General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't understand the argument about saving the "filibuster" for the next SC nomination??
Chuck Todd (MSNBC) was saying that the Democrats should let Gorsuch go thru and then save their filibuster for the next nomination. If the Repubs threaten to use the "nuclear option" on Gorsuch, why would they not threaten to use it on the next one?? So, it seems to me that if they are going to go "nuclear", make them do it this time. Why wait until they have a 5-4 Court?
Can someone explain the merits of their argument?
old guy
(3,283 posts)SharonAnn
(13,778 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)As if Gorsuch is moderate.
I disagree. Trump is on his heels with the AHCA disaster and the Russia investigations. I say hit them while they're down. They won't be in power forever.
Worst case, we could add two more justices to get an 11-member Supreme Court!
Phoenix61
(17,013 posts)I agree with you. If they want to let that cat out of the bag, go for it.
janx
(24,128 posts)If the filibuster process is useless now since the "nuclear option" exists, why is a filibuster being considered at all?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)What is stranger is the idea that we shouldn't filibuster because they "might" exercise the nuclear option.
We would be allowing just their threat to prevent us from opposing Gorsuch. They would never have to exercise the option under those circumstances -- just continually threaten it.
It's time for us to call their bluff.
onenote
(42,746 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)haele
(12,673 posts)He had some Nixon skeletons in his closet he didn't want to admit to, even though his role in that administration was already pretty well known.
Haele
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)haele
(12,673 posts)[Bows] The last I read of him was his book "The Tempting of America" way back in the day - as he wrote that he was planning on withdrawing if there was going to be filibuster, I remembered it wrong.
Haele
metroins
(2,550 posts)Chuck Todd is trying to play chess.
It's stupid because politics sn't a game. There isn't only 1 filibuster or one nuclear option.
If they invoke the rule, it's not against the law, so the courts won't be able to step in and they will just use it again.
I say balls to the walls, attack the GOP on bad policy. Work with them on good policy.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)He's about to get checkmated in two moves, and he's trying to figure out how to win a pawn.
Gorsuch is going to get voted onto the court.
The chance to stop him was to find something on him. Sexual abuse, rape, drug abuse, payola.
Once that didn't work, he's getting voted in.
If Democratic senators filibuster, they change the rules the next day and shrug. If they don't filibuster, they vote him on.
Whatever they choose, the Republicans will shrug. Won't make any difference to the next opening either.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)owners would love a Gorsuch on the court.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)The fact of the matter is that if you can make the Democrats back away from a filibuster by threatening to pull the 'nuclear' option then, effectively, you have no filibuster anymore.
So either use it and let them go nuclear, or don't use it and leave them the option to threaten to go nuclear on the next vote, and the next vote and the next....
It is a distinction without a difference.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)If they use it to get a 5-4 majority, it would be even better to use it to get a 6-3 majority.
I see no logic in their argument at all.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)I agree with you. Gorsuch is terrible. Dems should do all they can to block him. There may not BE another nomination, so why wait? If they can block Gorsuch, maybe drumpf will learn a lesson and the next nominee will be a true moderate. (Well, maybe!)
Wasn't it Schumer who said if the nominee is bad, you don't change the rule, you change the nominee (paraphrasing)? I like that they dems are being feisty and pulling together on this dreadful nomination.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Progressive dog
(6,917 posts)Warpy
(111,328 posts)They've been doing that since the 90s and most of us have realized there isn't any powder to keep dry any more.
Gorsuch is appalling. They need to filibuster.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)...and then they can vote. That is the present-day "filibuster". If they can't get 60 votes, they don't deserve to be on the Court.
onenote
(42,746 posts)Rightly or wrongly, Gorsuch has made it through the confirmation process with barely a scratch as far as the general public is concerned. His elevation to the court will not change the balance as it existed when Scalia was appointed. In the absence of a general outcry against him, forcing the Repubs to go nuclear will seem gratuitous.
By waiting until the next vacancy, the Democrats may have an argument that whomever is selected will in fact be a balance shifter (assuming the next vacancy is from the liberal wing of the party or even Kennedy). That will give the Democrats the higher ground when the repubs threaten to go nuclear and may force them into someone more in the mold of a Kennedy than another Scalia clone.
Not saying I endorse this approach, but I understand why some Democrats might feel it makes more sense than to force the repubs to go nuclear over Gorsuch, someone who polling data suggest is not broadly opposed.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)And they want someone to replace Scalia that thinks like Scalia. That balance was a disaster.
Look at all the terrible right-wing decisions!
Democrats should fight harder to stop that from happening again. If they go nuclear, then deal with it at that time.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But it seems that since Gorsuch would be taking the Scalia seat on the Supreme Court, the Court would revert to the status quo ante, and just never you mind about how that seat should have been filled by the previous president.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)...the least the Democrats should demand is a nominee as "moderate" as Merrick Garland.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But yeah, if the Republicans are determined to go "nuclear," I say let's get it out there right now and quit lollygagging.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)at the Supreme Court. You can't force "consent". As Ruth Bader Ginsberg pointed out when asked about the issue:
What would be the point, they could just vote against him anyway.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)and not addressed in a judicial amount of time. You are correct that the Constitution does not put a time limit on a judge's nomination.
