Ed Markey vows Democrats will restore Supreme Court filibuster

[Ronnie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-markey-237078

So, if I have it correct, Republicans are willing to do whatever they can to stack the judiciary with conservatives, while Democrats are willing to throw a bone to Republicans for no apparent reason?  

What on earth is going on here?

[Beet]

I never understood all the Democrats here cheering for the filibuster to be gone. Like, even that's a good idea, you should want your own party to get rid of it, not the other party.

[Mr. Smith]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-markey-237078

So, if I have it correct, Republicans are willing to do whatever they can to stack the judiciary with conservatives, while Democrats are willing to throw a bone to Republicans for no apparent reason?  

What on earth is going on here?

You give too much credit here.

It's quite obvious that this is proposed just because the Democrats are in the minority, I have no doubt a Hillary victory and Senate takeback would've led to Schumer throwing it out to get Garland in place and Cruz making such jibes.

And should 2020 make for a takeback mark my words the tables will flip.

The real stupidity here in retrospect is asking why Reid didn't just go completely nuclear last year to get Garland in.

[Mr. Morden]

The real stupidity here in retrospect is asking why Reid didn't just go completely nuclear last year to get Garland in.

Ummm....Republicans had a majority in the Senate last year, so McConnell, not Reid, controlled whether Garland came up for a vote in the first place and whether to go nuclear or not.  Even with no filibuster, you still need a majority.

[krazen1211]

The Dems are so hapless

Relax. Markey is simply lying. No big deal.

[Mr. Smith]

The real stupidity here in retrospect is asking why Reid didn't just go completely nuclear last year to get Garland in.

Ummm....Republicans had a majority in the Senate last year, so McConnell, not Reid, controlled whether Garland came up for a vote in the first place and whether to go nuclear or not.  Even with no filibuster, you still need a majority.

...Wow...this is the second time. I knew that too.

Fine, this should've happened all the way back as far as the 2013 Shutdown.

[publicunofficial]

What an actual cuck.

[Mr. Morden]

The real stupidity here in retrospect is asking why Reid didn't just go completely nuclear last year to get Garland in.

Ummm....Republicans had a majority in the Senate last year, so McConnell, not Reid, controlled whether Garland came up for a vote in the first place and whether to go nuclear or not.  Even with no filibuster, you still need a majority.

...Wow...this is the second time. I knew that too.

Fine, this should've happened all the way back as far as the 2013 Shutdown.

But it still wouldn't have made any difference with Garland, because Scalia didn't die until last year, when Republicans had a Senate majority.  So McConnell still would have prevented Garland from coming up for a vote.  And even if he had allowed a vote, the Republican majority would have voted him down.  They didn't need the filibuster for that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And then the Republicans will filibuster anyone who isn't a right-winger. Sad!

[Holmes]

It's not true. He's just trying to take the high road after Republicans repealed it.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Democrats...The party that loves to lose and appease the Republicans.

[Person Man]

What an actual cuck.

[Cashew]

What an actual cuck.

[Illiniwek]

What an actual cuck.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is beyond stupid.

[MaxQue]

DINO.

In both senses of the term, he is also a political dinosaur, stuck in the prehistory.

[SWE]

Democrats really need to shake their childish obsession with holding some imaginary high ground if they ever want to accomplish anything.

[Mr. Smith]

The real stupidity here in retrospect is asking why Reid didn't just go completely nuclear last year to get Garland in.

Ummm....Republicans had a majority in the Senate last year, so McConnell, not Reid, controlled whether Garland came up for a vote in the first place and whether to go nuclear or not.  Even with no filibuster, you still need a majority.

...Wow...this is the second time. I knew that too.

Fine, this should've happened all the way back as far as the 2013 Shutdown.

But it still wouldn't have made any difference with Garland, because Scalia didn't die until last year, when Republicans had a Senate majority.  So McConnell still would have prevented Garland from coming up for a vote.  And even if he had allowed a vote, the Republican majority would have voted him down.  They didn't need the filibuster for that.

Not necessarily true. Such a thing could've completely warped the midterms enough to retain the Senate, bolstered Obama's image beyond a mere "sunset ride 50's", and thus put Hillary in at 52% of the vote. In such a case, Garland would've gone through easily...and no, I don't believe Obama would've picked a liberal in such a case even with such favorable odds.

[Hammy]

This is why nothing will ever get accomplished in this country.

[Mr. Morden]

The real stupidity here in retrospect is asking why Reid didn't just go completely nuclear last year to get Garland in.

