The nuclear option

4,952 Views | 35 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Azeew
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 3/19/25
AG
Time to invoke it.

Harry Reid invoked it for the appointment of judges. The result was the Biden regime was able to get some of the most unqualified, partisan hacks on the bench. I watched many of the nomination hearings before the Judiciary Committee - and the cavalcade of incompetence and partisanship was shocking. Of course, The Ds all got in line and confirmed each of these terrible jurists over the objection of the Rs, but because of the invocation of the nuclear option for nominations, they were all seated.

What we are seeing now is the result.

It's time to blow up the filibuster and completely reform the Judiciary. The US Constitution calls for the USSC and whatever inferior courts Congress may create. Time to change those inferior courts. The Judicial Branch has reserved for itself entirely too much power.
LGB
Reply Quote
33
Gaeilge
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 2:21p, 3/19/25
Yeah...But ol'Reid gave Trump 3 SCOTUS picks (so far) with that move, so I'll call it a wash for now.
Reply Quote
32
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gaeilge • 2:22p, 3/19/25
AG
True - we got 3 SCOTUS picks, but I'd hardly call it a wash at the moment. The supremes decide roughly 60 cases per year - and often skirt controversial issues.
LGB
Reply Quote
16
Pinochet
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:29p, 3/19/25
They're basically trying to do that right now with the change to the budget scoring rules. It will allow just about anything to go through the budget reconciliation process, which does not require 60 votes for cloture.
Reply Quote
2
TheEternalOptimist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 2:33p, 3/19/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Time to invoke it.

Harry Reid invoked it for the appointment of judges. The result was the Biden regime was able to get some of the most unqualified, partisan hacks on the bench. I watched many of the nomination hearings before the Judiciary Committee - and the cavalcade of incompetence and partisanship was shocking. Of course, The Ds all got in line and confirmed each of these terrible jurists over the objection of the Rs, but because of the invocation of the nuclear option for nominations, they were all seated.

What we are seeing now is the result.

It's time to blow up the filibuster and completely reform the Judiciary. The US Constitution calls for the USSC and whatever inferior courts Congress may create. Time to change those inferior courts. The Judicial Branch has reserved for itself entirely too much power.
I completely agree.

The Democrats have shown their hand - that they intend to remove the filibuster when they get power.

The corrupt court system must be reigned in from top down - that means packing the court FIRST. To do that - we will have to remove the filibuster and appoint 3-5 more conservative SCOTUS judges that are NOT controlled by the Federalist society. Then add numerous Conservatives to district and appellate courts all over the country and disband the DC district and appellate courts entirely..

Then the GOP must move swiftly to enact it's aggressive and sweeping agenda before 2026 midterms. It should include election/voting reform and voting security, balanced budget law, and massive defunding of wasteful and fraudulent spending. We won't lose the Senate, but the House looks 50/50 at best.
Reply Quote
3
Sid Farkas
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:50p, 3/19/25
AG
We have the senate for all four of trump's years. He's gonna get at least one, and maybe one or two more Scotus picks on top of that
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
IIIHorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:56p, 3/19/25
Sign on Senate Chamber:

Gone fission
Reply Quote
2
CDUB98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:58p, 3/19/25
AG
Quote:
It's time to blow up the filibuster
No
Reply Quote
14
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sid Farkas • 3:06p, 3/19/25
AG
Yes, but most likely replacing two of the most conservative jurists we have. We will be incredibly lucky if he seats anyone close to as conservative as Thomas and Alito.
LGB
Reply Quote
3
aezmvp
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:09p, 3/19/25
There are other ways around it. If you blow up the filibuster look forward to court packing and all kinds of other things. That's really the last bridge. After that... not many breaks on the way down.
Reply Quote
2
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aezmvp • 3:11p, 3/19/25
AG
There's very little stopping the Ds from doing that anyway. We might as well take a shot at fixing what they broke before they get the chance to finish the job.
LGB
Reply Quote
2
The Kraken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aezmvp • 3:12p, 3/19/25
AG
Thought this thread would be about Russia/Ukriane.
Reply Quote
1
Bull Meachem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 3:25p, 3/19/25
Aggie Jurist said:
True - we got 3 SCOTUS picks, but I'd hardly call it a wash at the moment. The supremes decide roughly 60 cases per year - and often skirt controversial issues.


Abortion isn't controversial?
Reply Quote
Slicer97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bull Meachem • 3:32p, 3/19/25
AG
The fact that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional isn't controversial in the least.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bull Meachem • 3:36p, 3/19/25
AG
Quote:
Abortion isn't controversial?

They skirted it for 50 years after Roe - though they tried to split the baby (forgive the reference) in Casey. Roe was one of the most foundationless opinions in the history of the Court and as was stated above, the fact that Roe was not based in the Constitution was really not all that controversial.
LGB
Reply Quote
5
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:41p, 3/19/25
Remember Kamala promising to blow up SCOTUS and pack the court?

