SCOTUS: And the winner is... Neil Gorsuch


anatess2
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, bytebear said:

Watching the hearings has really shown me how dumb as a post some of our congressional leaders are.

I know, right?

Here's one of the dumbest exchange on that hearing... what makes it even more dumb is that lots of leftists are posting this exchange as the best gotcha moment of the hearings.  Smh.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Al Franken.  He's funny.  I still remember his bits on Saturday Night Live.  I wish everybody had a sense of humor at least as developed as Franken's.  There.  I said genuine nice things about the guy.

In other news, I'm not the only one seeing the resemblance, right?

Untitled.png

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I like Al Franken.  He's funny.  I still remember his bits on Saturday Night Live.  I wish everybody had a sense of humor at least as developed as Franken's.  There.  I said genuine nice things about the guy.

In other news, I'm not the only one seeing the resemblance, right?

Untitled.png

Image result for no just no pony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2017 at 2:16 PM, NeuroTypical said:

In other news, I'm not the only one seeing the resemblance, right?

Untitled.png

No, it's just you.

You know the difference between an elephant and a plumb?  Plumbs are purple.

What did Tarzan say when the elephants began stampeding?  Here come the elephants.

What did Jane say when the elephants began stampeding?  Here come the plumbs.  She was color blind.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nomination is quite fascinating now with the Rs pulling out the so-called nuclear option.

https://t.co/Ckua4dQtn7

gives a good description.  Having been involved in some local political conventions, I actually like the parliamentary games that are played-if done fairly.

In conventions the set of governing rules is Robert's Rules of Order (or some derivative-yes even House/Senate-which are ongoing sitting conventions really). The rules are set up to ensure a couple of things, #1 the will of the majority is carried out #2, the will of the majority does not become tyranny of the majority.

Having had my fair share of parliamentary games played on me, I understand a bit about the process.  The bottom-line is, that even with the protections of the minority in the rules, 50+1 rules. If you have 50+1, you can do whatever you want-yes it becomes more difficult without a 2/3 majority, but in the end it doesn't matter.

Ideally, the rules are set up so that with a very strong minority, i.e. greater than 1/3rd, the majority has a very strong incentive-if not imperative to work with the minority to get things done.  Normal Robert's Rules of Order (nothing special) dictate that closing of all debates requires a 2/3rd majority vote.  The Senate has this same rule.  It's not a special rule for the senate-it's just an extension of RROO.  For debate on any question to be closed a 2/3rd majority vote happens. This applies to the House too.

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-07.htm

1. The limit of time should vary to suit circumstances, but the limit of two speeches of ten minutes each will usually answer in ordinary assemblies and, when desirable, by a two-thirds vote it can be increased or diminished as shown in 30. In the U. S. House of Representatives no member can speak more than once to the same question, nor longer than one hour. In the Senate there is no limit to the length of a speech and no senator can speak more than twice on the same day to the same question without leave of the Senate, which question is undebatable.

So how does one get around this. Well there is something that can be used, but is not often used-which is to Challenge the Ruling of the Chair.  Basically, any member has the right to challenge whatever ruling the Chair of the convention decides.  It can be about most anything (a few things are not challengable). When a vote to close debate occurs and fails to pass the 2/3rd vote the chair rules that closing has failed. A member can then challenge the ruling of the Chair. Now I have done this a few times . . .and unfortunately the parliamentarian of the convention has shot me down-but it is totally legit. When the Chair's ruling has been challenged, the issue is taken to the body of the convention for a vote-they decide on the challenge by a 50% vote.

So one can get around the 2/3rd vote to close by challenging the chair and then have a majority vote that overrules the Chair on their ruling that debate is not closed.  Here's the thing, it's not really precedent (i.e. every time you want to do this-you have to execute this method-which requires a lot of moving parts).  The only way to make it permanent, i.e. that a 50% vote closes debate vs. 2/3rd is to formally re-write the rules-which requires a 2/3rd vote.

In my convention dealings, what I have found is that the more balkanization there is between two opposing forces, the more likely legal parlimentary tricks will be used to accomplish the will of the majority.

Ideally, the majority and strong minority would come together to determine a solution.  But such is life, it has happened before and will happen again.  The start of the Civil War is a fascinating study in this; the Rs in Congress were unwilling to negotiate with a very strong minority the southern Ds and eventually things broke apart.

It is the nature of all politics . . .once a divide becomes so large it is better to split apart rather than attempt to stay together with one party or the other holding the sickle of demeter above the other when they get into power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, yjacket said:

The nomination is quite fascinating now with the Rs pulling out the so-called nuclear option.

https://t.co/Ckua4dQtn7

gives a good description.  Having been involved in some local political conventions, I actually like the parliamentary games that are played-if done fairly.

