NDL Forum

Gotta enter an email address to read that article, no go for me.


I also read that "22 times a vacancy has opened during an election year. 22 times that president placed a name into nomination."

But let me guess, everywhere you look Trump will get blasted for doing the same thing...

shel311 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:39 pm Gotta enter an email address to read that article, no go for me.

Same here.

I love watching the left lose their shit when the right plays by the rules they initially set. (Simple majority vote)

shel311 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:39 pm Gotta enter an email address to read that article, no go for me.


I also read that "22 times a vacancy has opened during an election year. 22 times that president placed a name into nomination."

But let me guess, everywhere you look Trump will get blasted for doing the same thing...

Trump nominating someone has never been the issue. The hoopla is the Senate.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supr ... ion-years/

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:28 pm The hoopla is the Senate

Seems like both sides have reversed course from their 2016 opinions.

shel311 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:43 pm

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:28 pm The hoopla is the Senate

Seems like both sides have reversed course from their 2016 opinions.

But the media won't show how determined the left was about it going to a vote, and we all know he would have never been confirmed in a republican senate.....but orange man bad

Soooo tell me where you disagree Dems started the ball rolling down the hill by changing rules for appointments minus supreme court.

Repubz flip em off by not at least going thru the motions for obama's nomination.

Repubz kick the ball off the cliff by changing supreme court rules.

When Dems regain power they change the rules so much as to never allow conservatives to smell power again?

I don't see how conservatives see this playing out down the road any other way as their electorate shrinks year after year. But go ahead and stick it to the Dems now.

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:08 pm Soooo tell me where you disagree Dems started the ball rolling down the hill by changing rules for appointments minus supreme court.

Repubz flip em off by not at least going thru the motions for obama's nomination.

Repubz kick the ball off the cliff by changing supreme court rules.

When Dems regain power they change the rules so much as to never allow conservatives to smell power again?

I don't see how conservatives see this playing out down the road any other way as their electorate shrinks year after year. But go ahead and stick it to the Dems now.

I'm not sticking it to anyone. The Republicans should have voted no in 2016 rather than not even voting.

You are stuck on the whole supreme court piece. But it was the Democrats that went with simple majority on all votes. You can't change that fact no matter how hard you want it to be wrong. It will bite the left in the ass this time, and it bit the Republicans in the ass with Obamacare. And the talk of getting rid of the filibuster is plain madness if the Democrats get the Senate. It will eventually hurt both parties

GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:26 pm

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:08 pm Soooo tell me where you disagree Dems started the ball rolling down the hill by changing rules for appointments minus supreme court.

Repubz flip em off by not at least going thru the motions for obama's nomination.

Repubz kick the ball off the cliff by changing supreme court rules.

When Dems regain power they change the rules so much as to never allow conservatives to smell power again?

I don't see how conservatives see this playing out down the road any other way as their electorate shrinks year after year. But go ahead and stick it to the Dems now.

I'm not sticking it to anyone. The Republicans should have voted no in 2016 rather than not even voting.

You are stuck on the whole supreme court piece. But it was the Democrats that went with simple majority on all votes. You can't change that fact no matter how hard you want it to be wrong. It will bite the left in the ass this time, and it bit the Republicans in the ass with Obamacare. And the talk of getting rid of the filibuster is plain madness if the Democrats get the Senate. It will eventually hurt both parties

Dems only changed simple majority rules for appointments like cabinet seats, head of agencies, and so on....minus supreme court. Didn't change anything in 2016 as far as passing laws from what I've found.

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:30 pm

GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:26 pm

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:08 pm Soooo tell me where you disagree Dems started the ball rolling down the hill by changing rules for appointments minus supreme court.

Repubz flip em off by not at least going thru the motions for obama's nomination.

Repubz kick the ball off the cliff by changing supreme court rules.

When Dems regain power they change the rules so much as to never allow conservatives to smell power again?

I don't see how conservatives see this playing out down the road any other way as their electorate shrinks year after year. But go ahead and stick it to the Dems now.

I'm not sticking it to anyone. The Republicans should have voted no in 2016 rather than not even voting.

You are stuck on the whole supreme court piece. But it was the Democrats that went with simple majority on all votes. You can't change that fact no matter how hard you want it to be wrong. It will bite the left in the ass this time, and it bit the Republicans in the ass with Obamacare. And the talk of getting rid of the filibuster is plain madness if the Democrats get the Senate. It will eventually hurt both parties

Dems only changed simple majority rules for appointments like cabinet seats, head of agencies, and so on....minus supreme court. Didn't change anything in 2016 as far as passing laws from what I've found.

