Republicans can't - they have vast sums to bribe "endangered" Democrat senators with post-politics sinecures and investment opportunities. Unlimited corruption brings advantages in flexibility.

Matthew Sablan said...

"McCain may fret about the slippery slope, but when the opposition party -- which thought it was going to get unified control but miscalculated badly -- has gloated as hard as Democrats gloated about abolishing the filibuster at the first sign of resistance, you're already at the bottom of the slippery slope. You're done. The cows have already gone."

-- Exactly. I'm all for old school gentleman politics, but when the other side has Borked your candidates, agitated against them to deny you the ability to appoint a Latino judge, etc., etc., you have to just accept that not fighting on certain things just isn't acceptable.

Yancey Ward said...

When the Republicans were considering the nuclear option circa 2005 for the appeals court nominees like Ms.Brown, I predicted that they wouldn't use it and that the Democrats would use it the first opportunity they got. They did. The same applies here.

I will also make another prediction that seems outrageous- if Gorsuch is approved by the nuclear route, the 9th circuit will uphold an injunction issued preventing Gorsuch from taking his seat on SCOTUS.

Matthew Sablan said...

"They are vicious and perverted Stalinist swine, but the Democrats DO have party line discipline."

-- I doubt they'd even need a Stupakian Fig Leaf

Matthew Sablan said...

"I will be somewhat curious to find out afterwards whether Schumer was sincere when he said he didn't think Republicans would pull the trigger on the nuclear option."

-- I think he was. Republicans have rarely fought at the political level.

James Kahn said...

"I believe it is a mistake to filibuster Gorsuch, but one can make the argument that waiting for a more polarizing candidate would itself be a mistake"

I don't think that's the issue, it's who is being replaced. If Democrats are shrewd, they are only bluffing about the filibuster. They'll have little public support for it (since the court will still be balanced with Gorsuch), and the result will be the nuke option. There will be more support for a filibuster down the road if Trump tries to replace, say, Ginsburg with a strong conservative, and Rs will take correspondingly more heat for invoking the nuke option.

WisRich said...

Gretchen said..
Regardless of what the Republicans do, the Democrats will eliminate the filibuster when they regain control, which, eventually they will. Might as well get some decent justices in place now. You cannot play by the rules when your opponent cheats.

4/3/17, 2:29 PM.

But here's the thing. The Dem's wouldn't have to eliminate it because the Republicans never invoke cloture on a SCOTUS pick. They would just keep it and let the R's keep handcuffing themselves.

Chuck said...

I have another theory, particularly about this article in the NYT.

I think this story is the Times' way of ratcheting up pressure on Dems to follow through on a filibuster even if they haven't actually decided. So that later this week, any Dem who breaks rank on a filibuster will be accused of "flipping" for some reason.

This is a profoundly disturbing story to me, precisely because I don't really think it is true. It is a news story in search of creating news, not reporting it.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I will also make another prediction that seems outrageous- if Gorsuch is approved by the nuclear route, the 9th circuit will uphold an injunction issued preventing Gorsuch from taking his seat on SCOTUS."

To the lawyers on this site: Does the 9th circuit actually have the authority to block a SCOTUS nominee? That seems ridiculous, although that wouldn't stop the Dems.

Chuck said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"They are vicious and perverted Stalinist swine, but the Democrats DO have party line discipline."

-- I doubt they'd even need a Stupakian Fig Leaf


Did you just invoke the name of Bart Stupak?!?!?

Props, for congressional arcana.

AprilApple said...

Lefty glee club shouts YAY!

**oh crap....

Harry Reid's Parting Shot: Dems Will Nuke The Filibuster For SCOTUS

mockturtle said...

sending the body hurtling toward a bitter partisan confrontation later this week

Well, shit! We wouldn't want that! [eye roll]

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
"I will also make another prediction that seems outrageous- if Gorsuch is approved by the nuclear route, the 9th circuit will uphold an injunction issued preventing Gorsuch from taking his seat on SCOTUS."

To the lawyers on this site: Does the 9th circuit actually have the authority to block a SCOTUS nominee? That seems ridiculous, although that wouldn't stop the Dems.


You could file a lawsuit in any District Court in the western states of the Ninth. You'd then get assigned in a blind draw. And then anything could happen. One would think that filing in DC, with any appeal to be heard by the DC Circuit, would be more likely. (Where -- lol -- Judge Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge of the Circuit.)

No, I don't think any of that is going to happen. But I suppose some crafty partisan may be thinking, "All we have to do, is get it through a District Court and then into a favorable Circuit for appeal. If they rule our way, and it goes up to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has to recuse himself, leaving the Court at Eight (4-4) and a tie goes to the underlying Circuit.

Lulz. Now you know what law students do when they are really supposed to be studying the Uniform Commercial Code.

AprilApple said...

Listening to clips of Check Todd on Hewitt's show. My god that man is a hack.

AprilApple said...

it's only bitter and partisan when the GOP does it.

When the D's do it, it's a living breathing progressive move towards sweetness and light.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...

Here's a good example of bad journalism by the formerly esteemed, NYT.

They don't mention the grounds to support a filibuster. Was Bork filibustered? Was Thomas filibustered?

The Dems have no valid grounds to oppose Gorsuch on the merits, yet the NYT skates over this.

Mike Sylwester said...

exiledonmainstreet at 2:49 PM

Does the 9th circuit actually have the authority to block a SCOTUS nominee?

For sure, so-called "Judge" James Robart would -- if he had the opportunity -- impose a temporary restraining order preventing our President Trump from placing Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court.

Brando said...

"I don't think that's the issue, it's who is being replaced. If Democrats are shrewd, they are only bluffing about the filibuster. They'll have little public support for it (since the court will still be balanced with Gorsuch), and the result will be the nuke option. There will be more support for a filibuster down the road if Trump tries to replace, say, Ginsburg with a strong conservative, and Rs will take correspondingly more heat for invoking the nuke option."

See, that was my initial thought too--why do something that's generally unpopular and more importantly won't actually work? But then you have to ask what Walter Sobchuck would say--who stands to benefit?

So filibuster may not be popular among most regular folks but it's very popular among Dem grassroots and donors. This is all about them.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"You could file a lawsuit in any District Court in the western states of the Ninth. You'd then get assigned in a blind draw. And then anything could happen. One would think that filing in DC, with any appeal to be heard by the DC Circuit, would be more likely. (Where -- lol -- Judge Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge of the Circuit.)

