Found this on another forum and wanted to get your thoughts

[melm00se]

The Democrats have been wailing, gnashing their teeth, rending their clothing and wearing sackcloth and ashes. Why? Because they, like so many politicians, are short sighted. In 2013, with the Democrats jumping up and down in righteous indignation over "their" judicial nominations, Sen. Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats voted (in a straight party line vote) changed the Senate rules. This rule change replaced the "normal" 60 vote super-majority to a straight majority vote.

Obviously (and in this case), this decision has come to bite them on the a$$. Politicians, IMO, can be extremely infantile in their perception and action: rarely looking beyond the tip of their noses and when they do it is almost always never past the next election cycle.

While the Republicans bear a certain amount of blame putting forward and confirming this chucklehead, the Democrats carry a certain amount of guilt because of their partisan rules change.

Thoughts and counter arguments?

[manor321]

1. It's fucking bullshit

Why are you posting this garbage here?

Democrats had to do that because Republicans were blocking everything.

Delete this fucking shit!

[njhoneybadger]

2. It's fucking Bullshit

[Squinch]

4. Melmoose sounds like melman.

[mercuryblues]

5. Your concern is duly noted

[kentuck]

6. Democrats did not change the rules for appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

Mitch McConnell says, "Oh yes you did!"

Democrats say, "No, we specifically stated at the time that it was for lower courts only."

Left unsaid was the fact that McConnell and the Republicans were holding all judges hostage to their political will. They were putting great pressure on the judicial system, with the short load of judges. Harry Reid and the Democrats thought the majority had the authority to stop the minority in indulging in such tactics.

So Mitch and the Republicans, with Neil Gorsuch, say that the rule also applies to Supreme Court Justices. It's whomever they want, regardless of their qualifications or ethical lapses.

That seems to me to be where we are?

[Buckeyeblue]

7. Turtle would have eventually done this

When he got the chance. Just think how many fewer justices we would have if Reid didn't do this.

I'm not a big fan of the filibuster in general. I think sometimes it let's the majority off the hook for legislation the base may want (but may not be a good idea). The legislation can be brought up and filibustered and then the majority can shrug their shoulders and say, we tried but those bastards wouldn't even let us vote on it.

[oberliner]

8. Pretty standard attack on Democrats

Counter argument: Republicans change the rules when it suits them, regardless of what Democrats do/did.

[Amishman]

9. doesn't matter, the gloves are off

Republicans are playing for keeps, and we are starting to do it as well.

If they didn't remove it, we would when presented with a similar situation.

Filibuster for legislation is doomed as well. Either they will remove it, or we will once we retake power.

Politeness is dead.

[lindysalsagal]

10. At the time, I remember thinking, "Well, we'll see if this is good or bad."

I personally think it should have remained at 2/3's for anything important. But, my opinion is irrelevant.

Had it remained at 2/3, the parties would be forced to compromise. I think this is one of the biggest reasons the ugly left-right polarization has increased.

Which party gets the blame? Citizen's united was the GOP's baby. Money now owns us all. That, they cannot outrun.

Arguments can be made to stop the race to the bottom, or for us to always remain on the high road amid their slimy underhanded maneuvers. I have no answer to that: When they go low, do we try to go lower, or lose to their tactics? Wish I knew.

[OnDoutside]

11. I've heard quite a few Republican apologists, in the last few days, say "But Reid did this" and Dems

counter with "Yes because McConnell set out to completely stop Obama appointments, unless they were Republican", and then Republicans would bring up some other one from previous to that, and the Dem counters with one previous to that. It never fucking ends.

The only thing I can see is that Democrats seem to be doing it for the right reasons i.e. to ensure the democratic process continues, while the Republicans are doing it as a "Fuck you".

[Trust Buster]

12. Yes, the same creeps that disallowed President Obama's nominee from even having a hearing

Were going to play nicely nice if only the dems had not changed the filibuster rules for lower court nominees. I don’t think the author of the above OP understands what we are up against here.

[GoCubsGo]

13. Gaslighting at its finest.

Thanks for the warning about what tactics they're using now. We'll know how to counter them.