Ain't so much talk about that now, is there?
Reply Quote
3
rgag12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Pinochet • 3:49p, 3/19/25
AG
Pinochet said:
They're basically trying to do that right now with the change to the budget scoring rules. It will allow just about anything to go through the budget reconciliation process, which does not require 60 votes for cloture.


Ultimately it's up to the parliamentarian. They yield all the power when it comes to budget reconciliation now. The parliamentarian struck down several of the insane provisions of the IRA bill.
Reply Quote
1
Bull Meachem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 4:00p, 3/19/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Quote:
Abortion isn't controversial?

They skirted it for 50 years after Roe - though they tried to split the baby (forgive the reference) in Casey. Roe was one of the most foundationless opinions in the history of the Court and as was stated above, the fact that Roe was not based in the Constitution was really not all that controversial.


For you and those educated in the law. As a public issue, it's extremely controversial.


What makes and issue controversial and can you name a few we should look at?
Reply Quote
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bull Meachem • 4:09p, 3/19/25
AG
Two different ways to look at 'controversial' - 1. Politically 2. Legally. Abortion is certainly politically controversial. Legally, any honest attorney looking at the case will tell you that Roe had really no basis in law.

Two issues that come to mind immediately that are legally (and politically) controversial that need to be dealt with by the Court:

1. Takings under Kelo.

2. Qualified Immunity.

Reply Quote
4
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 4:11p, 3/19/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Yes, but most likely replacing two of the most conservative jurists we have. We will be incredibly lucky if he seats anyone close to as conservative as Thomas and Alito.
James Ho is on line one. He makes Alito look liberal.
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 4:12p, 3/19/25
AG
Aggie Jurist said:
Two different ways to look at 'controversial' - 1. Politically 2. Legally. Abortion is certainly politically controversial. Legally, any honest attorney looking at the case will tell you that Roe had really no basis in law.

Two issues that come to mind immediately that are legally (and politically) controversial that need to be dealt with by the Court:

1. Takings under Kelo.

2. Qualified Immunity.

As to Kelo, there is a case going to conference at SCOTUS this week, I think, that will be a good opportunity to revisit and reverse that case. Here's hoping.
Reply Quote
3
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 4:13p, 3/19/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Two different ways to look at 'controversial' - 1. Politically 2. Legally. Abortion is certainly politically controversial. Legally, any honest attorney looking at the case will tell you that Roe had really no basis in law.

Two issues that come to mind immediately that are legally (and politically) controversial that need to be dealt with by the Court:

1. Takings under Kelo.

2. Qualified Immunity.

Nearly all the states addressed Kelo with legislation. So Kelo would only have to be dealt with regarding Federal takings. QI is bipartisan, and no one on SCOTUS wants to touch it. After all, they're the ones that made it.
Reply Quote
1
titan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:10p, 3/19/25
S

Getting rid of the filibuster seems extreme. The Democrats may intend to do it next time, but they will be running a risk given the November figures for the election. Its now more than half the country doesn't approve of what they are about.

Would much rather any `nuke option' take this form -- Trump admin basically doesn't agree to stop anything when the lack of authority or jurisdiction of a court is obvious -- a version of "when in doubt assume in one's favor" --- which is what the Dem admins always did.

And the real nuclear option is invoking Andrew Jackson's reply. But save that for matters that there is clearly public mandate for.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HTownAg98 • 6:17p, 3/19/25
AG
Quote:
Nearly all the states addressed Kelo with legislation. So Kelo would only have to be dealt with regarding Federal takings. QI is bipartisan, and no one on SCOTUS wants to touch it. After all, they're the ones that made it.
Unsure about that. I remember over 40 states passed FU Supreme Court laws ut not all of them. The case I am referring to comes from Utica, NY. And involves land next to a hospital. Owned by one group who were planning a parking lot, taken by eminent domain and awarded to one of their competitors...to build a parking lot.

Bowers is part of the case name, IIRC.
Reply Quote
2
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:57p, 3/19/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Nearly all the states addressed Kelo with legislation. So Kelo would only have to be dealt with regarding Federal takings. QI is bipartisan, and no one on SCOTUS wants to touch it. After all, they're the ones that made it.
Unsure about that. I remember over 40 states passed FU Supreme Court laws ut not all of them. The case I am referring to comes from Utica, NY. And involves land next to a hospital. Owned by one group who were planning a parking lot, taken by eminent domain and awarded to one of their competitors...to build a parking lot.

Bowers is part of the case name, IIRC.

My count comes to 47 states. So nearly all.

