So the senate needs 60 votes to confirm a scotus nominee. 52 republicans in senate. Trump has said if enough democrats dont confirm his nominee, he has recommended senate republicans change longstanding rules to allow the confirmation by a simple majority. Why are there rules in the house and Senate at all if they can just be changed whenever a party feels like it?

Not exactly right Jimmer. 50+ Pence will confirm a nominee. Clarence Thomas received less than 60 votes when he was confirmed, for example. However, to halt debate requires 60 votes. I believe 8 or 9 Democrats have said that they will vote to halt debate (unless things change), so the filibuster will not hold.

Not exactly right Jimmer. 50+ Pence will confirm a nominee. Clarence Thomas received less than 60 votes when he was confirmed, for example. However, to halt debate requires 60 votes. I believe 8 or 9 Democrats have said that they will vote to halt debate (unless things change), so the filibuster will not hold.

i was talking about the fillibuster. Headline was pence warns democrats not to block vote on supreme court pick. I poorly worded it, but without a vote allowed, its basically blocking the nomination.

 

but the point stands. Republicans will change the rules again if the fillibuster happens. Makes me wonder what stopped the dems from getting in President Obama's nominee

Edited February 9, 20179 yr by jimmer

When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.

 

Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5

 

He keeps exceeding my expectations of how bigly bad he is in almost every way possible.

Trump is lashing out at Nordstoms for dropping his daughter's clothesline and Conway is pushing Ivanka's clothesline on Fox and Friends.

 

No abuse of power there....

 

So the senate needs 60 votes to confirm a scotus nominee. 52 republicans in senate. Trump has said if enough democrats dont confirm his nominee, he has recommended senate republicans change longstanding rules to allow the confirmation by a simple majority. Why are there rules in the house and Senate at all if they can just be changed whenever a party feels like it?

Right.  It hardly makes sense to have a rule requiring 60 votes (to invoke cloture, ending the filibuster, and calling a vote), if the rules themselves can be changed by mere majority...

 

i was talking about the fillibuster. Headline was pence warns democrats not to block vote on supreme court pick. I poorly worded it, but without a vote allowed, its basically blocking the nomination.

but the point stands. Republicans will change the rules again if the fillibuster happens. Makes me wonder what stopped the dems from getting in President Obama's nominee

 

I don't think it's a change of rule, I believe stopping deliberation has always been an option however it has not happened in a long time because both parties know turnabout is fair play and it will bite them in the butt next time they are on the receiving end.

 

Obviously Trump has never had a long term vision and can't be obliged to think about what will happen to him or his party next month, he just wants what he wants and he wants it now, repercussions be damned.

 

Trump is lashing out at Nordstoms for dropping his daughter's clothesline and Conway is pushing Ivanka's clothesline on Fox and Friends.

No abuse of power there....

 

Time to start pursuing some ethics violations.  These are pretty stark and a way to at least get the ball rolling.

I have 101 reasons to vote against Republicans, but give me one good reason to vote for a Democrat.

 

The recent Warren thing was nice, but I'd like to start seeing her with one of her colleagues out in rural America, talking to voters. Let the alt-media do all the grandstanding against him.

 

i was talking about the fillibuster. Headline was pence warns democrats not to block vote on supreme court pick. I poorly worded it, but without a vote allowed, its basically blocking the nomination.

but the point stands. Republicans will change the rules again if the fillibuster happens. Makes me wonder what stopped the dems from getting in President Obama's nominee

When Scalia died, the Republicans had a 54-46 advantage in the Senate. They controlled the agenda and didn't even give Garland a hearing. With Republicans in control, they will give Gorsuch a hearing and I believe he'll be confirmed unless someone finds something yuuuge in his history.

As for the "nuclear option", it would have to be something big to abandon the rule. Like a Supreme Court nominee. Once the option is engaged, there is no going back. It would make the Senate more like the House, but we've seen the tyranny of the minority quite a bit in the last six years.

How long before Trump uses the Enabling Act of 1933?

 

He is basically a dictator. The country elected a dictator.

Edited February 9, 20179 yr by jimmer

 

i was talking about the fillibuster. Headline was pence warns democrats not to block vote on supreme court pick. I poorly worded it, but without a vote allowed, its basically blocking the nomination.

but the point stands. Republicans will change the rules again if the fillibuster happens. Makes me wonder what stopped the dems from getting in President Obama's nominee

 

More integrity?

 

I have 101 reasons to vote against Republicans, but give me one good reason to vote for a Democrat.

The recent Warren thing was nice, but I'd like to start seeing her with one of her colleagues out in rural America, talking to voters. Let the alt-media do all the grandstanding against him.

