Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

To Garland from Scalia mattered more than to Gorsuch from Scalia. What matters is changing the swing. Replacing Scalia with Scalia maintains but does not change anything.

When there was potential to change that it mattered more. Given there is no way to change that it matters less.

Kennedy, Breyer and RBG and preserving the balance should now be the objective given the relative power that the Democrats hold.

First, I don't agree that it is necessarily impossible to prevent Gorsuch from being seated.

Second, there is no reason you should expect a replacement of Kennedy/Breyer/RBG to have lower incentives for the GOP than Gorsuch, so if it is impossible to prevent Gorsuch from being seated as you claim, it is also impossible to prevent any of them from being replaced with a justice identical to Gorsuch. In that situation you may as well force Republicans to nuke the filibuster just to clearly establish that it is gone so that Dems can operate without the filibuster in the future.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Wouldn't really work in this instance anyway since Pence wouldn't be able to run for governor until 2020.

And he would probably lose if he ran again.

 

[Dominican Power]

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/847594740719792131

lulz

 

[BlastProcessing]

@KatyTurNBC
Nunes now: "I did use the White House to help to confirm what I already knew from other sources."

Nunes is not good at this.

 

[royalan]

I mean it seems that the disagreement over whether to deploy the filibuster and ultimately get it nuked (which is basically without doubt imo) comes from whether one thinks it has utility:
1) only if used;
2) if used or if not used; or
3) not at all.

I think there's a fourth option:

4) If both parties are willing to respect it.

Unless I've missed something, this debate over the SCOTUS seems to still hinge on the belief that, if Democrats don't filibuster Gorsuch, that Republicans will honor the filibuster should another seat open up under Trump. I just...don't see the rationale for thinking they'd go along with that.

They won't be punished by the public for nuking the filibuster if they weren't punished for stealing a seat, and McConnell is aware of this. As Pigeon said, people don't care about SCOTUS. And Republicans don't care about tossing bones to Democrats.

 

[Officerrob]

@KatyTurNBC
Nunes now: "I did use the White House to help to confirm what I already knew from other sources."

Nunes is not good at this.

Someone who cares about him needs to convince him to stop talking

 

[neurosisxeno]

@KatyTurNBC
Nunes now: "I did use the White House to help to confirm what I already knew from other sources."

Nunes is not good at this.

Katy Tur has basically spent the last 70 days shitting on Donald Trump as revenge for him being a scumbag during his campaign.

 

[sc0la]

They should filibuster because the president has questionable legitimacy, an ongoing investigation into that legitimacy, and it wasn't his pick to make to begin with.

Not because gorsuch is a bad pick (he qualifications and ideology are irrelevant.)

 

[Tranqueris]

@KatyTurNBC
Nunes now: "I did use the White House to help to confirm what I already knew from other sources."

Nunes is not good at this.

I love the "I fucked up" pictures that they always use for these types of articles.

 

[Mizerman]

@KatyTurNBC
Nunes now: "I did use the White House to help to confirm what I already knew from other sources."

Nunes is not good at this.

007 Nunes, everybody.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

To be fair, no one's ascended to the presidency by enacting a gambit whereupon they murder a Congressman, convince the Vice President to return to state politics so he can ascend to VP and then coordinate a scandal surrounding his boss so he gets the top job.

Yet.

Wouldn't really work in this instance anyway since Pence wouldn't be able to run for governor until 2020.

Steve Scalise comin for Trump

As a sidenote, this made me look up Scalise on wikipedia, which includes this quote: "Since becoming Majority Whip, Scalise has delivered several public defeats for the GOP on immigration, abortion, and education policy."

 

[Surfinn]

Someone who cares about him needs to convince him to stop talking

Lol

 

[ShironRedshift]

I think there's a fourth option:

4) If both parties are willing to respect it.

Unless I've missed something, this debate over the SCOTUS seems to still hinge on the belief that, if Democrats don't filibuster Gorsuch, that Republicans will honor the filibuster should another seat open up under Trump. I just...don't see the rationale for thinking they'd go along with that.

