Ginsburg "chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee"

SimplyMe said:

For Supreme Court justices, it was McConnell who changed it.

Click to expand...

hislegacy said:

2013 - Democrats changed it to a simple majority.

From the issue in 2018:

When the Senate votes on President Donald Trump’s replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, just a simple majority will be sufficient to get through the confirmation process. It’s a vote that Democrats – who have 49 seats – seem more than likely to lose. Gone is the filibuster rule that required 60 votes to move forward.

Many Republicans are thanking former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for that. And they’re retweeting his tweet from 2013 – shedding light on how one decision by the party five years ago helped put Democrats in this position.

From 2013:

Senate Democrats pushed through a historic change to the chamber’s rules on Thursday, doing away with filibusters on executive appointments and most judicial nominations in a bid to ease the gridlock gripping the chamber.

The move, known as the “nuclear option,” passed by a vote of 52-48, with all but three Democrats voting to reform the chamber’s rules and every Republican opposing the measure.
​

No, it was not McConnell, but Harry Reid who changed the rules that are now a benefit to Republicans.

Click to expand...

Clizby WampusCat said:

I said that would undermine the trust of the justice system more than anything the republicans are doing or have done.

Click to expand...

You have never told me what they are doing wrong constitutionally by nominating a justice 6 weeks before an election.

Click to expand...

hislegacy said:

Ever Shrinking base? Have you seen the reception he has been having? I don't believe it is shrinking at all.

Click to expand...

hislegacy said:

2013 - Democrats changed it to a simple majority.

From the issue in 2018:

When the Senate votes on President Donald Trump’s replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, just a simple majority will be sufficient to get through the confirmation process. It’s a vote that Democrats – who have 49 seats – seem more than likely to lose. Gone is the filibuster rule that required 60 votes to move forward.

Many Republicans are thanking former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for that. And they’re retweeting his tweet from 2013 – shedding light on how one decision by the party five years ago helped put Democrats in this position.

From 2013:

Senate Democrats pushed through a historic change to the chamber’s rules on Thursday, doing away with filibusters on executive appointments and most judicial nominations in a bid to ease the gridlock gripping the chamber.

The move, known as the “nuclear option,” passed by a vote of 52-48, with all but three Democrats voting to reform the chamber’s rules and every Republican opposing the measure.
​

No, it was not McConnell, but Harry Reid who changed the rules that are now a benefit to Republicans.

Click to expand...

KCfromNC said:

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It doesn't matter, though, because undermining the trust doesn't matter, only what's technically legal - as the arguments in favor of ramming through a USSC nominee have made clear in this and other threads.

Why would I? I'm saying that it is fine, just like it would be fine for a majority-Democratic Senate to exercise their constitutional powers to remove Trump appointees from the courts. It's perfectly legal, and therefore fine, just like the current actions of the GOP-led Senate.

Click to expand...

wing2000 said:

Reid opened the door by removing the 60 vote threshold for Federal Judges [ in response the GOP's belligerent blocking via the filibuster of Obama's nominees].

McConnell removed the 60 vote threshold for USSC nominees.

Perhaps if the Senate got back to governing in the spirit of country first (instead of narrow ideological dogma - ie "evangelicals'), the Senate and our judiciary would be in a better place today.

Click to expand...

SimplyMe said:

As Wing2000 posted, you are wrong. As the link you posted pointed out, the change Reid made was for "most judicial nominations" as McConnell and Republicans were basically stopping any of Obama's appointments to go through; but it did not apply to Supreme Court justices. McConnell went "nuclear" to get rid of the filibuster when he got tired of Democrats filibustering Gorsuch (in response for McConnell's refusing to even hold hearings on Garland).

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

The American people elected those who are in the Senate. Aren't we supposed to respect the wishes of the people?

Click to expand...

Clizby WampusCat said:

The spirit of the constitution when written is that a majority is all that is required to confirm a justice. The 60 vote threshold is an arbitrary rule that the senate has the right to change if it benefits them as Reid and McConnell have done.

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

Elections have consequences. The majority of people wanted the Senators we now have, along with what they bring to the table.

Click to expand...

wing2000 said:

Indeed. The wishes of the minority included.

Click to expand...

Clizby WampusCat said:

You seem to want a different form of government than the one we have. We protect the rights of the minority not their wishes.

Click to expand...

wing2000 said:

I want a Senate that governs. Re-establish the 60 vote threshold for all judicial nominees.

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

You mean go against the wishes of Harry Reid?
He wanted the change when it suited him, and he got it. The change remains.

Click to expand...