 

Why would Warren be out talking to rural voters except possibly the rural voters in Massachusetts? That sounds like phony glad-handing someone would do during a campaign.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/899?r=86

 

Well, the DoE had a good run...

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/899?r=86

 

Well, the DoE had a good run...

 

Well, you could argue it's been problematic from the get-go, under administrations from both sides of the aisle.

 

There needs to be federal oversight of education, but mostly it should be in regards to licensing charters and assuring a minimum per-pupil funding among other things.  I'm also ok with federal standards like common core, largely because some states need the kick in the ass.

 

Well, you could argue it's been problematic from the get-go, under administrations from both sides of the aisle.

 

There needs to be federal oversight of education, but mostly it should be in regards to licensing charters and assuring a minimum per-pupil funding among other things.  I'm also ok with federal standards like common core, largely because some states need the kick in the ass.

 

I read from my RW friends all the time how the US is falling behind....what they never acknowledge, even when hit over the head with facts, is that is more about other nations deciding, at their national level, to invest in education and fix their @#$^@&^pile of a system. In other words, some things are best done by government, on a large scale, with an actual strategy of doing better for the people....so, I don't agree.

 

We need a national strategy and implementation of education.

 

i was talking about the fillibuster. Headline was pence warns democrats not to block vote on supreme court pick. I poorly worded it, but without a vote allowed, its basically blocking the nomination.

but the point stands. Republicans will change the rules again if the fillibuster happens. Makes me wonder what stopped the dems from getting in President Obama's nominee

Dems were in the minority in the Senate when Scalia died.  

 

They did nuke the filibuster to get in some of Obama's lower court judicial nominees when they had a small majority but the rule change excluded USSC nominees.  You'll read a lot about that if the republicans nuke the filibuster now.

More "so-called" judges in the 9th Circuit upholds the ruling suspending Trump's Muslim ban.

 

More "so-called" judges in the 9th Circuit upholds the ruling suspending Trump's Muslim ban.

 

Very likely it stands, then, until it is just ignored, because it will be 4-4 at SCOTUS, imo.

 

More "so-called" judges in the 9th Circuit upholds the ruling suspending Trump's Muslim ban.

Surprisingly, the 9th upheld the injunction on the travel ban on a 3 to 0 vote (the conservative justice (nominated by George W., I believe) voting with the two Dem-nominated justices).  

 

Very likely it stands, then, until it is just ignored, because it will be 4-4 at SCOTUS, imo.

 

I would guess 6-2 minimum, Kennedy and Roberts joining.

 

I would guess 6-2 minimum, Kennedy and Roberts joining.

Right. 

 

Trump could have--perhaps--tailored a EO that would have fallen on party lines, but he sure mucked it up by being so hasty.

Uh oh, he's using ALL CAPS now! 

 

This is our President in a nutshell...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l7RiQXiugk

Trump's ripping off the ACLU 'see you in court' slogan. Of course, the ACLU wins in court.

This is our President in a nutshell...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l7RiQXiugk

Where do I send the bill for the 4 minutes of my life I would like to have back?

Trump's ripping off the ACLU 'see you in court' slogan. Of course, the ACLU wins in court.

He'd best get used to that view.

 

I read from my RW friends all the time how the US is falling behind....what they never acknowledge, even when hit over the head with facts, is that is more about other nations deciding, at their national level, to invest in education and fix their @#$^@&^pile of a system. In other words, some things are best done by government, on a large scale, with an actual strategy of doing better for the people....so, I don't agree.

 

We need a national strategy and implementation of education.

 

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying the Dept of Ed, through it's existence to date, hasn't been able to accomplish much.  Various initiatives have been sloppy and stupid at best.  Harmful at worst.  And I would suggest that comes from the weird state vs. federal battle that is constantly being waged.

 

As I said, I'm good with common core, I'm good with national oversight on a great many things.  But my argument is that the Dept. of Ed. was never really that.  It was more meddler than overseer.

Edited February 10, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

I think as far as the,"would Bernie have won" debate goes, obviously none of us know. We all think we have our finger on some pulse of American politics and this year especially most all of us were dead wrong or close to it. However I do know there are or were plenty of people who were turned off enough by trump that they would have voted for sanders for similar reasons many voted for trump ie they didn't believe congress or whatever powers that be would let his ideas really come to fruition. And they find him to be honest and decent man who is less dangerous than the alternative. How people find trump more honest and decent and less dangerous than Clinton I can't fathom but that's obviously a problem the dems and left in general need to do some real searching about.