They won't be punished by the public for nuking the filibuster if they weren't punished for stealing a seat, and McConnell is aware of this. As Pigeon said, people don't care about SCOTUS. And Republicans don't care about tossing bones to Democrats.

Especially since the argument rests on the assumption that Republicans care MORE about Scalia's seat, to the point where they're willing to nuke the filibuster if necessary to maintain it, than they do Ginsburg's, which for some reason they... suddenly wouldn't expend the same effort for that seat of all seats? They're willing to nuke the filibuster just to hold onto Scalia's seat of all seats, but they suddenly wouldn't expend that same effort to pick up RBG 's seat if possible? I really don't follow that train of thought.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Someone who cares about him needs to convince him to stop talking

Seriously. Does he not have a lawyer at this point? Someone buy him one because he needs to shut the hell up.

 

[Fenderputty]

This Nunes shit is hilarious. Everyone freaking that Trump could cover up Russian collusion successfully should take solace in knowning they can't even cover up a leak they sent through Nunes

 

[Officerrob]

Everyone laughing at Jack Kingston on CNN is pretty entertaining

 

[Vestal]

HOLY FUCK KINGSTON ON CNN.. OMFG My eyes have rolled 360 degrees per second listening to him.

 

[Nelo Ice]

Someone who cares about him needs to convince him to stop talking

Lol GOP are probably like Rigby right now.

 

[smokeymicpot]

HOLY FUCK KINGSTON ON CNN.. OMFG My eyes have rolled 360 degrees per second listening to him.

.

Anderson just wants to go What The Fuck.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Paul Ryan is ageing by the hour at this point.

 

[Plinko]

@KatyTurNBC
Nunes now: "I did use the White House to help to confirm what I already knew from other sources."

Nunes is not good at this.

Every day with this guy.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

@KatyTurNBC
Nunes now: "I did use the White House to help to confirm what I already knew from other sources."

Nunes is not good at this.

Oh Devin honey...

 

[kirblar]

Paul Ryan is ageing by the hour at this point.

With his family history, I really think he should be pulling a Boehner here- take the speaking fee money and run.

He can't get anything done where he's at, he's likely going to lose the speakership in '18- his best case scenario is Trump AND Pence getting impeached? Which is a horrible best case scenario!

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Nunes isnt very good at this is he?

 

[shinra-bansho]

First, I don't agree that it is necessarily impossible to prevent Gorsuch from being seated.

Second, there is no reason you should expect a replacement of Kennedy/Breyer/RBG to have lower incentives for the GOP than Gorsuch, so if it is impossible to prevent Gorsuch from being seated as you claim, it is also impossible to prevent any of them from being replaced with a justice identical to Gorsuch. In that situation you may as well force Republicans to nuke the filibuster just to clearly establish that it is gone so that Dems can operate without the filibuster in the future.

It is not impossible. It is highly improbable such that it may as well be.

I don't expect there to be lower incentive to fill RBG's seat. But again, you're operating on the premise that the filibuster either has no utility at all, or that it only has utility when it's deployed.

And that future scenarios occur under the same balance of power as the current situation.

 

[pigeon]

I don't expect there to be lower incentive to fill RBG's seat. But again, you're operating on the premise that the filibuster either has no utility at all, or that it only has utility when it's deployed.

If that premise is false then you would expect Gorsuch to be relatively more moderate than a typical nominee to price in the filibuster and the number of Dem senators the Republicans must flip to get cloture.

I don't see much evidence of that.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I don't expect there to be lower incentive to fill RBG's seat. But again, you're operating on the premise that the filibuster either has no utility at all, or that it only has utility when it's deployed.

What incentive is there to not nuke the filibuster if we let Gorsuch in and then RBG or Breyer dies and we filibuster whatever ghoul Trump finds to replace them with. Doesn't that present an even greater opportunity?

 

[shinra-bansho]

I think there's a fourth option:

4) If both parties are willing to respect it.