No, I don't think any of that is going to happen. But I suppose some crafty partisan may be thinking, "All we have to do, is get it through a District Court and then into a favorable Circuit for appeal. If they rule our way, and it goes up to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has to recuse himself, leaving the Court at Eight (4-4) and a tie goes to the underlying Circuit."

All that to block the appointment of a man who is clearly qualified for the job.

Jesus. Tarring and feathering would be too good for these Democrat jackals.

gadfly said...

In 2013, Harry Reed approved the use of the "nuclear option", which allowed the Senate to make rule changes with a simple majority vote. The Dems voted to suspend the use of the filibuster as a means to frustrate efforts to delay or defeat votes by invoking cloture which requires 60 votes to get passage. The change did not apply to Supreme Court nominations or to legislation.

So in order to get a change in the current rule, McConnell would have to obtain support from at least 49 and possibly 50 Republicans to vote for suspension of the current filibuster that applies to SCOTUS nominations. There is a good possibility that WV Senator Joe Manchin will vote with the Republicans on a rule change.

Michael K said...

"So filibuster may not be popular among most regular folks but it's very popular among Dem grassroots and donors. This is all about them."

I agree. A lot of this stuff is driven by fund raising and you have to understand that to make sense of all this.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...This is a profoundly disturbing story to me, precisely because I don't really think it is true. It is a news story in search of creating news, not reporting it.

Welcome to the NYTimes, Chuck.

Achilles said...

One thing we all need to remember is that Democrats aren't the only people who need the filibuster. The Republicans need it too.

If republicans don't have the democrats in the senate to blame for blocking their agenda they might actually have to do something. They already look like tools failing to repeal obamacare this would just expose the problem more.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Props, for congressional arcana"

Nothing arcane about "lifelong pro-lifer" Rep. Bart Stupak allowing himself to be "fooled" by obama's promise of a binding executive order and voting for obamacare.

That's the thing with so many "lifelong something or others". Often they aren't.

Bob Loblaw said...

As Althouse knows, I have been following the Committee debate all morning. I hear all of the Democrats saying that they will "oppose the nomination" and that they will be "voting against Judge Gorsuch." There has been almost zero discussion from the Democrats about filibusters.

Nobody in the Senate wants to get rid of the filibuster, Democrat or Republican. It's a cynical sleight-of-hand that allows Senators to vote against a bill and vote for it at the same time. That way they can take care of their donors without paying the price, politically.

robother said...

I looked under the Stupakian fig leaf. Never look under the Stupakian fig leaf.

Unknown said...

Good.. MCConnells and the GOP senate needs an early spine test.

khesanh0802 said...

Off topic, but of general interest: http://www.startribune.com/health-plans-in-minnesota-saw-their-worse-year-in-a-decade/417976423/

Some key points:
Minnesota’s individual market, however, has had one of the worst experiences among all states in terms of enrollment declines. Earlier this year, the Minnesota Council of Health Plans reported the individual market had shrunk by about 30 percent.

In the individual market, Blue Cross said it posted a loss of $142 million for 2016, compared to a $265 million deficit the previous year. The decline mirrored the decline in enrollment, Blue Cross said, rather than an improvement in the business.

“Our HMO expanded its Medicaid presence across the state in 2016, and in turn, saw our enrollment triple,” Michael Guyette, the Blue Cross chief executive, said in a statement. “With unprecedented growth in Medicaid utilization levels, current reimbursement rates are not sustainable for the marketplace.

To sum up Mn health Insurance companies are going broke while the state has just appropriated $542 million in premium assistance to those seeking insurance. Can't last.

To keep with the subject. If McConnell faces a filibuster he will go nuclear and even the hardiest traditionalist will go along because the filibuster is of no use to anyone in these political times. Gorsuch will, as Mitch said, be confirmed and one of the major reasons for voting Trump will be fulfilled.

Chuck said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Chuck said..."This is a profoundly disturbing story to me, precisely because I don't really think it is true. It is a news story in search of creating news, not reporting it."

Welcome to the NYTimes, Chuck.


You think I am surprised, or something? I have been asking Althouse for years why she seems so stuck on the Times (instead of the Journal) and why Meet the Press (instead of Fox News Sunday).

It's cultural, no doubt. She likes perusing the Times obits; and art/society stories.

But I have been reading the Times as though it were an enemy publication for about thirty years.

I am not "disturbed" in this case because the Times has let me down in any way; it is because I think the Times works, on people who care about it. Like Senate Dems, their financial backers and their base voters.

David said...

"Does the 9th circuit actually have the authority to block a SCOTUS nominee?"

No, and they know they do not. Is there a district judge who might do so? Possibly? But I doubt that even the 9th would allow that decision to be sustained on appeal.

David said...

"I will be somewhat curious to find out afterwards whether Schumer was sincere when he said he didn't think Republicans would pull the trigger on the nuclear option."

You will never find that out. Only he knows and he has no credibility on the issue.

Bob Loblaw said...

I think any court meddling with the SCOTUS nomination process would provoke an instant constitutional crisis. The constitution puts literally no restrictions on nominees, and at some point that "emanations from penumbras" stuff looks a lot like a naked exercise of political power.

James Kahn said...

"Was Bork filibustered? Was Thomas filibustered?"

Bork was defeated, no filibuster necessary. As for Thomas, I think the Ds didn't like the optics of filibustering a black nominee, kind of recalling Strom Thurmond and the like.

Clyde said...

Nuke 'em 'til they glow.

Sebastian said...

There's only one question, namely whether McConnell can go nuclear by holding on to two of the four squishes--Collins, Murkowski, Graham, and McCain. Judging by his recent demeanor, I assume he can. I just hope he ain't bluffing more than Chuck S.

Bob Ellison said...

Orrin Hatch is 6'2"! I've have thought 5'10.5".

Maybe a little off-topic.

Oso Negro said...

Gorsuch up the ass, Democrats. Fuck you now and forever.

Static Ping said...

If Graham is bluffing, he is sure bluffing big.

Clark said...

I was worried about Graham until a few minutes ago. It sounds like he is ready to do what needs to be done.

n.n said...

Democrats are drawing scalpels.

Mary Beth said...

sending the body hurtling

I can only think that we would benefit by more Senate bodies hurtling.

eric said...

Reuters is reporting McCain ready to go nuclear on filibuster

AprilApple said...

Harry Reid's finest moment.