In conventions the set of governing rules is Robert's Rules of Order (or some derivative-yes even House/Senate-which are ongoing sitting conventions really). The rules are set up to ensure a couple of things, #1 the will of the majority is carried out #2, the will of the majority does not become tyranny of the majority.

Having had my fair share of parliamentary games played on me, I understand a bit about the process.  The bottom-line is, that even with the protections of the minority in the rules, 50+1 rules. If you have 50+1, you can do whatever you want-yes it becomes more difficult without a 2/3 majority, but in the end it doesn't matter.

Ideally, the rules are set up so that with a very strong minority, i.e. greater than 1/3rd, the majority has a very strong incentive-if not imperative to work with the minority to get things done.  Normal Robert's Rules of Order (nothing special) dictate that closing of all debates requires a 2/3rd majority vote.  The Senate has this same rule.  It's not a special rule for the senate-it's just an extension of RROO.  For debate on any question to be closed a 2/3rd majority vote happens. This applies to the House too.

http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-07.htm

1. The limit of time should vary to suit circumstances, but the limit of two speeches of ten minutes each will usually answer in ordinary assemblies and, when desirable, by a two-thirds vote it can be increased or diminished as shown in 30. In the U. S. House of Representatives no member can speak more than once to the same question, nor longer than one hour. In the Senate there is no limit to the length of a speech and no senator can speak more than twice on the same day to the same question without leave of the Senate, which question is undebatable.

So how does one get around this. Well there is something that can be used, but is not often used-which is to Challenge the Ruling of the Chair.  Basically, any member has the right to challenge whatever ruling the Chair of the convention decides.  It can be about most anything (a few things are not challengable). When a vote to close debate occurs and fails to pass the 2/3rd vote the chair rules that closing has failed. A member can then challenge the ruling of the Chair. Now I have done this a few times . . .and unfortunately the parliamentarian of the convention has shot me down-but it is totally legit. When the Chair's ruling has been challenged, the issue is taken to the body of the convention for a vote-they decide on the challenge by a 50% vote.

So one can get around the 2/3rd vote to close by challenging the chair and then have a majority vote that overrules the Chair on their ruling that debate is not closed.  Here's the thing, it's not really precedent (i.e. every time you want to do this-you have to execute this method-which requires a lot of moving parts).  The only way to make it permanent, i.e. that a 50% vote closes debate vs. 2/3rd is to formally re-write the rules-which requires a 2/3rd vote.

In my convention dealings, what I have found is that the more balkanization there is between two opposing forces, the more likely legal parlimentary tricks will be used to accomplish the will of the majority.

Ideally, the majority and strong minority would come together to determine a solution.  But such is life, it has happened before and will happen again.  The start of the Civil War is a fascinating study in this; the Rs in Congress were unwilling to negotiate with a very strong minority the southern Ds and eventually things broke apart.

It is the nature of all politics . . .once a divide becomes so large it is better to split apart rather than attempt to stay together with one party or the other holding the sickle of demeter above the other when they get into power.

I'm glad you brought this up.  The cloture vote in the Senate is important in keeping State's Rights.  The easier it is to pass anything in the Senate, the easier it is for States to lose rights to the Feds.  That's why I was very surprised that you are willing to do away with it on the Healthcare vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point we really need to have 3 political parties.  It is the most reasonable way to eliminate the 'great and a terrible gulf' that divides the parties.  There are enough Rhino Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats that they could combine as a central party, then the more conservative and liberal wings could have their own party as well.

To the topic at hand though:  I watched some of the Gorsuch hearings and I felt that he was an honorable and righteous man based on his responses and that he would judge justly based on the USA constitution.  I also felt that those trying to trip him up looked foolish in their attempts to do so.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

I'm glad you brought this up.  The cloture vote in the Senate is important in keeping State's Rights.  The easier it is to pass anything in the Senate, the easier it is for States to lose rights to the Feds.  That's why I was very surprised that you are willing to do away with it on the Healthcare vote.

 Not at all, the cloture vote (aka vote to close debate) exists in every body, it requires 2/3rds to close in the House too! The difference is in how debate is implemented.

If you are looking for the Senate as a representation of States, that ship sailed a long, long time ago (17th amendment).  The Senate doesn't represent the states, it represents the people of the states-it's a glorified House of Representatives with longer terms and that's it.

Like I said polarization and balkanization of politics.  

Obamacare was passed with NO R votes, it was a modern day version of what the Republicans did to the Democrats in the late 1850s-just ram it down their throats. Never before in the history of this country (excepting maybe the Civil War) has such a large piece of legislation been passed by a single party. That vote and the way it was passed was a crossing the rubicon moment, IMO.  It signaled a new phase in modern politics. That phase is marked not by principle, but by tribal instinct.

