Will Dems be able to get 41 Dem Senators to vote against Supreme Ct Nom?

[Shadows]

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

Why?  What's to stop McConnell from simply using the nuclear option if Ginsberg dies regardless of what the Democrats do?  And what about the disgusting behavior by congressional Republicans could possibly make one think they wouldn't use it? 

How long would go nuclear even take? I guess if we wait until 2020, we are basically putting EVERYTHING on the ballot and making 2020 our last stand.

Is it worth it? Do you think Dems should filibuster & make Mitch go nuclear?

[Pericles]

It is win-win. Either McConnell nukes he filibuster, which is good for democracy, or he doesn't and Gorsuch is stopped.

[JJC]

It is win-win. Either McConnell nukes he filibuster, which is good for democracy, or he doesn't and Gorsuch is stopped.

The purpose of the filibuster is to slow things down. The founders wanted to make it difficult to pass laws - as to not have a single administration make drastic and wide sweeping changes because of one election, or have one party have absolute rule because they have 50+1% of the seats. It's the house (the 'people's legislature') that responds to sudden popular opinion. Things are only supposed to get through the senate when there is wide, geographical support across the country. It's a counteraction to mob rule.

This, along with our constitution that limits the government's ability to infringe on our rights, is why America not only hasn't fallen apart despite such a diversified makeup, but has thrived like no country before it.

Our Founders were brilliant in structuring a government that defends people against your kind of thinking, which inevitably leads to oligarchies.

It's so disgusting that Harry Reid changed 200 years of of senate procedure just so Obama could pack the courts with anti-american liberal activists. If Trump did this, every single one of you would be losing your s--t accusing him of being a fascist.

[The_Doctor]

It is win-win. Either McConnell nukes he filibuster, which is good for democracy, or he doesn't and Gorsuch is stopped.

The purpose of the filibuster is to slow things down. The founders wanted to make it difficult to pass laws - as to not have a single administration make drastic and wide sweeping changes because of one election, or have one party have absolute rule because they have 50+1% of the seats. It's the house (the 'people's legislature') that responds to sudden popular opinion. Things are only supposed to get through the senate when there is wide, geographical support across the country. It's a counteraction to mob rule.

This, along with our constitution that limits the government's ability to infringe on our rights, is why America not only hasn't fallen apart despite such a diversified makeup, but has thrived like no country before it.

Our Founders were brilliant in structuring a government that defends people against your kind of thinking, which inevitably leads to oligarchies.

It's so disgusting that Harry Reid changed 200 years of of senate procedure just so Obama could pack the courts with anti-american liberal activists. If Trump did this, every single one of you would be losing your s--t accusing him of being a fascist.

The filibuster is going to die. The Republic will stand with a more majoritarian Senate. In fact civil rights was stopped by the filibuster as it so happened.  It was weakened as a result. The republic didn't end.

[JJC]

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

Yeah, because Republicans were totally going to replace the most conservative judge with a left leaning moderate even though they controlled congress. Okay. Sure.

If Ginsburg died in the last few months of Bush's term, and Bush nominated a moderate to replace her, would you support this - even though the dems controlled both chambers?

Get real. Why do you have to play dumb like that? The 'stolen seat' language is for low info voters, not politicos like us. Show some respect for yourself.

We can't have intelligent discussion if all we do is repeat PR drivel from our respective party's headquarters.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

Yeah, because Republicans were totally going to replace the most conservative judge with a left leaning moderate even though they controlled congress. Okay. Sure.

If Ginsburg died in the last few months of Bush's term, and Bush nominated a moderate to replace her, would you support this - even though the dems controlled both chambers?

Get real. Why do you have to play dumb like that? The 'stolen seat' language is for low info voters, not politicos like us. Show some respect for yourself.

We can't have intelligent discussion if all we do is repeat PR drivel from our respective party's headquarters.

We can't have an intelligent discussion if we talk to you, period.  You're just not capable of it.

[Pericles]

The filibuster is not in the Constitution and is likely unconstitutional. The argument 'FOUNDERS WANT IT!' is just stupid, they would have no conception of our 21st century world and there is a good reason the constitution can be amended. The thing the filibuster does is tilt the system too much in favor of the minority and deny an elected administration the ability to govern. The US system has plenty of checks and balances but should also enable change to occur because change is often good.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Alito had 41 out of 45 Democrats vote against him, but many of those were too coward to filibuster.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The 'stolen seat' language is for Stupid people low info voters

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

Yeah, because Republicans were totally going to replace the most conservative judge with a left leaning moderate even though they controlled congress. Okay. Sure.

If Ginsburg died in the last few months of Bush's term, and Bush nominated a moderate to replace her, would you support this - even though the dems controlled both chambers?

Get real. Why do you have to play dumb like that? The 'stolen seat' language is for low info voters, not politicos like us. Show some respect for yourself.

We can't have intelligent discussion if all we do is repeat PR drivel from our respective party's headquarters.

We can't have an intelligent discussion if we talk to you, period.  You're just not capable of it.

I think he's being quite rational, a lot more than most posters on this issue

[MarkD]

Gorsuch is almost a carbon copy of Scalia. He is imminently qualified, non-controversial, and doesn't change the balance of the court.

Scalia wasn't controversial???
I don't relish the concept of having another Scalia on the Supreme Court; I'd want someone better. Not more "conservative," not more "moderate," but just someone who is truly one of the most objective interpreters of the Constitution that there is in the country, and someone who gives every clause of the Constitution the meaning it was originally understood to have. I've been aghast at the fact that some in the media have described Scalia as an "originalist," and have said that Gorsuch is from the same school of originalism as Scalia. I don't take seriously that Scalia was an originalist, and I can only hope that Gorsuch has a better understanding of what the Ninth Amendment, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were originally understood to mean than did Scalia.

How does Justice Ted Cruz taking Ginsburg's seat sound to you?

Like a radical shift in ideology but no improvement in quality.

[ApatheticAustrian]

no virginian politican must imho worry atm about anything regarding taking a mainstream left-ish stance on anything.

[Mr. Reactionary]

no virginian politican must imho worry atm about anything regarding taking a mainstream left-ish stance on anything.

Flip flopping after a year of saying SCOTUS nominees shouldn't be blocked is a mainstream left-ish stance?

[ApatheticAustrian]

Flip flopping after a year of saying SCOTUS nominees shouldn't be blocked is a mainstream left-ish stance?

depends on schumer's decision i guess, but after the garland mess, it is obvious that voters don't give a crap about SC obstructionism.

you can call it hypocritical - it would be - and quite meaningless but i don't think it would cost anyone in virginia anything.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Schumer better start whippin'.