Inga said...

Good! End the filibuster once and for all.

traditionalguy said...

Gorsuch, Gorsuch and Gorsuch is Filabustering the Cable News Media to avoid the story on the Secret Police operation run by Obama. But they think they have to run Mr Hollywood Justice's picture, and his demeanor wins. It is all working.

Are we tired of winning yet?

Michael McNeil said...

The poster up-thread who suggested that there is no downside for the Dems in filibustering Gorsuch is quite correct — if resulting Republican changes to the cloture rule only affect Supreme Court nominees. I think that Democrats need to hurt as a penalty for invoking a filibuster in the case of such an eminently well qualified nominee as he. Consequently I suggest that the Senate Republicans also and simultaneously abolish the filibuster with regard to conventional legislative acts (bills). Let's see if the Democrats feel so happy then about forcing the matter!

Mark O said...

After Obama, anything goes.

Danno said...

Blogger khesanh0802 said...Off topic, but of general interest: http://www.startribune.com/health-plans-in-minnesota-saw-their-worse-year-in-a-decade/417976423/

Khesan, thanks for sharing. I read the Enemy paper, the Pioneer Press.

Matthew Sablan said...

McCain going nuclear begrudgingly is a great get for Republicans. They can't give in to Democrats rhetorical hostage taking to not nuke the filibuster for the left to let Gorsuch in. They chose this fight, if they want to preserve the filibuster, stop perverting the use of it.

Kevin said...

"... sending the body hurtling toward a bitter partisan confrontation..."

Why the hype? It's not going to be bitter. It's going to be very orderly. A motion will be made. A motion will be seconded. A motion will be voted on. A motion will be passed. This will only hurt for a second, they will be told. And it will! Over in an instant.

Oh Elizabeth Warren will let out a war cry. It will be eagerly viewed by the rubes on Upworthy. But what is new? This is what the Dems have chosen. Life will move on. They will continue to raise funds as naturally as cows in the field chewing grass. They will have "done something", they will tell themselves, as they righteously eat steaks with their K Street backslappers.

To the people at home, they will have "done something".

rcocean said...

Why should anyone want to preserve the use of the filibuster? The real reason the filibuster survived the 19th century was because the South wanted it to save
segregation.

We have 3 branches of Government. That's enough to limit the "tyranny of the majority".

In any case, why should any President need 60 votes to confirm a justice? Crazy. Just limit the filibuster to legislation, if you want to have it at all.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

You know what would be great. The day after the filibuster is nuked, Ginsberg or one of the lib justices kick it.

The wailing and lamentations would be unbelievable.

Kevin said...

"One thing we all need to remember is that Democrats aren't the only people who need the filibuster. The Republicans need it too."

Yes, but the Dems have already shown that the minute they find it convenient, they will take it away from the minority party. The press will say that the filibuster died this week, but it died with Harry Reid.

It was this week they finally stopped pretending and threw the rotting corpse into the street. That's how honest reporters will tell the story.

Francisco D said...

@Chuck,

You have a lot more confidence in McCain, Murkowski and Collins than I do.McCain loves getting applause from the NYT and WAPO for tweaking conservatives. Murkowski and Collins are both really RINOs, not just what someone cries when a Republican takes a principled non-conservative stand.

Graham would never show his face back in SC if he voted against the nuclear option.

Is there a single Democrat who would vote for the nuclear option? I doubt it. A few will vote for Gorsuch, but not ending the 60 vote filibuster. They can defend that back in their red states.

Drago said...

Blogger Inga: "Good! End the filibuster once and for all"

LOL

Yeah, go with "I meant that"! That's believable.

Trumpit said...

"You know what would be great. The day after the filibuster is nuked, Ginsberg or one of the lib justices kick it." -Thing 1

"Gorsuch up the ass, Democrats. Fuck you now and forever." -Thing 2


This is a clear reminder of the deplorable Republican scum that we are in "nuclear" war with. The ultraconservatives on the Supreme Court will make the lives of the deplorable and irredeemable Republicans suck testicles (the conservative jurists are all XY chromosomed) and eat dirt. Good luck with that.

Michael said...

Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when Southern Democrats attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 75 hours, including a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

both from Wikipedia

The Dems are old hands at obstruction. Good thing Gorsuch isn't black

Inga said...

Blogger Balfegor said...
Re: Achilles:

"Democrats will never be a majority in that chamber again anyway while it matters.

"On the contrary, even if they don't regain the majority in 2018, I expect them to do so in 2020 or 2024 or so . . . and that's precisely why Republicans should go ahead and abolish the filibuster. At this point, Democrats have telegraphed as strongly as they could possibly telegraph that they're going to eliminate the filibuster as soon as they have simultaneous control of both the White House and the Senate."

This, and this.

"Blogger Michael McNeil said...
The poster up-thread who suggested that there is no downside for the Dems in filibustering Gorsuch is quite correct — if resulting Republican changes to the cloture rule only affect Supreme Court nominees."

Bob Loblaw said...

"ultraconservatives" on the court? What planet is this?

buwaya puti said...

McCain and Murkowski are most sincerely sold to the highest bidder. In McCains case I have a good idea who those are, but Murkowski is uncertain. I would have thought Trump had made a decent settlement with that lot already, but TBD.
Collins, I don't know. Someone owns that Senator but I don't know who.

MaxedOutMama said...

Well, we all know what's going to happen if they do. So the drama is dead, isn't it?

If I were the Dems I'd skip this one and fight the next nominee. This one I don't think they can win, because Gorsuch is really pretty impressive.

(I don't like SC justices, and I think the whole idea you can predict much about their votes is wrong. I do think you can look at their methods if they have significant history. Gorsuch won't generally be making it up as he goes along. IMO we have effed up our legal system and the SC has too much power. This not always the fault of the court, though. At times it is also due to other branches farting around for political effect and the court getting stuck with it.)

Francisco D said...

Who is the dipshit "Trumpit?"

Do we need an "Adults Only" sign?

Trumpit said...

Trump and Sessions will deport you to Mexico, Francisco. Pack your bags.

MaxedOutMama said...

Achilles - the more things change the more they remain the same!

I assume the Dems will get back in power in about six years. Also if they won't, hopefully another workable party will arise. A good segment of the GOP in Congress are trash that should be left out by the curb for removal. I would hate to see them get any more comfy than they are right now.

Francisco D said...

Trumpit,

Ask your high school teacher if you can read "Atlas Shrugged." That is, if you can read and you have eat least average comprehension.