I don't know what this means.
The filibuster or threat thereof is an obstruction tactic by a minority requiring an absolute majority.

I'm not sure what honouring it is supposed to mean.

I could understand it more if you were saying if the majority party considers it a credible threat. But then that is covered by the premise that it has no utility regardless.

 

[shinra-bansho]

If the premise is that it has no utility, then it doesn't matter whether the filibuster is deployed and nuked one way or the other.

Both Gorsuch and whatever replacement is named for a hypothetical RBG seat is ultimately confirmed.

 

[pigeon]

If the premise is that it has no utility, then it doesn't matter whether the filibuster is deployed and nuked one way or the other.

Both Gorsuch and whatever replacement is named for a hypothetical RBG seat is ultimately confirmed.

It matters in that some people are confused about whether the filibuster has utility, and that confusion might harm the Democrats in the future when picking nominees, so forcing McConnell to nuke it is the right move.

 

[chadskin]

- Nunes
- Flynn
- Deputy Chief of Staff Katie Walsh resigned
- dysfunctional State Department
- GOP infighting

Day 70.

 

[smokeymicpot]

- Nunes
- Flynn
- Deputy Chief of Staff Katie Walsh resigned
- dysfunctional State Department
- GOP infighting

Day 70.

Feels like 3 years.

 

[Gotchaye]

I can see two big reasons to not filibuster.

I disagree with pigeon that "people don't care about SCOTUS". The right cares a lot about SCOTUS. That was a big part of Trump's appeal to many hardcore pro-lifers. I think the left can be made to care to, but someone has to make the case. Democrats got a lot of mileage out of complaining about Citizens United. This was a popular issue. But while they would mention the Court, IIRC both Sanders and Clinton always focused on doing things like passing a constitutional amendment. It is very, very easy to explain why the Court is important, and it is especially easy to explain why it is important when the swing vote is at stake. If Ginsburg kicks the bucket and Republicans still control the Senate, there is a simple, concrete story to tell about what's likely to happen to precedents like Roe v Wade. If this happens some time before Trump loses the presidency, there will probably then be actual decisions to point at that are consequences of the change to the Court. It would be helpful to drag out the confirmation fight for this swing vote as long as possible, and to have this additional claim that Republicans violated procedural norms in close proximity to an election. You can't do that if there's no more filibuster.

The second reason is simpler. If the Democrats are resigned to Gorsuch getting seated anyway, getting this out of the way as quickly as possible is probably best for them as long as their own base isn't too mad about them not fighting. Gorsuch is by far the best story the Republicans have right now and they'd love it if he takes up as much of the news as possible.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

The second reason is simpler. If the Democrats are resigned to Gorsuch getting seated anyway, getting this out of the way as quickly as possible is probably best for them as long as their own base isn't too mad about them not fighting. Gorsuch is by far the best story the Republicans have right now and they'd love it if he takes up as much of the news as possible.

I feel the opposite is true: a successful 2018 relies on people wanting to turn out for Democrats and if they just fold over and don't do everything they can to prevent the GOP from stealing a SCOTUS justice, then turnout will suffer as a result. "GOP controversially nukes filibuster to insert their new controversial justice" is a better headline than "Democrats bend over and let the Republicans do whatever they want."

 

[Ether_Snake]

Can someone tell me what the Dems have to block Gorsuch? I would assume they would have to manage to make the case to "undecided voters", because right now I don't think that anyone but active Democrats care about him at all, so if they make a big deal about him and block him that would disfavor them. I'm assuming they got some arguments to put in doubt his impartiality, or some of his views?

I feel the opposite is true: a successful 2018 relies on people wanting to turn out for Democrats and if they just fold over and don't do everything they can to prevent the GOP from stealing a SCOTUS justice, then turnout will suffer as a result. "GOP controversially nukes filibuster to insert their new controversial justice" is a better headline than "Democrats bend over and let the Republicans do whatever they want."