It's not going to stop.  Using the rules this way, is legit, it is legal, there is nothing shady about it. It is why I said, you only need 50+1 votes to pass.  I saw a great chart a while back

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html

It's only going to get worse until either one party completely dominates the other or it breaks up.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

 Not at all, the cloture vote (aka vote to close debate) exists in every body, it requires 2/3rds to close in the House too! The difference is in how debate is implemented.

If you are looking for the Senate as a representation of States, that ship sailed a long, long time ago (17th amendment).  The Senate doesn't represent the states, it represents the people of the states-it's a glorified House of Representatives with longer terms and that's it.

Like I said polarization and balkanization of politics.  

Obamacare was passed with NO R votes, it was a modern day version of what the Republicans did to the Democrats in the late 1850s-just ram it down their throats. Never before in the history of this country (excepting maybe the Civil War) has such a large piece of legislation been passed by a single party. That vote and the way it was passed was a crossing the rubicon moment, IMO.  It signaled a new phase in modern politics. That phase is marked not by principle, but by tribal instinct.

It's not going to stop.  Using the rules this way, is legit, it is legal, there is nothing shady about it. It is why I said, you only need 50+1 votes to pass.  I saw a great chart a while back

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html

It's only going to get worse until either one party completely dominates the other or it breaks up.

Yes, I've been telling you about that cloture vote in our Healthcare discussion.  You keep on telling me they don't need it, that they can just get rid of it and pass Healthcare legislation through simple majority.  Cloture is, of course,  required in the House.  It is a legislative body!  Not by Constitutional Mandate but by House Rules same as in the Senate with their Senate Rules.  But you can't filibuster in the House because they don't have endless debates.  All debates in the House have a time constraint and HAS to end.  There's no such thing as debate constraints in the Senate for new legislation.  You can debate new legislation until the Armageddon... or you get 60 votes to close debates (cloture) so you can get the new legislation on the floor for a yeay or nay vote (simple majority for that).

Obamacare did not pass through the regular new legislation route either.  Obamacare passed through.... tat-tada... the exact same route Paul Ryan tried to use to kill it - the Budget Reconciliation process... bypassing the debates.  So, it's not Ryan monkeying around with the Legislative Rules to get ACTION instead of ALL TALK NO ACTION.  Ryan is going through all these minefields to get something passed instead of getting NOTHING done because it can't pass filibuster.

Now, the stupid thing that the Democrats did was to change the Senate Rules when they had the majority so that confirmations of Obama appointed Judges in the district courts can be passed through the Republican filibuster with that idiot Harry Reid tabling the appeal to the point of order (stupid stupid stupid).  This set the precedent for the nuclear option that the Republicans are now invoking on their point of order for Gorsuch (so I benefit from Reid's stupidity but it was still stupid stupid stupid).   The nuclear option is named appropriately.  It basically nukes State Rights and makes minority votes useless.  The nuclear option is cloture at 51 votes... and you can have 5 minutes of debates and move to close.  That's how stupid that is.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, I've been telling you about that cloture vote in our Healthcare discussion.  You keep on telling me they don't need it, that they can just get rid of it and pass Healthcare legislation through simple majority.  Cloture is, of course,  required in the House.  It is a legislative body!  Not by Constitutional Mandate but by House Rules same as in the Senate with their Senate Rules.  But you can't filibuster in the House because they don't have endless debates.  All debates in the House have a time constraint and HAS to end.  There's no such thing as debate constraints in the Senate for new legislation.  You can debate new legislation until the Armageddon... or you get 60 votes to close debates (cloture) so you can get the new legislation on the floor for a yeay or nay vote (simple majority for that).

Obamacare did not pass through the regular new legislation route either.  Obamacare passed through.... tat-tada... the exact same route Paul Ryan tried to use to kill it - the Budget Reconciliation process... bypassing the debates.  So, it's not Ryan monkeying around with the Legislative Rules to get ACTION instead of ALL TALK NO ACTION.  Ryan is going through all these minefields to get something passed instead of getting NOTHING done because it can't pass filibuster.

Now, the stupid thing that the Democrats did was to change the Senate Rules when they had the majority so that confirmations of Obama appointed Judges in the district courts can be passed through the Republican filibuster with that idiot Harry Reid tabling the appeal to the point of order (stupid stupid stupid).  This set the precedent for the nuclear option that the Republicans are now invoking on their point of order for Gorsuch (so I benefit from Reid's stupidity but it was still stupid stupid stupid).   The nuclear option is named appropriately.  It basically nukes State Rights and makes minority votes useless.  The nuclear option is cloture at 51 votes... and you can have 5 minutes of debates and move to close.  That's how stupid that is.