Therein you will find the source of my screen name.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

MOM said,


If I were the Dems I'd skip this one and fight the next nominee. This one I don't think they can win, because Gorsuch is really pretty impressive.


I agree completely. The Dems seem to be on some kind of suicide run lately. Obamacare, Filibuster buster, Hillary, progressive totaltarianism, Russian psychosis, riots, BLM, SJW, etc.

I've never seen a political party have a nervous breakdown before.


Guildofcannonballs said...

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS SIR:

DENVER – Michael Bennet, Colorado’s Democratic U.S. senator, opposes a Democrat filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch but still hasn’t definitively said whether he’ll vote for or against the Colorado judge for a Supreme Court seat.

Bennet announced Monday that he would oppose a filibuster that is growing increasingly likely in the Senate, as Bennet becomes just the fourth Democrat to say they would oppose such a move by the Democratic colleagues.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/colorado-sen-michael-bennet-opposes-filibuster-of-neil-gorsuch-use-of-nuclear-option

Francisco D said...

For Trumpit and others who have never read a book,

Yo soy Francisco Domingo Carlos Andreas Sebastian d'Anconia. Danny Taggart is the love of my life and destroying crony capitalism (aka The Deep State) is my mission. At least that is the character I admire in my fantasy life.

My ethnic identity is closer to Ragnar Danneskold. Our mission is the same.

All I ask of the government, in John Galt's terms is "Get the hell out of my way."

AprilApple said...

Bennet(D) is a tea party hating turd.

Francisco D said...

Danny = Dagny

oops! Damn spellcheck.

rcocean said...

"One thing we all need to remember is that Democrats aren't the only people who need the filibuster. The Republicans need it too."

I've never read more stupid shit in my entire 8 years at Althouse. I got news for you Dummy, the Democrats already pushed the "nuclear option" in 2013, and have made it clear that no Republican is going to prevent them from getting the Judges/Nominees they want.

Is there anything stupider than a Republican?

Matthew Sablan said...

If I thought the Democrats would ever let Republicans use the powers given the minority again, I'd be hesitant to get on board the nuclear option. Unfortunately, the left and Democrats have burned all trust with Republicans who get burned, constantly, for trusting them. C'est la vie.

rcocean said...

Look, the REAL reason McConnell and Miss Lindsey and McCrazy support the filibuster is because they're not really conservatives. They WANT the Democrats to have a veto on Republican nominees and judges. They WANT to be able to say that while they *personally* want Conservative Judge X to confirmed, gosh darn it, they need X numbers of Democrats, and he's TOO CONSERVATIVE and he'll be be filibustered. So, gosh darn it, a more liberal judge will have to be nominated. That's what it all about. Remember: McCrazy has said Alito was TOO CONSERVATIVE.

And that's why McCrazy always votes for Democrat judges - no matter how left-wing - but still supports the filibuster.

Tim said...

Democrats have put up lightweights like Kagan and Sotomayer that the Republican's dutifly pass with large majorities. True legal scholars like Thomas are vilified. A real first rate mind like Miguel Estrada was not even allowed onto a circuit bench. An Immigrant (!) and magna cum laude graduate of Havahd, don't ya know.
And yes, of course the Demos will attempt to refuse Gorsuch a seat on the Supreme court

Matt said...

Boring. Doesn't affect Americans. Go enjoy life.

Mark said...

Now on the next pick, Trump won't think he needs to play this stupid and delusional game of picking a somewhat centrist nominee that the Dems might acquiesce in. If they are going to oppose anyone and everyone, just go hard right.

Tim said...

when was the last Demo judicial candidate stonewalled by the Repubs?

mockturtle said...

Francisco D: Danny = Dagny

I was just going to ask if this was the gay version of Atlas Shrugged. ;-)

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

This is how Repubicans sell the idea of granting their own sense of entitlement and privilege to the voters that they want to dupe into believing that they can become rich:

Holding up a president's nominee for the year it takes for his term to end is somehow noble, principled behavior whereas fillibustering their own extremist, trucker-killing nominee is not.

Repubicans. Not doing shit for voters (indeed, aiming to price 24 million of them out of the health insurance market). Just imbuing into them their own useless sense of entitlement and privilege instead. Causing crises and then blaming their Democratic successors wisely tasked with successfully cleaning up their predecessors' inevitable fuck-ups for not making things better fast enough. No sense of responsibility except to their hold on power and their seats. That's it.

They don't care about anything else. Not their country, not its people, and not to any set of principles at all.

Matthew Sablan said...

"when was the last Demo judicial candidate stonewalled by the Repubs?"

-- About three or four months ago, under the Biden rule.

Etienne said...

If I was Trump, I'd just let the Supreme Court go empty.

Save a lot of money he can spend on the wall. Each Justice probably costs the Treasury $1 million per year.

wwww said...

Look, the REAL reason McConnell and Miss Lindsey and McCrazy support the filibuster is because they're not really conservatives.



It's not clear what McConnell's ideology is, or if he has an ideology beyond free speech issues. For sure he doesn't care about social conservative issues. Not sure what it means that he was an enthusiastic strategist and supporter of the medicare prescription plan. I don't think he cares overmuch about the deficit.

Back when he started he was a liberal to moderate Republican. From what I can tell, he enjoys playing chess and winning. Not sure if he wants to do anything with the power, aside from win the next election.

n.n said...

Gorsuch is an American originalist who does not receive his religious/moral or statutory instruction from the twilight fringe, including [class] diversity, constructing congruences, and sacrificing [wholly] innocent human lives for political progress. He is, however, a believer that Catastrophic Anthropogenic... Immigration Reform is forced by social justice adventurism without principles, without commitment, and egos run amuck.

Tim said...


"when was the last Demo judicial candidate stonewalled by the Repubs?"

-- About three or four months ago, under the Biden rule

repubs were also in the majority

cronus titan said...

Whether they filibuster now or the next nominee does not matter. Is there any serious doubt that Democrats would use the nuclear option if a Democratic President, with a Democratic Senate, nominated a Justice? They would do it in a heartbeat. There is no guarantee that Trump will get another nominee so the risk of fanatical political opposition is not all that high. As well, there is no reason for the GOP to disarm unilaterally when they know what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot. Might as well do it now.