People won't be more hyped in 2018 than they were in 2016, and Dems won't have an 08 Obama in midterms. You need a big strong case against Trump and the Republicans' bills/policies to get undecided voters and those who voted for Trump cause they wanted change or hated Hillary. 2018 is about showing how disastrous the policies from this administration and Republican-majority are.

 

[RustyNails]

Paul Ryan is ageing by the hour at this point.

How long before we see Punished Ryan with his beard?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I feel the opposite is true: a successful 2018 relies on people wanting to turn out for Democrats and if they just fold over and don't do everything they can to prevent the GOP from stealing a SCOTUS justice, then turnout will suffer as a result. "GOP controversially nukes filibuster to insert their new controversial justice" is a better headline than "Democrats bend over and let the Republicans do whatever they want."

This is assuming such headlines. There'd certainly be some "Dems block SC pick after US voters pick Trump like the GOP said they could" headlines.

But it doesn't really matter. Anyone that thinks the GOP is going to let their pick die on the vine is an idiot; do whatever. The real fights are legislative where we can hopefully sandbag them like we've been doing.

 

[GaimeGuy]

This is assuming such headlines. There'd certainly be some "Dems block SC pick after US voters pick Trump like the GOP said they could" headlines.

But it doesn't really matter. Anyone that thinks the GOP is going to let their pick die on the vine is an idiot; do whatever. The real fights are legislative where we can hopefully sandbag them like we've been doing.

US voters picked Hillary, though.

Last time the US voters picked a non incumbent republican was Bush Sr in Nov 1988.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I can see two big reasons to not filibuster.

I disagree with pigeon that "people don't care about SCOTUS". The right cares a lot about SCOTUS. That was a big part of Trump's appeal to many hardcore pro-lifers. I think the left can be made to care to, but someone has to make the case. Democrats got a lot of mileage out of complaining about Citizens United. This was a popular issue. But while they would mention the Court, IIRC both Sanders and Clinton always focused on doing things like passing a constitutional amendment. It is very, very easy to explain why the Court is important, and it is especially easy to explain why it is important when the swing vote is at stake. If Ginsburg kicks the bucket and Republicans still control the Senate, there is a simple, concrete story to tell about what's likely to happen to precedents like Roe v Wade. If this happens some time before Trump loses the presidency, there will probably then be actual decisions to point at that are consequences of the change to the Court. It would be helpful to drag out the confirmation fight for this swing vote as long as possible, and to have this additional claim that Republicans violated procedural norms in close proximity to an election. You can't do that if there's no more filibuster.

The second reason is simpler. If the Democrats are resigned to Gorsuch getting seated anyway, getting this out of the way as quickly as possible is probably best for them as long as their own base isn't too mad about them not fighting. Gorsuch is by far the best story the Republicans have right now and they'd love it if he takes up as much of the news as possible.

An administration under active FBI investigation for possible cooperation with Russian election fixers is attempting to make a lifetime appointment. If the Senate doesn't use the filibuster now, then I don't know what it's even there for.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I mean, I'm not operating under the premise that the filibuster has utility only in use or not at all - maybe that's wrong. But I think it's part of why Gorsuch, was nominated over a nutcase like William Pryor. It's why nominating Gorsuch is one of the few "normal" things that Trump's administration has done.

Pryor would have definitely have been met with a filibuster, and it would have been far easier to sell, and I'd wager McConnell would have been less inclined to nuke it over him.

All of this is to say the filibuster has worked as intended, even if you still hate the end result.

 

[Gotchaye]

I feel the opposite is true: a successful 2018 relies on people wanting to turn out for Democrats and if they just fold over and don't do everything they can to prevent the GOP from stealing a SCOTUS justice, then turnout will suffer as a result. "GOP controversially nukes filibuster to insert their new controversial justice" is a better headline than "Democrats bend over and let the Republicans do whatever they want."

Yeah, like I said they need their base to not be mad. That's why I think Schumer's plan is to try to filibuster and fail to get enough Democrats on board. But like I was arguing earlier I think that if they really want to be seen to be fighting they need to be much more forceful when arguing why they're justified in filibustering.

