The next time the GOP has the House, the Senate and the Oval Office

[speak easy]

Last edited Sun Jun 26, 2022, 11:25 PM - Edit history (2)

they will -

(1st order of business) Nuke the filibuster.
2. Expand the Supreme Court to 13
3. Nominate enough Thomas-Barrett fanatics to kill Griswold via Obergefell.

This is why Democrats must strike first, as soon as we have the votes. IMO, a 10-3 'conservative' majority , will prove irresistible to Republicans.

[Phoenix61]

1. YES!!! A thousand times YES!

The current iteration of the Republican Party is a direct threat to democracy. They have been radicalized. Any attempt at compromise with them is foolhardy at best.

[SoCalDavidS]

2. Democrats Will Need At Least 55 Democratic Senators For Any Chance At Nuking Filibuster

The repubs, who vote in lock step, probably need 51, or 50 plus the Presidency.

[speak easy]

3. Yes.

[kelly1mm]

4. The 1st two years of the Trump presidency they had the trifecta and did not do any of

these. In fact this is the basis for the beef between McConnell and Trump as Trump wanted McConnell to nike the filibuster and he refused. McConnell is smart enough to know the filibuster is an obstructionist tool much better for the R's than the D's. Plus they can get what they want from the USSC AND keep the filibuster as a tool = win-win.

[speak easy]

6. It is a worse case scenario.

McConnell is famous for doing things he has ruled out in the past.

[uponit7771]

25. MAGA can nuke the filibuster, pass laws then vote the filibuster back in place with a simple ...

... majority making it law with such simple majority that future nukes have to be 60+ members.

Its not hard and at some point Americans have to stop trusting MAGA

[jimfields33]

5. I don't know. We took first try on judges and it did very little for us

Then they decided to change the rules for supremes. It didn’t turn out well. Do we really need to change the rules?

[speak easy]

7. It depends on how much Griswold is worth protecting.

The scenario I have posted is plausible.

[jimfields33]

9. Is there a lawsuit?

It won’t even be looked at this session. They finish Friday. After midterms would be perfect time to get rid of filibuster.

[kelly1mm]

11. Correct! Too few remember it was Senator Reid that started the 'carveouts' for the filibuster

for non-USSC judicial nominees. Adding USSC judicial nominees was just a baby step from the huge step Sen. Reid took. Here on DU people argue that Sen. Reid 'had no choice because R's were not confirming President Obama's nominees' ....... um that is the point of the filibuster!

[speak easy]

14. And the door is now open

and the GOP will charge through it when they want to.

[uponit7771]

26. I remember Reid did such due to MAGA abuse of filibuster **FIRST**. So they abused filibuster ...

... before Reid did carve outs why wont they abuse it again?

Yeah, they will ... we don't act now MAGA will and hurt the rest of the country.

[kelly1mm]

27. Any use of the filibuster is 'abuse'. How would using the filibuster not be abuse? The R's

using the filibuster to obstruct is exactly what the filibuster is for.

What would be a non-abusive use of the filibuster?

[uponit7771]

28. I disagree that all or any use of filibuster is abuse

.... Democrats historically have not abused the filibuster while Republicans have used it to stop all legislation especially picking supreme Court judges.

When it comes to the filibuster there is no both -siderism here; Republicans have overly abused filibuster in regards to choosing Democratic party judges

[kelly1mm]

29. So your argument is which side uses it more is who is abusing it?

Democrats used the filibuster 314 times during the Trump presidency (4 years).

Republicans used the filibuster 257 times during the Obama presidency (8 years).

[uponit7771]

30. No, its which side escalates the abuse of it and it was ***NOT*** democrats, we both know this.

Your argument sounds like the notion of ANY USE of filibuster is abuse which doesn't sound rational at best (because filibusters used to have a time limit) or maybe I'm just getting it wrong.

I disagree because filibuster in the past was used to slow legislation until republican escalated and dems responded.

Bottom line, they've told us who they are ... they've told us not to trust them because they're scorpions ... we should ***NOT*** trust scorpions.

I bet if we did a DU poll on should we trust MAGA not to expand courts and nuke filibuster the numbers would lean heavy on NOT trusting MAGA

[npk]

8. This is why it astounds me at how few people vote

They literally are saying that I don't give a fuck what the government does. That is so shocking to me.

[dalton99a]

10. NEXT: We find that the First Amendment doesn't say "separation between church and state"

Last edited Mon Jun 27, 2022, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

therefore any separation between church and state is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[kelly1mm]

24. Nowhere in the 1st amendment does it have your quoted language. The separation of

church and state language comes from a Thomas Jefferson letter stating there should be a 'wall separating church and state'

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. K&R

[usonian]

13. You know when?

NOT ON MY WATCH!!

GOTFV GOTFV GOTFV
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216821536
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216821536
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216821536

If I have to give every magat in sight a week's vacation to see cockfighting in Tijuana on election week, I'll do it.
WAIT UNTIL THEY GET THE TIME-SHARE BILL!!!

[Frasier Balzov]

15. Are there state legislatures eager to ban contraception?

Seems like Obergefell is in much greater danger.

[speak easy]

18. Yes. Griswold will be found to be bad law

when they are reversing Obergefell.

[mn9driver]

16. This.

The mask is off. Once they have all three branches they will have no reason to pretend. They will codify themselves into permanent power and it will be game over for democracy.

[jalan48]

17. Instead of legislation there will be non-stop investigations and probably jailing of Democratic

Reps and Senators. They want to break our system of government.

[In It to Win It]

19. I actually don't think Mitch McConnell would nuke the filibuster

as long as he's there.

I know this isn't much of an argument... but why didn't he do that before when he had the chance, when they controlled the WH, Senate and House?

He took all of Trump's bitching and crying about the filibuster, and still kept it intact. Why change course now?

[speak easy]

20. for a 10-3 'conservative' court

that would deliver the RW wish list?

[In It to Win It]

21. But they have a 6-3 court doing that for them already

Why do the extra work?

[speak easy]

23. They don't have the votes to kill Obergefell