That said, in lieu of the nuclear option, I am partial to requiring an actual, no kidding filibuster and knock off this stupidity of a Senator announcing a filibuster and everyone pretending that one is occurring. A filibuster is supposed to be a rare procedural device reserved for the most important of issues, not garden variety votes.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Gorsuch is an American originalist who does not receive his religious/moral or statutory instruction from the twilight fringe, including [class] diversity, constructing congruences, and sacrificing [wholly] innocent human lives for political progress.

The truck driver should have DIED for the sake of his corporate mission! Fire him! Goruch morals are VERY mainstream! Lots of Americans believe in firing people who aren't willing to die on the road in frozen snow for their jobs.

You people's brains are fried/fucked. Get real.

AprilApple said...

Joe Biden rule, balls. eat it.



AprilApple said...

It's only awesome and acceptable when the d-crats do it.

AprilApple said...

Listening to Chuck Todd(D) whine about Merrick Garlands's poor treatment was a hysterical spectacle of media bias. Oh do shut the fuck up, asshole.

Mr. Majestyk said...

As cronus said, no need to nuke the filibuster. Just make them take the floor and hold it . . . And hold it . . . And hold it. The country will see them obstructing. Eventually, they'll give up, Gorsuch will take a seat on the Court, and the Republicans can say "we didn't nuke the filibuster."

Lewis Wetzel said...

R&B wrote:
The truck driver should have DIED for the sake of his corporate mission! Fire him! Goruch morals are VERY mainstream! Lots of Americans believe in firing people who aren't willing to die on the road in frozen snow for their jobs.
It's hard to read this through the flecks of spittle, but I believe that R&B is proposing that the job of judges is not to determine whether something is legal or not, but to write laws.

rcocean said...

"Eventually, they'll give up, Gorsuch will take a seat on the Court, and the Republicans can say "we didn't nuke the filibuster."

Yeah, that's the George "I want Hillary elected" Will plan.

Remember, we need to keep the Filibuster, 'cause Democrats want it.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The truck driver should have DIED for the sake of his corporate mission!"

-- Take your issue up with the company or the legislature. If judges are going to bail out our elected officials whenever they make a mistake, there's no point having them.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

It's hard to read this through the flecks of spittle, but I believe that R&B is proposing that the job of judges is not to determine whether something is legal or not, but to write laws.

You often have trouble reading. Nothing new. It's just a question of whether the laws exist to serve men or if men exist to serve the laws. If life has so little value to you, there are places other than America where you'd be happier.

rcocean said...

Right now it looks like this:

Democrats in Power - No filibuster. 50 Democrats can do anything.
Republicans in Power - Filibuster OK. Republicans need 60 votes to do anything.

Yep, I can see why a Republican would be against getting rid of the filibuster.

Not.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also: Reading a lot about the case, both parties (driver and company) made a lot of errors, like letting his fuel get low, waiting until the last minute to call, not being prepared for the weather, and the company not keeping a tighter eye on their truckers, not being willing to compromise and not having a better emergency response crew.

Ultimately, they both made mistakes, and Gorsuch is of the opinion that the law does not require the company to act a certain way, which is at least a more valid reason than that the ACA is both a tax and not a tax, mattering on the needs of the statute at the time.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Nothing to do with what the Democrats want. I prefer keeping the filibuster to deprive the media and the Democrats of talking points against the Republicans. Which we will never hear the end of. And still getting Gorsuch on the Court.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

-- Take your issue up with the company or the legislature. If judges are going to bail out our elected officials whenever they make a mistake, there's no point having them.

Nah, I think judges have an ethical responsibility to not allow a state based on individual rights to devolve into a hellhole where corporations are presumed to have the power to compel you to die simply for the supposed "honor" of a paycheck. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, Chairman Grasshopper.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Also: Reading a lot about the case, both parties (driver and company) made a lot of errors, like letting his fuel get low, waiting until the last minute to call, not being prepared for the weather, and the company not keeping a tighter eye on their truckers, not being willing to compromise and not having a better emergency response crew.

Always a good excuse for a powerful corporation to compel a lowly trucker to freeze to death, right?

You hate the powerless and love the powerful. That's all "Republicanism" is.

Lewis Wetzel said...

R&B wrote:
You often have trouble reading. Nothing new. It's just a question of whether the laws exist to serve men or if men exist to serve the laws. If life has so little value to you, there are places other than America where you'd be happier.

The law and the constitution are the only protection the little guy has against dehumanizing capitalism and a literally and figuratively rapacious wannabe aristocracy.

Matthew Sablan said...

Toothless: Stop being an idiot. Judges have an ethical responsibility to follow the law as written and find if something is or is not constitutional. Let me lay out some facts about the case and see if you knew them.

OSHA found no violations; there's even disputes on what was and was not working at the time. I wouldn't have fired the guy, but literally leaving after calling for help is almost one of the first things people tell you not to do. Especially since the guy, who claimed to be freezing, was well enough to get out of the cab and unhitch the vehicle. The company, unwisely, fired him -- but it was reasonably able to considered as within their rights.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I'm so glad Hillary didn't win. Finally! A president who gets his judicial nominee picks from organizations that understand how little power corporations have over the rights of workers and just normal, individual people. Trump really understands what it's all about.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, reading what some truckers said in several opinion pieces/when interviewed, they're significantly harder on the guy than I'm being.

Matthew Sablan said...

"You hate the powerless and love the powerful. That's all "Republicanism" is."

-- See, I'm one of the few people who actually try and engage you, but then you trot out strawmen and nonsense like this solely to derail the conversation from anything potentially useful.

Matthew Sablan said...

But, that's alright. Job complete. This thread is now pretty much ruined for anything productive. Good job.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Toothless: Stop being an idiot. Judges have an ethical responsibility to follow the law as written and find if something is or is not constitutional.

Right. And Christians have an ethical responsibility to follow the Bible as written. Which is why there aren't hundreds of different sects of Christianity. Obviously!

Let me lay out some facts about the case and see if you knew them.

OSHA found no violations; there's even disputes on what was and was not working at the time. I wouldn't have fired the guy, but literally leaving after calling for help is almost one of the first things people tell you not to do. Especially since the guy, who claimed to be freezing, was well enough to get out of the cab and unhitch the vehicle. The company, unwisely, fired him -- but it was reasonably able to considered as within their rights.


Right. He should have waited until his hands and limbs could no longer move before saving himself. The law is the law. OSHA (another agency that of course Trump has to gut) protects everyone from all!

Lewis Wetzel said...

