If Obama got a chance to replace a right wing Supreme Ct justice, will Senate Dems allow filibuster?

[yurbud]

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)

or will they keep twiddling their thumbs and keep pissing and moaning about the Republicans filibustering all the time?

Changing the filibuster at that late date would look opportunistic at best and piss off progressives who have long been tired of Senate Democrats who have hidden behind the skirts of their foaming at the mouth GOP colleagues to avoid passing more progressive legislation their constituents want.

My poll question though: would Democrats change the filibuster if Obama had a chance to change the balance of the Supreme Court?

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	YES--They would get rid of filibuster. They would not let that historic opportunity go by.
	0 (0%)
	NO--They would keep the filibuster. Using Republicans as a human shield to protect themselves from doing what voters elected them to do is more important.
	1 (25%)
	NO IDEA--it's a crapshoot
	3 (75%)
	OTHER (please explain)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Historic NY]

1. Right now it moot unless one dies or quits....

but we still have time.

[0rganism]

3. hey, Scalia's getting pretty old

and frankly both Scalia and Thomas look like they'd be prime candidates for heart disease. It could happen.

[yurbud]

6. Scalia looks like he's one canoli away from exploding

when Thomas dies, it will be tough to tell since he barely speaks or moves now.

[Scuba]

2. The wording of the question, and possible answers, is confusing.

Yes? No? What?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

4. Yeah, I was totally confused by the wording.

[Scuba]

5. Need a choice like "Dems will find a way to screw this up".

[yurbud]

7. that would be NO. I guess I should have divided NO in two: intentionally not changing the rules

and stumblefuckery.

I don't think most senators are stumblefucks.

If they do something wrong, they meant to do it.

[yurbud]

8. I added something to first two choices to clarify

[karadax]

9. It's more likely Justice Ginsburg will retire before

A conservative justice does. It's the same argument about nuking the filibuster. Bad idea IMO.

[yurbud]

14. I doubt the GOP would put up the same fight they would for a change to the balance of the court

[Calista241]

10. They would keep the filibuster

The danger is too great. Repubs will control the Senate again at some point, and the chance of them using the same thing against us is too great.

They had every opportunity to eliminate the filibuster of judicial nominees while Bush was in office, and they ultimately did not make any changes. This went against the wishes of their base I might add.

Is this cowardice? Maybe, but the danger of a simple majority in these matters is too risky IMO.

[yurbud]

11. what is the risk? Dems barely ever used the filibuster during the Bush years

and even then, it was often a token effort after massive public pressure.

I tend not to think it is cowardice or incompetence but agreeing with the GOP on core economic, trade, and foreign policy.

[Rstrstx]

12. I think they would IF

Obama nominated someone who was well qualified, had reasonably broad appeal and support but yet they still blocked him/her anyways. I think it might be the one case in which Reid may finally pull the trigger, even if he reinstated the old rules the next day. Not that he'd necessarily want to do it, it's just that many Dem senators may try and force his ouster as leader if he didn't do something given the circumstances.

Look at the alternative if the Rs won't be reasonable: Obama certainly isn't going to nominate a conservative, a moderate to moderately liberal maybe but that would still not be acceptable to the reddest senators. If the Rs stuck together and didn't allow ANY of his nominees to come up it would mean an empty seat and a tied court in many cases. So yes, I think it would mean a breaking point if none of his choices were allowed through, though there may be enough Repubs who would grasp the gravity of the situation and at least allow for an up-or-down vote. Or maybe not.

If it does happen I'd venture to guess it wouldn't come up until the end of his term in office, and Ginsburg may be ready to step down as well by then. If that's the case the Rs might be under the delusion to think that they're entitled to a 1-to-1 swapout. I don't think Obama would let that happen on his watch, though it could get ugly if the Senate loses Dem seats in 2014. A 4-4 court would be a hugely explosive issue in the 2016 elections.

[yurbud]

13. I don't think Obama has it him to offer up a left wing ideologue in any case

[yurbud]

15. I got it backward--they changed for other appointments NOT Supremes