The fact pattern in the Bowers case is a little different. The main difference is the parking lot is utilized by both the public and a private owner, as the public entity still owns the parking lot, and it's open to the public (it's leased to the medical office building next door). This one may have enough hair on it that the court may not choose to intervene.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:09p, 3/19/25
AG
I don't think Thune could get 50 votes for this if he tried right now, so it probably is a moot point. Some combination of Collins-Murk-Utah-random rino such as Tillis would object and cry about it.
Reply Quote
Mas89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bull Meachem • 8:21p, 3/19/25
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Aggie Jurist said:
Quote:
Abortion isn't controversial?

They skirted it for 50 years after Roe - though they tried to split the baby (forgive the reference) in Casey. Roe was one of the most foundationless opinions in the history of the Court and as was stated above, the fact that Roe was not based in the Constitution was really not all that controversial.


For you and those educated in the law. As a public issue, it's extremely controversial.


What makes and issue controversial and can you name a few we should look at?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:50p, 3/19/25
OP is 100% correct.

The Dems will end it once they have control again! We are simply in a waiting game right now waiting until they do it.

In addition to judicial reform, pass a national voter id law. Make voting a national holiday. Make final tally due the day of. Make election fraud punishable by death. Etc...
Reply Quote
2
Ags4DaWin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 10:04p, 3/19/25
Aggie Jurist said:
True - we got 3 SCOTUS picks, but I'd hardly call it a wash at the moment. The supremes decide roughly 60 cases per year - and often skirt controversial issues.


But it's these **** district Court judges that are invoking all these injunctions
Reply Quote
2
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ags4DaWin • 6:00a, 3/20/25
AG
What would make sense to me, and could plausibly get 50+1 votes, would be to nuke it for judicial reform legislation, so that the inferior courts and DC circuit in particular could have their jurisdiction/venue reformed/changed.

This would be a partial remedy then to what Harry Reid packing the DC circuit did, long term.
Reply Quote
ts5641
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 6:59a, 3/20/25
That's a dangerous game the dems have come to regret on many occasions.
Reply Quote
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HTownAg98 • 10:39a, 3/24/25
HTownAg98 said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Nearly all the states addressed Kelo with legislation. So Kelo would only have to be dealt with regarding Federal takings. QI is bipartisan, and no one on SCOTUS wants to touch it. After all, they're the ones that made it.
Unsure about that. I remember over 40 states passed FU Supreme Court laws ut not all of them. The case I am referring to comes from Utica, NY. And involves land next to a hospital. Owned by one group who were planning a parking lot, taken by eminent domain and awarded to one of their competitors...to build a parking lot.

Bowers is part of the case name, IIRC.

My count comes to 47 states. So nearly all.

The fact pattern in the Bowers case is a little different. The main difference is the parking lot is utilized by both the public and a private owner, as the public entity still owns the parking lot, and it's open to the public (it's leased to the medical office building next door). This one may have enough hair on it that the court may not choose to intervene.

Bowers was denied cert today.
Reply Quote
1
heteroscedasticity
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 10:47a, 3/24/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Time to invoke it.

Harry Reid invoked it for the appointment of judges. The result was the Biden regime was able to get some of the most unqualified, partisan hacks on the bench. I watched many of the nomination hearings before the Judiciary Committee - and the cavalcade of incompetence and partisanship was shocking. Of course, The Ds all got in line and confirmed each of these terrible jurists over the objection of the Rs, but because of the invocation of the nuclear option for nominations, they were all seated.

What we are seeing now is the result.

It's time to blow up the filibuster and completely reform the Judiciary. The US Constitution calls for the USSC and whatever inferior courts Congress may create. Time to change those inferior courts. The Judicial Branch has reserved for itself entirely too much power.
This is absolute projection. Trump's nominees for every position (not just judges) are a virtual parade of grifters, incompetents, suck-ups, and miscreants. The conflicts of interest among these ne'er-do-wells is astounding
Reply Quote
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heteroscedasticity • 11:18a, 3/24/25
AG
Quote:
This is absolute projection. Trump's nominees for every position (not just judges) are a virtual parade of grifters, incompetents, suck-ups, and miscreants. The conflicts of interest among these ne'er-do-wells is astounding
Saying it in general terms doesn't make it so. This cabinet is about as solid a cabinet as I've seen in my substantially lengthy lifetime. Talk about projection.


Reply Quote
4
agracer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 2:18p, 3/24/25
AG
Aggie Jurist said:
Yes, but most likely replacing two of the most conservative jurists we have. We will be incredibly lucky if he seats anyone close to as conservative as Thomas and Alito.
this.

I said it before the election, the Dems punted on the presidency and the best outcome would be for Thomas to resign and the replacement would not be hell bent on screwing over the Dems for the rest of their life b/c of Anita Hill. They'd also lawsuit the President over just about anything he tried to do and the MSM would propaganda for the DNC side for the next 4 years.
Reply Quote
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.