 

The nuclear option has nothing to do with State's Rights. As I've repeatedly said, the stronger the minority the more they can gunk up the works, but ultimately the will of the majority in both the US legislative branches hold out. As I have clearly stated, it does not require 60 votes to pass in the Senate-you have repeatedly stated the opposite-you are clearly wrong.  Voting to close debate, is much different than voting on the passage of the bill.

So flipping what if the Rs don't have a 60 vote majority.  A strong majority that sticks together will overcome cloture. It literally becomes a battle of wills. And I guarantee you, a majority that is firm enough, resolute enough will outlast the minority.  The Civil Rights Act was passed after 60 days of filibuster.  The idea that one must have 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate is simply not true. It makes it much, much harder.  And the more resolute the minority the harder it is, but ultimately a resolute majority will win out.

If the Rs in the House passed a full repeal and the Ds in the Senate gunked it up to were nothing else was passed for 6 months . . . they would have some major political fallout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Obamacare did not pass through the regular new legislation route either.  Obamacare passed through.... tat-tada... the exact same route Paul Ryan tried to use to kill it - the Budget Reconciliation process... bypassing the debates.  So, it's not Ryan monkeying around with the Legislative Rules to get ACTION instead of ALL TALK NO ACTION.  Ryan is going through all these minefields to get something passed instead of getting NOTHING done because it can't pass filibuster.

Please don't carry water for Ryan.  The bill had 17% approval.  The Freedom Caucus did Trump a big, big favor by not passing that rotten, pile of garbage.  That any conservative would sign onto that bill is just astounding.  It didn't represent conservative values, it just made Obamacare less bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways, I do like the rough and tumble politics of the 1800s.  I do enjoy this one from Leaping Lincoln. It actually showed his true colors-use every means available to avoid the majority rule.  He would later use this to ensure that everyone would bow to his rule . . .

In November 1840 Legislators convened in the cramped quarters of the Methodist Church while workers were completing the statehouse a block away.  "The House of Representatives was crammed in a room barely large enough for members to turn round in, having no tables to write upon, or space to move from one part of the house to another," newspapers reported.  These conditions added to the confusion Lincoln encountered as leader of the minority Whig party.  On December 5,  when the Democratic majority was about to pass a measure that threatened the State Bank,  Whigs conspired to prevent a legal voting quorum by staying away.  Only Lincoln and a few lieutenants remained to observe.  Suddenly it became evident that democrats had rounded up enough members to form a quorum.  "Mr. Lincoln came under great excitement," Democrats mocked.  Blocked from the door, he "unceremoniously raised the window and jumped out."  The Democratic measure passed anyway.  An embarrassed Lincoln ever after resented references to what he called that "jumping scrape."

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2017 at 8:54 PM, yjacket said:

Please don't carry water for Ryan.  The bill had 17% approval.  The Freedom Caucus did Trump a big, big favor by not passing that rotten, pile of garbage.  That any conservative would sign onto that bill is just astounding.  It didn't represent conservative values, it just made Obamacare less bad.

I am not carrying water for Ryan.  That entire heatlhcare post was my rant against RyanCare.  The fact remains.  You have no Republican healthcare bill.  Not even a Freedom Caucus healthcare bill.  Nada.  What do you have?  Obamacare.  Chew on that crud.

The ONLY way you can pass any Healthcare bill that repeals Obamacare is to go around the process to avoid the filibuster (which is what Ryan tried to do but nobody -including me - trusted that phase 2 and 3 was going to happen even as Trump did) or you change the Senate Rules and go nuclear on LEGISLATION - which is not gonna happen because neither McConnell nor Pence will move to change the cloture rules on legislation because there is no way both of them will declare cloture on legislation as unconstitutional and therefore, that kind of senate rule change will require 67 votes.

Or you can wait for 2018 and hope Republicans are still going to push the cart and get you another 10 senate seats without losing any conservatives on the Senate and the House especially after accomplishing nothing on Obamacare.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a lot of people who held their nose and voted Trump because he was more likely to pick agreeable people for the SCOTUS than the other choice.  Those people's hopes seem to have been realized.  

Judge Gorsuch is only 2 years older than me.  He might be on the bench for the next 50 years.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Judge Gorsuch is only 2 years older than me.  He might be on the bench for the next 50 years.  

 

I don't know dude. Few people live to be 122 years old. :P

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I am not carrying water for Ryan.  That entire heatlhcare post was my rant against RyanCare.  The fact remains.  You have no Republican healthcare bill.  Not even a Freedom Caucus healthcare bill.  Nada.  What do you have?  Obamacare.  Chew on that crud.

I'd rather have nothing, let OCare collapse than pass a rotten bill that is just OCarelite.  Do what is right, let the consequence follow! :-),:-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share