General Discussion

kentuck

(115,431 posts) Tue Apr 4, 2017, 04:02 PM Apr 2017

Whose fault if the "nuclear option" is used to put Gorsuch on the Court?? [View all]

The Constitution only states that the Senate's job is to "advise and consent".

If the Democrats withhold consent, is that in conflict with the Constitution? I think not.

They might be in conflict with the rule passed by the Congress about 200 years ago but they do not believe the Senate should do away with it. That is their decision - not the Democrats.

If they respect the Constitution, they would make the right decision. They should understand the concept of precedence and that laws have been passed for a reason. They might think twice before they make that decision. Justices should have the consent of Congress. Some might argue that a 51-49 vote would mean that the Congress consents?

Some might argue for slightly a larger majority? Perhaps a 60-40 majority would be more of a consensus? Sixty-votes sounds about right.

(an added correction) https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q139.html

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Whose fault if the "nuclear option" is used to put Gorsuch on the Court?? [View all] kentuck Apr 2017 OP

Hint: Turtle McTurtleface! longship Apr 2017 #1

What about the sheep that follow the Turtle? kentuck Apr 2017 #3

McTurtleface is majority leader. The buck stops there. longship Apr 2017 #5

I would agree that it is his decision whether to put the vote to a simple majority... kentuck Apr 2017 #11

It was asked, "Who is responsible?" Not "Who all are responsible?" longship Apr 2017 #14

You see, you take me literally. kentuck Apr 2017 #15

Indeed, my good friend. :-) nt longship Apr 2017 #17

GOP senators only unilaterally vote because of fear of retalitation by their fuhrer and the Kochs Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #19

Yes, they are effectively gerry-mandered to keep their seats... kentuck Apr 2017 #20

Exactly, he's the one who has to propose the rule change Warpy Apr 2017 #26

D'ya know what? longship Apr 2017 #29

Bingo! kentuck Apr 2017 #30

Depends on how much they want this twisted excuse for a judge Warpy Apr 2017 #32

My hypothesis is that they might not have the votes to go nuclear. longship Apr 2017 #33

I see one, Susan Collins. Warpy Apr 2017 #34

Ried's outgoing speech said it all. Xolodno Apr 2017 #2

I heard something this morning I could hardly believe! kentuck Apr 2017 #8

Hence, why the filibuster for all intents and purposes...is dead. Xolodno Apr 2017 #21

Amen to that! kentuck Apr 2017 #22

Schumer tweeted something out synergie Apr 2017 #23

Yeap. Xolodno Apr 2017 #24

repubs Angry Dragon Apr 2017 #4

The current filibuster rule only dates back to 1975 when the "talking filibuster" was eliminated. PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #6

Yes, that is the argument. kentuck Apr 2017 #10

The people who vote for Gorsuch Retrograde Apr 2017 #7

The last senate - who refused to even give Garland a hearing. n/t Ms. Toad Apr 2017 #9

Every Republican. dchill Apr 2017 #12

The nuclear option was already done when they blocked Garland's appointment without a hearing. This still_one Apr 2017 #13

I saw a quote by Adam Schiff... kentuck Apr 2017 #18

That is exactly where I got it from kentuck. I couldn't remember who said it, and appreciate still_one Apr 2017 #25

GOP. In the past, if a candidate wasn't going to get sufficient votes they put up a new candidate. Vinca Apr 2017 #16

the GOP violated their oathes of office Thomas Hurt Apr 2017 #27

True Alice11111 Apr 2017 #31

Whomever set using it as precedent... jmg257 Apr 2017 #28

I think it is relevant to note that in 2013... kentuck Apr 2017 #35

Thanks, Kentuck for the info! nt jmg257 Apr 2017 #36

Harry Reid was told this would happen when he got rid of the filibuster former9thward Apr 2017 #37