The Supreme Court. The biggest win of all!

[Private Pickle]

The Supreme court will have a conservative in the open spot. That, in my opinion, will outlast Trump by decades.

[exploited]

Maybe.

[decedent]

Democrats should be as childish as the Republicans have been and stall the appointment. Nuclear option.

[exploited]

That is a real possibility.

[Private Pickle]

They don't have the House or the Senate... Good luck!

[Cigar]

The Supreme court will have a conservative in the open spot. That, in my opinion, will outlast Trump by decades.

Didn't they already have a majority over the last 8 years ... how'd that work out?

[Tahuyaman]

The Supreme court will have a conservative in the open spot. That, in my opinion, will outlast Trump by decades.


A few months ago, Trump did release that list of people he would nominate for a Supreme Court appointment. All looked to be solid constitutional conservatives.

I recently said that his Supreme Court nonminees would be one valid reason a conservative could support him.

[del]

They don't have the House or the Senate... Good luck!
they don't need to.

good luck!

[Private Pickle]

Didn't they already have a majority over the last 8 years ... how'd that work out?

Worked out great!

[Tahuyaman]

Didn't they already have a majority over the last 8 years ... how'd that work out?

they didn't have have a true conservative majority. It was basically a split with a justice or two who could go in either direction on any given issue.

[Private Pickle]

they don't need to.

good luck!

Keep clinging!

[exploited]

They don't have the House or the Senate... Good luck!
You need 60 votes in the Senate to get the affirmation. Last time I checked the Republicans had 51. So they will need to get 9 Democratic senators to approve their nominee.

How likely do you think that is, given the treatment that Obama faced when he elected a judicial moderate that is respected by almost every judge who knows him, even when they disagree with him?

[Private Pickle]

You need 60 votes in the Senate to get the affirmation. Last time I checked the Republicans had 51. So they will need to get 9 Democratic senators to approve their nominee.

How likely do you think that is, given the treatment that Obama faced when he elected a judicial moderate that is respected by almost every judge who knows him, even when they disagree with him?

I don't think it will be as hard as you think it will be.

[exploited]

I don't think it will be as hard as you think it will be.

I've been wrong before, clearly. But I would not be very hopeful right now.

[Tahuyaman]

You need 60 votes in the Senate to get the affirmation. Last time I checked the Republicans had 51. So they will need to get 9 Democratic senators to approve their nominee.


I think you are wrong on that.

Once the nominee is finished with the confirmation committee his appointment is secured with a simple majority by the Senate. It's not a 60 vote requirement.

[exploited]

I think you are wrong on that.
It is a bit more complicated than I have presented. Here is the Wikipedia page about it:


The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by majority vote. The presiding officer of the United States Senate rules that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. They immediately put the issue to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote

The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, even though the rules of the Senate specify that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, 67 for amending a Senate rule. The name is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.In 1917, a threat to use what is now known as the nuclear option resulted in reform of the Senate's filibuster rules. An opinion written by Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957 concluded that the U.S. Constitution grants the presiding officer the authority to override Senate rules.[1] The option was used to make further rule changes in 1975.[2]

In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" – 67 or fewer votes) for a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations.

In most proposed variations of the nuclear option, the presiding officer would rule that a simple majority vote is sufficient to end debate. If the ruling is challenged, a majority would be required to overturn it. If the ruling is upheld, it becomes a precedent. This would end what had effectively become a 60-vote requirement for confirmation of an executive or judicial nominee, or the passage of legislation.

[hanger4]

Democrats should be as childish as the Republicans have been and stall the appointment. Nuclear option.

How many times must this be said, the nuclear option does not apply to SCOTUS nominees.

Plus Trump will still need 60 Senators to break a SCOTUS filibuster.

[Tahuyaman]

It doesn't take 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.

[Tahuyaman]

I really hope the Democrats throw fits and make people even more disgusted with them than they are now.

[exploited]

It doesn't take 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.

No, it takes 67 votes to break a filibuster.

[hanger4]

It doesn't take 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.

A simple majority to confirm, 60 to break a filibuster if needed. :thumbsup:

[hanger4]

No, it takes 67 votes to break a filibuster.

No, just 60.

[gamewell45]

The Supreme court will have a conservative in the open spot. That, in my opinion, will outlast Trump by decades.

Unless the democrats either filibuster or find a couple of moderate republicans to vote against any nominations. Of course don't expect any nominations for the time being since many republicans in the senate do not believe we need to fill the open slot since we are getting along fine the way things are now.

[exploited]

No, just 60.
Yup, you are correct. So they'll need 9 Democrat Senators to do that (at least the last time I checked).

[AZ Jim]

Filibuster plan already in place and Chuck Schumer will lead that effort apparently.

[hanger4]

Yup, you are correct. So they'll need 9 Democrat Senators to do that (at least the last time I checked).

It's 51 Repub to 47 Dem with two races, Louisiana and NH where no candidate recieved 51%. I assume a runoff. So the number needed will be 7, 8 or 9.

[hanger4]

Filibuster plan already in place and Chuck Schumer will lead that effort apparently.

Yup, he'll probably be minority leader.

It's time to swap rolls, Repubs can start whining and complaining about obstructionism and Dems can start praising it's virtues.

BTW AZ Jim :thumbsup: on the new avatar.

[DGUtley]

Of course, my friend, Bethere promised us that Clinton's friends in the senate would change the rules to prevent the possibility of a filibuster of SC and lower court nominations. I think he called it the 'nuclear option'. What's to stop the R's from playing the D's playbook?

[Bethere]

Of course, my friend, @Bethere (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1988) promised us that Clinton's friends in the senate would change the rules to prevent the possibility of a filibuster of SC and lower court nominations. I think he called it the 'nuclear option'. What's to stop the R's from playing the D's playbook?

Nothing.

[Peter1469]

The Supreme court will have a conservative in the open spot. That, in my opinion, will outlast Trump by decades.

His pick will be better than anything Hillary would have come up with. Hopefully he sticks to the list he previously put out.

[del]

Keep clinging!
i'm not clinging

the house has nothing to to do with it, and the repubs don't have 60 votes in the senate

good luck!

[Private Pickle]

i'm not clinging

the house has nothing to to do with it, and the repubs don't have 60 votes in the senate

good luck!
Hehehehe

[JDubya]

These are the words every Democrat in Congress should have framed and hung on the walls of their offices....

John Boehner (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/JohnBoehner), offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Mitch McConnell (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/MitchMcConnell) summing up his plans: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

They should burn these words into their memories and operate on them until Trump is gone.

[Tahuyaman]

No, it takes 67 votes to break a filibuster.


Wake up. Your side lost and they lost because of lemmings like you.

[Tahuyaman]

A simple majority to confirm, 60 to break a filibuster if needed. :thumbsup:
Let the Democrats try to pull every trick out of their old tired playbook to obstruct. But they better be careful while doing that, because they claimed that is exactly the type of thing they opposed.

Sooner or later, they are going to need to come to terms with the fact that they lost. It's their turn to lose the election the conventional wisdom types thought it was impossible to lose.

What's funny is that the last time the Democrats got stomped, Obama said that he wasn't on the ballot, but his policies were. This time he said that he's not on the ballot, but his legacy is. Guess what? He got stomped again.

[Tahuyaman]

No, just 60.

don't confuse the partisan hacks with the facts. Their mind is made up.