 

[Ether_Snake]

An administration under active FBI investigation for possible cooperation with Russian election fixers is attempting to make a lifetime appointment. If the Senate doesn't use the filibuster now, then I don't know what it's even there for.

But Dems aren't saying "we are blocking Gorsuch because of Russia". That's not their narrative.

 

[Plinko]

I was against the filibuster until Spicer said republicans always work with democrats for Supreme Court nominees.

Now I'm all in. Screw it.

 

[Blader]

Very strong source told me that Katie Walsh was fired for leaking. Her creds were yanked and she was escorted out of the White House.

https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/847568294802575360

Ah, so yes, they're definitely treating the America First group as a dumping ground. That's where Katrina Pierson hangs out now.

But Dems aren't saying "we are blocking Gorsuch because of Russia". That's not their narrative.

Schumer has said as much himself.

 

[BlastProcessing]

But Dems aren't saying "we are blocking Gorsuch because of Russia". That's not their narrative.

Schumer calls for delaying Gorsuch vote because of Trump-Russia probe

”You can bet, if the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI, the Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances," Schumer said on the floor.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Can someone tell me what the Dems have to block Gorsuch? I would assume they would have to manage to make the case to "undecided voters", because right now I don't think that anyone but active Democrats care about him at all, so if they make a big deal about him and block him that would disfavor them. I'm assuming they got some arguments to put in doubt his impartiality, or some of his views?



People won't be more hyped in 2018 than they were in 2016, and Dems won't have an 08 Obama in midterms. You need a big strong case against Trump and the Republicans' bills/policies to get undecided voters and those who voted for Trump cause they wanted change or hated Hillary. 2018 is about showing how disastrous the policies from this administration and Republican-majority are.

They absolutely will be. Trump is at horrible approval ratings and has failed at everything he's tried to do. Midterms are all about turnout: popular/successful presidents can mitigate the damage but they will almost always take damage during them. While to win in 2020 you need to get either third party voters or Trump voters to hop on board, the low turnout of midterms means you just need your base to show up.

This is assuming such headlines. There'd certainly be some "Dems block SC pick after US voters pick Trump like the GOP said they could" headlines.

But it doesn't really matter. Anyone that thinks the GOP is going to let their pick die on the vine is an idiot; do whatever. The real fights are legislative where we can hopefully sandbag them like we've been doing.

I mean if I'm an average Democratic voters who read normal liberal or leftist news sources those headlines I wrote are going to be the headlines. The goal of midterms is to get your base out while the other side is apathetic. We can worry about 2020 when 2018 is over.

Yeah, like I said they need their base to not be mad. That's why I think Schumer's plan is to try to filibuster and fail to get enough Democrats on board. But like I was arguing earlier I think that if they really want to be seen to be fighting they need to be much more forceful when arguing why they're justified in filibustering.

I don't think that at all. If enough Democrats vote to end cloture, that's just going to disillusion the base, especially since at least some of those Democrats would have to come from swing/blue states. If it comes down to "why should I vote for these spineless losers" that's a much better way to have a shitty midterm than letting Gorsuch through without a real fight.

 

[royalan]

I don't know what this means.
The filibuster or threat thereof is an obstruction tactic by a minority requiring an absolute majority.

I'm not sure what honouring it is supposed to mean.

I could understand it more if you were saying if the majority party considers it a credible threat. But then that is covered by the premise that it has no utility regardless.

Sorry, the bold is more what I was getting at.

A lot of Democrats seem to be arguing that the filibuster has any real utility in our current politics. Straight up, I don't think it does. Not with the current Republican party, specifically.

Democrats honor the filibuster. Well, about as much as you can honor an obstruction tactic. Sure, Reid neutered the filibuster, but Republicans successfully filibustered how many of Obama's nominees before Reid went nuclear? Several dozen?

I just don't believe for one second that McConnell plays that game.