You want to change the law, elect legislators. This is a democracy, R&B. You seem to have a problem with the law as written by the peoples' representatives and signed into law by the elected chief executive.
Maybe you could find a home in some other country where a just, wise king dictates policy? Though I suspect unless that king was yourself, you wouldn't be happy for long.

Real American said...

Schmuck Schumer has basically admitted that this is driven but loony left base of the party and he is so weak that he has to go along.

Matthew Sablan said...

The point of the OSHA comments, by the way for people not deliberately trying to ruin this place, is that Gorsuch's findings are not radical without any basis in reality. He, in fact, has some solid basis for not thinking the guy was liable to freeze to death any moment. Once you understand that it is reasonable, and in fact, many of the facts support that interpretation, it becomes not a callous "Freeze for the almighty dollar!" decision and a decision that pits the driver's rights against the company's rights; which in this case, Gorsuch feels that the driver had the right to leave, but the company ALSO had the right to fire him.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

-- See, I'm one of the few people who actually try and engage you, but then you trot out strawmen and nonsense like this solely to derail the conversation from anything potentially useful.

I'm calling your bluff. Or their bluff - the people who tell you what to think. Did Gorsuckit find that his life wasn't in danger? If not, then that's the end of discussion. The corporations' rights come before the duty of a person (and his employer) to keep him from dying.

For god's sake, your side just fought tooth and nail to make sure that ACA reform meant pricing 24 million souls out of the insurance market. The House Speaker called that "freedom." The "freedom" to be priced out of a market that literally keeps people alive.

You people are just blind to the consequences of your actions. That's all. You literally don't care what the consequences are. You can't be bothered with them. Think they're too distracting. Keep you from feeling like an awesome person.

But bystanders have to wonder how you feel you can uphold an ethical republic otherwise. After all, they're always the ones that have to vote in non-Republicans to clean up the deadly messes that careless Republicans can't seem to stop making. Why is that? How many Americans do you feel you have to kill or allow to die to be a good Republican? Just give me a ballpark figure. Thanks.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Right. And Christians have an ethical responsibility to follow the Bible as written."

-- You literally have never studied any amount of the New Testament or Christian theology to say something like this, except again, as a deliberate trollish attempt to derail the conversation.

Matthew Sablan said...

"For god's sake, your side just fought tooth and nail to make sure that ACA reform meant pricing 24 million souls out of the insurance market. The House Speaker called that "freedom." The "freedom" to be priced out of a market that literally keeps people alive."

-- The ACA was already pricing people out of the insurance market, and at gun point forcing people to pay for something they did not want or could not afford.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

You want to change the law, elect legislators. This is a democracy, R&B.

You're an ass. This is too big and complicated a country to keep agencies from the rulemaking business that even Scalia allowed them to do. Gorsuckit wants to turn that upside down. He's too much of a chickenshit pussy to admit it. But his rulings show that he has no common sense.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Why is that? How many Americans do you feel you have to kill or allow to die to be a good Republican?"

-- And this is why people have given up talking to you. You're a caricature of a person at best. If you actually think this, you're a sad person who thinks the world is Cartoon Heroes vs. Cartoon Villains.

But that's OK. You succeeded at your goal. This thread has been ruined. Go feel good about yourself for ruining something.

Lewis Wetzel said...

pretty much all of R&B's 9:14 was all rage-induced assertion.
You're bad! I hate you! Bad, bad, bad! Your freedom is my enemy! Die, die, die, fellow citizen!

Gospace said...

I see a lot of people stating the court should be "balanced". I, for one, don't want a "balanced" court. I want a court with 9 justices who don't interpret the Constitution, but who read it and rule on what it says, not what they want it to say. And where it's silent, say so, and rule accordingly.

Penumbras and emanations and invisible ink between the lines have brought great social discord to us. The Constitution doesn't speak to every little issue like some think it does. Those issues it doesn't speak to are better left to the legislatures and the people, not invented words and concepts that aren't there.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The ACA was already pricing people out of the insurance market,

24 million of them?!!!

See. This is the part where you reveal your Republican love of innumeracy. I wonder what was the reason for rushing quickly before there could be a CBO report on that one. I wonder...

Your faction is an alliance between the stupid and the evil and the greedy. While you're there making excuses for the evil and the greedy, MORE people die. Many more. But it's a good thing that you hate numbers because then you don't have to feel upset about agreeing with that.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Go feel good about yourself for ruining something.

Like ACA reform?

Like a judiciary with any moral legitimacy?

You're on your own with those, buddy.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Quoting R&B:
Blah blah blah hate . . . hate . . . blah blah . . . more hate . . . blah blah blah . . . to the camps with you . . . enemies of the people . . . even more hate . . .

Bob Loblaw said...

Like a judiciary with any moral legitimacy?

I don't want a judiciary with "moral legitimacy". I want them to maintain the machinery of government.

Congress makes the laws.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Your freedom is my enemy!

My name is Lewis Wetzel and the only freedom I perceive or respect is the freedom to impoverish and/or kill people.

Matthew Sablan said...

Actually, about 28 million didn't have insurance in 2015; we don't know how many of the 13 million people who gained insurance did so because the law forced them too, or what hardships they face paying for substandard insurance (not care, mind you, just insurance). Mind you, of that 13 million, it does not come anywhere near the 30 million that were estimated to gain. We know very little about the long-term effects that the ACA will have; we do know from all previous models of the U.S. government providing or forcing medical care (Veterans Affairs, Medicare/caid), that they are not efficient at it, and people die from it.

If the government were more competent, maybe we should give them more unchecked power. They need to earn that trust though, not ram it through because they can.

To be fair, the way Republicans handled the ACA repeal was about as bad as the way Democrats handled voting for the ACA. Lucky for us, the Republicans actually learned from the previous failures and didn't pass something to see what was in it.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I don't want a judiciary with "moral legitimacy". I want them to maintain the machinery of government.

Congress makes the laws.


Congress makes the money. Corporations make the laws.

They also get to make early graves and mass poverty, thanks to guys like Lewis Wetzel and Matt Sablan.

Absolute power to the plutocracy. People can't have rights when corporations are involved. I know that's what you people believe.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Like a judiciary with any moral legitimacy?"

