In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
'Nuclear option' for Supreme Court? (long Q)
rossowmn
Member Posts: 1,959 ✭✭✭
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't telling whether he might use the "nuclear option" (51 votes instead of 60) to get Trump's Supreme Court choice approved. It's the tactic Harry Reid used by changing Senate rules to shove through bunches of Obama lower-court nominees and other appointees. But the rules change under the Dems specifically didn't affect the 60-vote requirement for the highest court. Now the concern is whether a Trump nominee can get 60 or is the nuke thing needed? If the GOP changes the 60-vote rule to include the Supreme Court, Trump's choice will easily win. But one big but (and as Pewee Herman said, everyone has a big but): If the rule is changed, sooner or later the Dems will be back in control (political winds always shift) and there will be no stopping them regarding the Supreme Court. So this: Is it better to "go nuke" to get a great judge or two under Trump, or is the future risk too great that the other side will do the same thing when its turn comes? I'm torn on the better route to take. What do you say?
Comments
51 votes only apply to budgetary issues as far as I know.
Currently yes.
The "nuclear option" is the rule change that would drop it to 51.
The Dems didn't make that change. In anticipation of one day being the minority. And not having it done to them. Hence the "nuclear". As in mutually assured destruction.
We shall see what they decide to do. It will certainly set the tone for how much across the aisle work will be accomplished.
If McConnell doesn't do it, Democrats will when they need to. This is war and Democrats are not our friends.
Exactly...I'd smack them in the face with the nuclear option as soon as possible. When they get back into power they most certainly will, with out hesitation.
I may be wrong, he could have grown a pair or at least now that Trump is in there he has some confidence but I would not bet on it.
Who knows what that means coming from the goggle eyed turkey neck's mouth.
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
If McConnell doesn't do it, Democrats will when they need to. This is war and Democrats are not our friends.
Exactly...I'd smack them in the face with the nuclear option as soon as possible. When they get back into power they most certainly will, with out hesitation.
Although they didn't the last time they had the opportunity, it wouldn't surprise me if they did. Payback for Obama's denied scotus pick.
51 votes only apply to budgetary issues as far as I know.
Maybe (quite possibly[:I]) I misunderstand the rules change, but one site explains it this way:
"At the urging of Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats had just voted along strict party lines to change the rules of the Senate, deploying what had become known in Washington as "the nuclear option." McConnell and his Republican colleagues were furious. Under the new rules, presidential nominees for all executive-branch position-including the Cabinet-and judicial vacancies below the Supreme Court could advance with a simple majority of 51 votes." (Cited from theatlantic.com)
Google brings up many, many additional sites saying basically the same thing: Appointments below the Supco level only require 51 votes. This is why news sites keep saying Trump eventually will get all his Cabinet and other appointees approved despite delay tactics by the opposition -- unless two or three Republican senators defect.
"In the past, GOP lawmakers have been cautious about eliminating the filibuster, in part out of fear that it could set a dangerous precedent if the rival party takes back the upper chamber. In 2013, when Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader, Democrats got rid of the 60-vote threshold to confirm lower court nominees."
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
If McConnell doesn't do it, Democrats will when they need to. This is war and Democrats are not our friends.
Exactly...I'd smack them in the face with the nuclear option as soon as possible. When they get back into power they most certainly will, with out hesitation.
I concur.