So, if that is the case, there is no time limit for the Democrats to take up the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, right?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)need the Democrats' consent for anything in this regard. They still may be able to stop the nomination
if they filibuster it and the Republicans don't actually have 50 votes to use the "nuclear option".
kentuck
(111,110 posts)There may be some Republican Senators that choose to not go nuclear. That would be a double whammy for the Repubs if that were to happen.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)There are more than a few right-wing Democrats who like having justices that side with corporations over people. Many of the same Senators who during Bush's term caved in and gave all of Bush's nominees 'up or down votes' demanded by Republicans, barely raised a peep when Republicans refused to even hold hearing for Republican Merrick Garland. Now once again Republicans demand an up-or-down vote on their nominee and my guess is right-wing Democrats will reward Republicans once again for their shitty partisan behavior.
Force them to go nuclear now, and at least they can never filibuster our nominees in the future.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)If the Reps are made to go nuclear, Gorsuch will be replaced with someone more right wing. No one from either party wants to go nuclear because somewhere down the line it will suck. 30-50 years for a SCOTUS to serve is nothing in the timeline of America. Ask any 16 year old.
That would be the argument regardless of whether or not you or I buy it.
haele
(12,673 posts)He will happily overturn any Civil Rights that get in the way of his personal power or his enablers; worse than most of the current crop of Right-wingers, because at least with a Christianist or a Nationalist, you know where they're coming from.
Haele
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)And because Trump would never dare to try such a thing.....uh huh
.....Harriet Miers, nominated in 2005 to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. After a little over three weeks of bad publicity, President Bush withdrew her nomination, and nominated Justice Samuel Alito.....W also withdrew John Roberts name as an associate justice in order to nominate him as Chief Justice after Chief Justice Rheinquist died.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)case unless they can't get the nomination through. Gorsuch really is the pick they want.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Freethinker65
(10,034 posts)Gorsuch, even being the conservative corporatist creep that he is, might have been confirmed. At first he just seemed like a typical qualified conservative jurist, now however he seems to be smarmy evasive hardline SOB. No use saving any filibuster now.
HootieMcBoob
(3,823 posts)For ages Democrats have nominated moderate judges to the court because they knew that they needed to pass a 60 vote threshold. Republicans on the other hand nominate the most obscenely right wing justices that they can find because they know Democrats will not filibuster. There are two sets of rules here. Also there are more than enough reasons to filibuster Gorsuch. The biggest of which is that that Trump is under investigation for what may eventually amount to treason. There's the fact that Garland was not even given meetings by Republicans and finally there's Gorsuch himself.
onenote
(42,746 posts)Rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly) the general public (not those on either side that care deeply about these things) doesn't seem to care whether he gets confirmed or not (just as they didn't seem to particularly care about Garland's fate). That's a good thing in that the public probably won't react adversely to an attempt to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination. But its a bad thing because they also won't react adversely to the repubs going nuclear, which means the repubs won't hesitate to do so in order to give Trump a desperately needed victory.
OnDoutside
(19,968 posts)time, what's to stop the Republicans picking an worse right wing nut next time and then pressing the nuclear option anyway ? Then they'll have 2 more right wing nut jobs. However in the long term, if the move towards progressive politics continues, the right won't be able to stop the left. They know that too. Call their bluff.
crappyjazz
(950 posts)Referred to RBG's age and they should save the fight in case Trump gets to nominate her replacement
moflower
(7 posts)They may not have 50 to go nuclear
onenote
(42,746 posts)The idea that they wouldn't have the votes is absurd. The downside, if there is any, of going nuclear, is far outweighed by the downside of not being able to confirm Trump's first SCOTUS nomination. If they don't confirm him, how do you think it plays out? The seat being left vacant indefinitely? Garland getting nominated by Trump? Someone "better" than Gorsuch getting nominated?
My prediction: a bare minimum of Democrats vote for cloture, allowing an up/down vote on Gorsuch in which many of those who voted for cloture turn around a vote no on confirmation, thereby allowing them to say they did what the repubs refused to do for Garland -- allowed an up/down vote.
Is this the "right" strategy? I don't think there is a "right" strategy. Any way you slice it, Gorsuch gets confirmed.
0rganism
(23,965 posts)might as well use it and get rid of it now imho
drray23
(7,637 posts)If we force mcconnel to go nuclear and remove the fillibuster they may get gorsuch. However, it is not so far fetched to think that Trump may not get another nomination for a while. If we retake the senate in 2018 then we will have the upper hand if they have removed fillibuster. I am sure mc connel is thinking about that possibility.. i say, call their bluff and fillibuster gorsuch.