2013 the Dems passed a simple majority on everything except supreme court. In 2017 Republicans passed the nuclear option, which now includes supreme court.

On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.

The "everything" change in 2013 was for all nominations/appointments not how laws were passed as you tried to state previously is all I'm trying to get across.

Obamacare got 60 votes in the Senate and passed the house under the 1970s era rules for reconciliation. Nothing new was changed as far as a simple majority to pass it.

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:20 pm The "everything" change in 2013 was for all nominations/appointments not how laws were passed as you tried to state previously is all I'm trying to get across.

Obamacare got 60 votes in the Senate and passed the house under the 1970s era rules for reconciliation. Nothing new was changed as far as a simple majority to pass it.

Again, a simple majority is for ALL laws passed in the Senate. The 2013 change was for EVERYTHING except supreme court nominees. 2017 gave us the nuclear option, which is now everything to include supreme court nominees

From house.gov

Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.

Was that part of the changes in 2013? No. That's all I'm saying!

Also Trump has complained multiple times about how certain things can still only be done with 60 votes in the Senate so once again everything in the Senate is not a simple majority.

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:48 pm Was that part of the changes in 2013? No. That's all I'm saying!

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Here is what I'm saying, which you cannot argue.....

2013 a simple majority vote was needed for all laws and nominees except supreme court nominees.

2017 gave us the nuclear option, that includes the supreme court nominees with everything else

GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:52 pm

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:48 pm Was that part of the changes in 2013? No. That's all I'm saying!

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Here is what I'm saying, which you cannot argue.....

2013 a simple majority vote was needed for all laws and nominees except supreme court nominees.

2017 gave us the nuclear option, that includes the supreme court nominees with everything else

Take the "laws and" part out and you'd be right.

Go to house.gov and research. Everything is a simple majority. I'm not giving you a right wing source. I'm passing on the government website as a source.

Now you can still filibuster a simple majority and then the party in power can go nuclear....which resorts back to simple majority

GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:54 pm Go to house.gov and research. Everything is a simple majority. I'm not giving you a right wing source. I'm passing on the government website as a source.

Now you can still filibuster a simple majority and then the party in power can go nuclear....which resorts back to simple majority

So what your saying is that a simple majority is not all that's needed or there would be no threat of a filibuster on laws you know like the changes from 2013 which did away with filibuster on nominations.

George a simple majority was all that was ever needed to pass a law technically since forever. Now to make it filibuster proof it took 60 votes that has not changed nor was it changed by Dems back on 2013 what was changes was they took away the filibuster for nominations minus supreme court.

Crowes wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:57 pm

GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:54 pm Go to house.gov and research. Everything is a simple majority. I'm not giving you a right wing source. I'm passing on the government website as a source.

Now you can still filibuster a simple majority and then the party in power can go nuclear....which resorts back to simple majority

So what your saying is that a simple majority is not all that's needed or there would be no threat of a filibuster on laws you know like the changes from 2013 which did away with filibuster on nominations.

Reading comprehension.....it falls short on you.

I'm not saying anything. I'm giving you direct quotes from government websites.

So a bill passed by the Senate doesn't become law until the president signs. If the president vetoes something it takes 2/3 vote to override him/her to become law.

Nuclear option gives us the simple majority rule.

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, such as the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that contravenes a standing rule, such as that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.

GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:29 pm

shel311 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:49 pm Honest question as I dont know shit about all of this, were the Democrats trying to push a nominee through in 2016 and the Republicans were able to stall it?

Not stall it, they held the majority in the Senate and they had to approve the nomination. The democrats screwed themselves under the Obama administration when they held a majority in the Senate and passed a law that just a simple majority was needed to pass any laws. Came back to bite them in the ass in 2016 and will come to bite them in the ass again here in 2020. And now they are talking about getting rid of filibusters if they take back the Senate and it will eventually bite them in the ass down the road. The filibuster is a good thing so people still have a voice even if their senators are in the minority

This is what I'm debating with you.......This did not happen...... No change to laws passing just nominations. You can find the simple majority language for laws to pass because it has always been that way long before Obama was president and to this day is still like that!

Anyone else is what I'm saying that complex? Am I not being clear?