-- It isn't my fault that the Democrats decided Borking Bork, having racist motivations to deny Miguel Estrada a seat, were racially motivated to smear Clarence Thomas, and then proceeded to use racial innuendo to gin up hate and distrust towards him have forced Republicans, who by the way, could have nuked the filibuster the moment they gained power, but instead gave the Democrats a chance to prove they were responsible people, and then Democrat leadership proved they weren't, are now removing it because we know that the Democrats will remove it once in the majority, and it is just stupid to pretend that they actually CARE about judicial reasoning beyond "will do what the Party wants."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Congress makes the money. Corporations make the laws."

-- This is stupid. Corporations give money to influence law makers, because law makers have the power. People do not send tribute to their lessers; the lessers give tribute to their rulers to influence them. You want corporations to give less money to law makers?

Stop giving law makers so much power.

Matthew Sablan said...

"They also get to make early graves and mass poverty, thanks to guys like Lewis Wetzel and Matt Sablan."

-- Why? I said I wouldn't have fired the trucker. Try to actually read what people say.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

who gained insurance did so because the law forced them too

There was no FORCE, you liar. There was a tax and a relief offered from the tax for not fucking up the public good. This is just basic society 101. When you create a negative externality, collectivizing its costs onto others is inefficient and morally wrong.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

People do not send tribute to their lessers; the lessers give tribute to their rulers to influence them. You want corporations to give less money to law makers?

Stop giving law makers so much power.


The only way to do this is to disband the constitution and the republic and to live in anarchy, you dummy. Legislators, to whatever extent they can be said to have power, have that because THE LAWS have power. So you don't even respect THE LAW (as a concept) and think you've got some whizbang cockamamie philosophy about how your platonic ideal of a judge is going to interpret it.

Asinine.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Your freedom is my enemy!"

My name is Lewis Wetzel and the only freedom I perceive or respect is the freedom to impoverish and/or kill people.


Told you so!
There is hardly a thing more tedious than a political philosophy which says my freedom is more important than your freedom.
Tedious because it is so predictable and unimaginative. It is the political philosophy of an uneducated barbarian or a small child.

Matthew Sablan said...

"There was no FORCE, you liar. There was a tax and a relief offered from the tax for not fucking up the public good. "

-- There was no force because Obama illegally continued to push back the consequences. The tax was a penalty, and the consequences written in the law were illegally ignored because the Obama administration realized they were punitive, and instead of amending it, just decided to rule by fiat. So, yes. There were no consequences in the way that if you steal from someone and don't get caught, you won't suffer consequences.

"The only way to do this is to disband the constitution and the republic and to live in anarchy, you dummy."

-- "So much power" =/= "No power." Read please.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

There is hardly a thing more tedious than a political philosophy which says my freedom is more important than your freedom.

Well, when it involves my "freedom" to not be priced out of the very insurance market that keeps me alive, then people stop giving a fuck about your abstract and not very real idea of "freedom." People are funny like that when it comes to their lives. They'll kill you when you threaten theirs and there's not a damn thing your cry of "FREEDOM!" can do about it, Braveheart.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

-- "So much power" =/= "No power." Read please.

Quantify, please.

You know you think any and all government is too much. You will never define an "amount" that you'll agree is right. It's like cooking with Stevie Wonder. Fuck proportions!

Like I said. Innumerate.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Well, when it involves my "freedom" to not be priced out of the very insurance market that keeps me alive, then people stop giving a fuck about your abstract and not very real idea of "freedom.""

-- Then you should support removing the ACA, replacing it with several other smaller bills that encourage things like cross-state competition, tax-favored HSAs and Small Business Health Insurance pools to allow small business conglomerates to group together to get the same benefits larger corporations benefit from due to economies of scale?

Matthew Sablan said...

"You know you think any and all government is too much."

-- I do not. Please don't assume things about what I do and do not believe.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

-- "So much power" =/= "No power." Read please.

And further, there's no limit you can place. A law is a law. A legislator either has the power to make them or they're not a legislator, you buffoon. Judges can't say how much or how many laws can be made simply by virtue of going along with the goals of the partisan conservative foundation that put Gorsuckit on the list that Trump stuck in his back pocket when deciding on rallying the religious right or whomever it is that wants these terrible nominees.

Lewis Wetzel said...

R&B's ongoing rant reminds of poetry. A specific passage from a specific poem, in fact:


Then Stephen, Pope and seventh of the name,
Cried out, in synod as he sat in state,
While choler quivered on his brow and beard,
'Come into court, Formosus, thou lost wretch,
That claimedst to be late the Pope as I ! '
And at the word, the great door of the church
Flew wide, and in they brought Formosus' self,
The body of him, dead, even as embalmed
And buried duly in the Vatican
Eight months before, exhumed thus for the nonce.
They set it, that dead body of a Pope,
Clothed in pontific vesture now again,
Upright on Peter's chair as if alive.
And Stephen, springing up, cried furiously
' Bishop of Porto, wherefore didst presume
To leave that see and take this Roman see,
Exchange the lesser for the greater see,
— A thing against the canons of the Church ? '
Then one, (a Deacon who, observing forms,
Was placed by Stephen to repel the charge,
Be advocate and mouthpiece of the corpse)
Spoke as he dared, set stammeringly forth
With white lips and dry tongue, — as but a youth,
For frightful was the corpse-face to behold,
How nowise lacked there precedent for this.
But when, for his last precedent of all,
Emboldened by the Spirit, out he blurts
' And, Holy Father, didst not thou thyself
Vacate the lesser for the greater see,
Half a year since change Arago for Rome ? '
' — Ye have the sin's defence now, synod mine ! '
Shrieks Stephen in a beastly froth of rage:
' Judge now betwixt him dead and me alive
Hath he intruded or do I pretend?
Judge, judge ! ' — breaks wavelike one whole foam of
wrath.

Matthew Sablan said...

" A law is a law. A legislator either has the power to make them or they're not a legislator, you buffoon. Judges can't say how much or how many laws can be made "

-- And that, is the point. A legislator CAN make any number of laws they want, and so long as they are constitutional, it is up to the people to vote the bums out, not judges to say, "Well, this law is bad, but constitutional, so it must go -- and this law is good, but unconstitutional, so it may stay."

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

-- Then you should support removing the ACA, replacing it with several other smaller bills that encourage things like cross-state competition, tax-favored HSAs and Small Business Health Insurance pools to allow small business conglomerates to group together to get the same benefits larger corporations benefit from due to economies of scale?

