jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (11 posts)

What's your thoughts on the Republicans using Harry Reid's nuclear option?

  1. RJ Schwartz profile image95
    RJ Schwartzposted 11 months ago

    What's your thoughts on the Republicans using Harry Reid's nuclear option?

    Mitch McConnell used the Nuclear Option today, virtually assuring Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed to the Supreme Court tomorrow.  Is this another example of how the Democrats are seeing their past tactics working against them, or do you think this was the wrong move by the Senators?  Try to be civil and present a valid argument instead of name calling and rhetoric.


  2. profile image81
    Hxprofposted 11 months ago

    This isn't surprising.  The level of distrust/dislike between the parties is, likely, at a record level, only surpassed by the Civil War animosity between the two, and both sides will, seemingly, do whatever is in their power to get what they want.  That said, I don't have a problem with EITHER party doing this - a majority is all that should be needed in the Senate anyway.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Its a show... you have shills for the Corporations and Banks, on both sides, that make the rest of the 'honest' politicians ineffectual at getting things done of benefit, and right now those who are corrupt are trying hard to sabotage changes good fo

    2. profile image81
      Hxprofposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Ken, the problems of our country, and of the world for that matter, are beyond the ability of humans to solve.  I'd like to see Trump roll some things back, but I don't believe he'll make a substantial difference.

  3. profile image0
    Old Poolmanposted 11 months ago

    We have reached the point where neither party can actually say they have the best interests of this country at heart.  They are supposed to be representing us as part of a team, but there is no teamwork in Washington today unless they are out to get someone.  It is really sad that our elected representatives have sunk this low.

    The democrats left little choice with their obstructionism, but this decision will come back to haunt this country for many years to come.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Yes indeed, that first sentence says it all.

  4. Carolyn M Fields profile image92
    Carolyn M Fieldsposted 11 months ago

    Yes, Democrats were very short-sighted in the past. What goes around, comes around. The shoe is on the other foot. Neil Gorsuch is extremely well qualified. There can be no other reason NOT to confirm him, other than politics. So yes, this was the right thing to do.
    I also agree that a majority should be all this is required.

    It is difficult to watch the news today. There is so much game playing. It's ridiculous.
    Quoting from the Chicago Tribune, "The American Bar Association, a group that is not known for leaning to the right in recent years, has bestowed its highest rating of "well-qualified" on Gorsuch, and, from some parts of the academy and even the higher reaches of former Democrat administrations, Gorsuch has been lauded as a judge of exceptional even-handedness, intelligence and wit. And yet, it is now clear that the Democrats in the Senate will mount a filibuster against the nomination, the first time this has ever been done for purely partisan reasons."

    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, you can't watch the news anymore, not from the 'regular' sources... you have to go to Bloomberg or One America News to actually get news, not party arguments, not propaganda ... but actual events going on in the world other than spin material.

  5. Jackie Lynnley profile image89
    Jackie Lynnleyposted 11 months ago

    He made the rule and the Dems were all behind it. Can't cry baby now. They would surely planning to use it. Now let's find out who murdered the last one...like we don't all know who was behind that.
    Thank God the Democrats are not in charge. Only God knows what they had planned. We can all be sure is was not good and we still are fighting them and their dimwits daily!

  6. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 11 months ago

    It pretty much had to be done in order to fill the position. I'm just hoping one more seat is open under Trump, and another conservative Constitutional originalist is added under his administration.

  7. bradmasterOCcal profile image28
    bradmasterOCcalposted 11 months ago

    I think it was necessary to get him into SCOTUS.
    But my total picture view is that it has been shown that SCOTUS decisions, especially the simple majority decisions have not been effective decisions.

    The founders made the mistake of having congress create the details of the Judiciary branch. And when has congress done anything correctly.

    Using an odd number seems to be a way to break ties, but is that what a Law of the Land decision should be based on. The dissenting judges are just as qualified as the other judges. The more judges that agree the better the decision.

    Actually ties are good because they don't change the issues. If the SCOTUS decision is to be any good there would never be a tie.