Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

athena

(4,187 posts)

9. I agree completely.

Reply to octoberlib (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 31, 2017, 11:05 PM

Jan 2017

The filibuster is of no value if you don't use it. And if you use it and lose it, it's no worse than if you didn't use it.

Even if it were a more moderate nominee, the fact that it is not President Obama's choice would make it a subversion of the system. It has to be Merrick Garland.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democrats must filibuster any nominee who is not Merrick Garland. [View all] athena Jan 2017 OP

MErkley has been saying this all along. He is asking we his petition to the senate here: Amaryllis Jan 2017 #1

Thank you. Just signed it. We must make sure athena Jan 2017 #4

+1, Normalizing what Turtle McFuckLips and crew did will be horrible uponit7771 Jan 2017 #2

Or no new justices at all bhikkhu Jan 2017 #3

Demanding that he nominate Garland would make the point better. athena Jan 2017 #6

Signed. Calling two NC a$$hole Senators waste of time. mnhtnbb Jan 2017 #5

I would not assume that. athena Jan 2017 #8

Josh Marshall of TPM thinks so, too octoberlib Jan 2017 #7

I agree completely. athena Jan 2017 #9

Your OP seems to exist in a bubble where Republicans could not invoke the nuclear option. tritsofme Feb 2017 #10

What use is a filibuster if you're afraid to use it? athena Feb 2017 #12

That's not my argument. I'm saying to use it when it is most effective. tritsofme Feb 2017 #13

What makes you think they're more likely to get rid of the filibuster now than they would then? athena Feb 2017 #14

My argument is that the SCOTUS filibuster is already is already dead, so we ought to force the issue tritsofme Feb 2017 #15

Four problems with your post. athena Feb 2017 #16

Utter bullshit. Your accusation is as ridiculous as your inability to distinguish what is required tritsofme Feb 2017 #17

Yes flamingdem Feb 2017 #11