The second reason is simpler. If the Democrats are resigned to Gorsuch getting seated anyway, getting this out of the way as quickly as possible is probably best for them as long as their own base isn't too mad about them not fighting. Gorsuch is by far the best story the Republicans have right now and they'd love it if he takes up as much of the news as possible.

Well, that's kinda the whole problem right there.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Schumer calls for delaying Gorsuch vote because of Trump-Russia probe

Ah I see, nice. Needs more substance beyond that though, you could argue the nomination is more the GOP than Trump.

 

[Gotchaye]

An administration under active FBI investigation for possible cooperation with Russian election fixers is attempting to make a lifetime appointment. If the Senate doesn't use the filibuster now, then I don't know what it's even there for.

I really don't see who cares about this. Certainly not the way the Democrats have been arguing it, where they don't say why this is a problem except for hypothetical hypocrisy. Again, nobody thinks Gorsuch is a Russian stooge. He's the kind of person Pence or Ryan would nominate - he got nominated because Trump outsourced the job to accredited conservatives. Like, say Trump gets impeached and removed from office and Pence is president. He'd probably renominate Gorsuch. So if he's going to get confirmed even in the worst-case scenario, why the hold up?

 

[JP_]

I can see two big reasons to not filibuster.

I disagree with pigeon that "people don't care about SCOTUS". The right cares a lot about SCOTUS. That was a big part of Trump's appeal to many hardcore pro-lifers. I think the left can be made to care to, but someone has to make the case. Democrats got a lot of mileage out of complaining about Citizens United. This was a popular issue. But while they would mention the Court, IIRC both Sanders and Clinton always focused on doing things like passing a constitutional amendment. It is very, very easy to explain why the Court is important, and it is especially easy to explain why it is important when the swing vote is at stake. If Ginsburg kicks the bucket and Republicans still control the Senate, there is a simple, concrete story to tell about what's likely to happen to precedents like Roe v Wade. If this happens some time before Trump loses the presidency, there will probably then be actual decisions to point at that are consequences of the change to the Court. It would be helpful to drag out the confirmation fight for this swing vote as long as possible, and to have this additional claim that Republicans violated procedural norms in close proximity to an election. You can't do that if there's no more filibuster.

The second reason is simpler. If the Democrats are resigned to Gorsuch getting seated anyway, getting this out of the way as quickly as possible is probably best for them as long as their own base isn't too mad about them not fighting. Gorsuch is by far the best story the Republicans have right now and they'd love it if he takes up as much of the news as possible.

If the premise is that it has no utility, then it doesn't matter whether the filibuster is deployed and nuked one way or the other.

Both Gorsuch and whatever replacement is named for a hypothetical RBG seat is ultimately confirmed.

I've said it before, but if dems help get Gorsuch through by not forcing GOP to nuke the filibuster, it's basically throwing a bucket of water on the activism of the dem base. These activists are fighting for dems and the best way to get them to stop is to make it feel like dems aren't fighting for them in return.

There was more debate early on, but just about every SCOTUS expert I've heard talk about it have finally come around to the view that saving the filibuster for later doesn't make sense because it's a toothless threat that won't actually stop a confirmation. You could argue that, in terms of rallying voters, it's worth waiting for the possibility of better timing and risking a demotivated base in the short term -- but that's a huge gamble.

I really don't see who cares about this. Certainly not the way the Democrats have been arguing it, where they don't say why this is a problem except for hypothetical hypocrisy. Again, nobody thinks Gorsuch is a Russian stooge. He's the kind of person Pence or Ryan would nominate - he got nominated because Trump outsourced the job to accredited conservatives. Like, say Trump gets impeached and removed from office and Pence is president. He'd probably renominate Gorsuch. So if he's going to get confirmed even in the worst-case scenario, why the hold up?

Well, the argument would be that republican control of the white house is illegitimate because of Russia's meddling in the election itself. Pence/Ryan don't deserve an ill-gotten SCOTUS pick, either.