I can support some of them without lulling myself into believing that all of them (just cause they're on the GOP talking points memo) are equally good or right. HSAs are an illusion. The insurance market pricing doesn't benefit by giving those with less knowledge (patients) more "choice" for things they don't need. They don't do the research. It's too complicated an industry for you to understand. A nice idea, just completely inapplicable to the market of the insured. They don't drive down cost, they don't increase quality, they don't increase access. They just make health care look like a candy store. And probably just about as bad for your health.

But the market's supposed to solve everything, right?

Matthew Sablan said...

HSAs are an excellent tool for lower-middle and above people. Which is why it should be a stand-alone bill and not part of some omni-bus. It is a targeted problem, specifically for two-earner families that are trying to control their taxable income amounts while still providing healthcare funds, especially if they have kids.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

-- I do not. Please don't assume things about what I do and do not believe.

Then quantify. You go on about constitutionality as the limit, but betray that with the whole "big government" yakking. Do judges or the constitution have a view on the mystical metrics of government, as if it were a phallic thing? No. But it seems you really do see them as interchangeable. Both ways of attacking government. One for a real reason. The other, partisan. Just for the hell of it.

Matthew Sablan said...

Quantify what? The exact number of laws required? That's not possible, and you know it.

But better written, fewer and clearer laws are generally better than poorly written, more and ambiguous laws.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

HSAs are an excellent tool for lower-middle and above people.

How? By what mechanism?

Tell me any significant healthcare problem that resulted from consumers not having enough choice of treatment.

HSAs are a way to get people who believe in acupuncture and health drinks to believe that conventional medical care is too expensive for a reason. But not the right reason.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Quantify what?

The amount of government, whatever that means.

But you know you'll never do it. Obama himself, when he stlll believed Republicans cared about America, asked them to define the percentage of GDP they'd agree to for the government, and negotiate from there. They wouldn't do it. They can't.

They just think of this thing called "the government" and it doesn't really mean anything concrete. Just a paranoid bogeyman or bugbear - like cooties, or the willies, the creeps. It's just a way of saying "icky" and pretending that you can still present yourself as a grown-up. My job gives me the creeps, said no Republican politician, ever. Funny how much they love working for the entity that they claim is so evil.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Golly, wherever could we find a document that cleary lays out the constitutional requirements for supreme court judges? Maybe in this thing called a 'constitution'?

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

The U.S. Constitution, the best protector of rights for the common man ever devised.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I see the drawstring attached to your neck is very long, Mr. Wetzel. That's quite a parroting job you pulled off there!

No wonder you want simple minded judges. You can't even say what the constitution means! Just no interpretive skill whatsoever. Sad.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Lewis Wetzel.
Indian hunter & scholar.

Matthew Sablan said...

"How? By what mechanism?

Tell me any significant healthcare problem that resulted from consumers not having enough choice of treatment.

HSAs are a way to get people who believe in acupuncture and health drinks to believe that conventional medical care is too expensive for a reason. But not the right reason."

-- ... Do you know what an HSA is?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I want a job where I can devote myself to doing less, with more. To giving myself a raise and benefits that I would never structure the market to provide my clients and customers.

The only job I've found so far that would allow me to this is called "Republican politician."

Where do I sign up?

Matthew Sablan said...

"The amount of government, whatever that means.

But you know you'll never do it. Obama himself, when he stlll believed Republicans cared about America, asked them to define the percentage of GDP they'd agree to for the government, and negotiate from there. They wouldn't do it. They can't."

-- They didn't because Obama doesn't argue in good faith. He literally had his party lock Republicans out of chambers; he told Republicans to not bother offering options because "I won," and he froze them out of every attempted negotiation possible. Obama never once gave Republicans an honest hearing.

As to why you can't define a percentage, that's because, "It matters." During WWII, we needed a higher % of GDP allocated to the government than during the Roaring 20s. To set a specific number is to hobble yourself or take too much money when you don't need it. It is a stupid policy that sounds smart, unless you actually understand how budgets work.

Drago said...

TTR: "Where do I sign up?"

The Clinton Global Initiative.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

-- ... Do you know what an HSA is?

No wonder you're so anti-progressive. You have no trust. What makes you think I'm behind on the terms? These are accounts that you draw on for medical funds. Can you believe that I would ask you to prove what you know about insurance? You're marketing HSAs as if they're sliced bread and no one understands what they are. I know perfectly well what they are. They sound awesome, but are a gimmick. I bet you can't show me a single study demonstrating where they improved outcomes, lowered cost, or broadened access. Do you even care about real-world results? What are you, an insurance salesman?

Michael K said...

Tell me any significant healthcare problem that resulted from consumers not having enough choice of treatment.

It's hard to believe anyone thinks this but...

How about death ? Ever heard of the "The Liverpool Pathway ?"

Well, there is worse.

New NHS guidelines on “end of life” care are worse than the Liverpool Care Pathway and could push more patients to an early grave, a leading doctor has warned.
Prof Patrick Pullicino, one of the first medics to raise concerns over the pathway, said the national proposals would encourage hospital staff to guess who was dying, in the absence of any clear evidence, and to take steps which could hasten patients’ death.


HSAs are not a topic I want to discuss with you, Ritmo.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

As to why you can't define a percentage, that's because, "It matters." During WWII, we needed a higher % of GDP allocated to the government than during the Roaring 20s. To set a specific number is to hobble yourself or take too much money when you don't need it. It is a stupid policy that sounds smart, unless you actually understand how budgets work.

Do you have to have an excuse for everything? At least a GDP percentage would have a theoretical basis that people could see the point of. It could be changed with not much more difficulty than changing the budget year to year. I know how so-called president Trump's budget works: Expand the military by 10% (because better than the next ten combined isn't good enough) and gut everything else. Especially the environment. It's just not dirty enough. Corporations that pollute can always be counted upon to hire scientists working in the public interest, rather than the company's profits.

Matthew Sablan said...

"What makes you think I'm behind on the terms?"

-- Because everything you've said shows no understanding of it.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Do you have to have an excuse for everything? At least a GDP percentage would have a theoretical basis that people could see the point of. It could be changed with not much more difficulty than changing the budget year to year."

-- Ah, so. Yes. You don't know how budgets work.

Drago said...

TTR: "You can't even say what the constitution means!"

Well, in his defense it's only relatively recently that we've discovered astonishing and fascinating penumbras and emanations as well as discovered that stuff that we thought was in there that really isn't in there at all! I mean, if we can't simply rewrite that sucker on the fly, what good is it?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»