Ummm....Republicans had a majority in the Senate last year, so McConnell, not Reid, controlled whether Garland came up for a vote in the first place and whether to go nuclear or not.  Even with no filibuster, you still need a majority.

...Wow...this is the second time. I knew that too.

Fine, this should've happened all the way back as far as the 2013 Shutdown.

But it still wouldn't have made any difference with Garland, because Scalia didn't die until last year, when Republicans had a Senate majority.  So McConnell still would have prevented Garland from coming up for a vote.  And even if he had allowed a vote, the Republican majority would have voted him down.  They didn't need the filibuster for that.

Not necessarily true. Such a thing could've completely warped the midterms enough to retain the Senate, bolstered Obama's image beyond a mere "sunset ride 50's", and thus put Hillary in at 52% of the vote. In such a case, Garland would've gone through easily...and no, I don't believe Obama would've picked a liberal in such a case even with such favorable odds.

Huh?  Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster on SCOTUS appointments would have flipped as many as 4 Senate seats?  What %age of voters would even know/care about such a thing?  You've got to be trolling here.

[vote for pedro]

The real stupidity here in retrospect is asking why Reid didn't just go completely nuclear last year to get Garland in.

Ummm....Republicans had a majority in the Senate last year, so McConnell, not Reid, controlled whether Garland came up for a vote in the first place and whether to go nuclear or not.  Even with no filibuster, you still need a majority.

...Wow...this is the second time. I knew that too.

Fine, this should've happened all the way back as far as the 2013 Shutdown.

But it still wouldn't have made any difference with Garland, because Scalia didn't die until last year, when Republicans had a Senate majority.  So McConnell still would have prevented Garland from coming up for a vote.  And even if he had allowed a vote, the Republican majority would have voted him down.  They didn't need the filibuster for that.

Not necessarily true. Such a thing could've completely warped the midterms enough to retain the Senate, bolstered Obama's image beyond a mere "sunset ride 50's", and thus put Hillary in at 52% of the vote. In such a case, Garland would've gone through easily...and no, I don't believe Obama would've picked a liberal in such a case even with such favorable odds.

If Hillary had won I say Garland would have been confirmed in December before she had a chance to nominate somebody worse.  Delaying hearings on Garland using the Biden excuse was just a gamble that paid off.  They weren't going to leave the seat open for 4 years.

[Maxwell]

ugh just idiocy. IMAGINE, Democrats log the filibuster back in place after narrowly getting the Senate in 2018 (imaginary scenario, obviously), get a Dem President, but because they only have like 53 members of the Senate let's say, they get RAMMED by their own MUH PROCESS incompetence.

Democrats must remove the legislative filibuster if they get the majority in 2018 or 2020, or least make it so that they have to talk in order for it to be a filibuster.

[Figueira]

I still generally like him but...arrrrrggggghhh, why?

[Santander]

I applaud this, although I view parliamentary rules as like a glass sculpture that you can't really put back together once it's broken.

[The_Doctor]

The Democrats in fact will not restore the Supreme Court filibuster, they will likely do away with the legislative filibuster. This makes a plethora of liberal bills easier to pass without the 60 vote threshold. Conservative legislation is much harder to pass with only 50 votes. (Think: Social Security privatization, etc).

At that time, the irony is, the GOP can't even complain about it with a straight face since they eliminated the filibuster for the Supreme Court. By undertaking the step, they now cede all legitimacy on the filibuster over legislation.

I can pretty much guarantee the Democrats will ram through a healthcare bill in 8-12 years that will require the end of the legislative filibuster to fulfill the leftist wishlist. Not that I care at this point, but the fact is that they're making life much easier for the Left in the coming decade.

EDIT: Oh yes. Don't forget the far left Supreme Court justices that will invariably be seated when the Democratic White Houses conclude they need only 51 seats. As the population gets more liberal each subsequent decade, guess just how bold these Democratic Presidencies will be? Are you people really assuming that a 6-7 seat conservative majority exists in January 2030? Or 2036?

EDIT 2: The filibuster has always been designed and was meant to aid conservatives, not liberals. If you notice the long history of the filibuster, it hasn't been liberals using it. It's been the conservatives routinely using it to stop the liberals. The Senate, as a historic institution designed to slow down the movement of legislation, designed the filibuster to force the tempering of liberalism (not conservatism, liberalism). By taking it away, you're now allowing more liberal measures to march through. To be fair, sometimes, the filibuster was used for evil, e.g, civil rights, so it's not entirely great that it existed at certain points in the country's history.