-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination
- Thread starter Geist-
- Start date
- Status
They must have had fire and brimstone rained down on them from that politico article.
Honestly, you need no excuse besides the ugly ugly precedent this would create. They STOLE a nomination. There literally only one person who should be confirmed, and that's the middle of the ground guy Obama nominated.
No one else. Full stop. Fight this.
Honestly, you need no excuse besides the ugly ugly precedent this would create. They STOLE a nomination. There literally only one person who should be confirmed, and that's the middle of the ground guy Obama nominated.
No one else. Full stop. Fight this.
plagiarize
Banned
If all we can do is delay, then we delay.
Don't give the GOP a single piece of cover here.
If on some random chance the GOP try and do something good, then fine. Go along with it.
But I'm not too confident we'll have to cross that bridge given the first two months of this presidency.
Omegasquash
Member
What I mean is that Sessions, like Gorsuch (and frankly most of Trump's other picks), comes off as nice and sweet and considerate. Those of us here look at things from an angle that makes their disguise obvious, but to others, not so much.
Gorsuch saying he's objective, for example. There are rulings that show that he has looked at some things objectively, but the rulings where he's demonstrated otherwise, plus the source of his nomination, make it obvious to us.
But Sessions is off topic.
Hahahahaha...I hope you're right. Pence will at least act presidential. His views make me throw up in my mouth though.
gutter_trash
Banned
saving Obamacare should be more important than Gorsuch's nomination though
djplaeskool
Member
GOP seems to be doing just fine torpedoing their own plan at the moment.
I don't know why Schumer thinks he wouldn't be an independent check on Trump. I don't think Gorsuch thinks much of him.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
Force them to go nuclear on this pick, pray Ginsburg doesn't croak in three years? Sounds like a winning strategy!
Right until it blows up in their face.
Right until it blows up in their face.
Karsticles
Member
What would it matter? They go nuclear now, or they go nuclear later. What's the difference?
They won the election, signaling that the people either don't know or don't care about this move.
The rules have thus been altered.
It's awful but apparently that's the only way to get anything done (or not done) right now. THE GOP proved that.
Because it's better for him to give non answers than clearly conservative slanted ones. The thinking is maybe he can even get a few Dems to vote for him that way, and it's also not a exactly unprecedented to just say I can't comment on things that potentially might come before the court.
LiquidSword
Member
All you need to do is watch this guy say, "Well gosh" "Oh golly" like a million times during his hearing to know he's a piece of shit. Amazing that some people can't see through that shit. The way the media has been tiptoeing around how the GOP stole a nomination is bullshit too.
What makes people think they won't nuke it next time if the Dems let it pass this time? If anything they have MORE incentive to nuke it next time in that scenario because it would put the final nail in the progressive side of the court.
Gorsuch dropped "Democrat party" during the confirmation hearing. It's not a risk.
Bingo.
Hellwarden
Member
Turnabout is fair play.
Bay Maximus
Banned
Big difference between blocking everything and blocking a stolen seat. Filibuster anyone who isn't Merrick Garland.
Good.
There's no reason to keep the fight for later. We know they (this nominated one and, god forbid, another potential one or two) will still get confirmed in the end one way or another, but at least the GOP will own everything they're going to do and the Dems show some spine to re-energize the base.
There's no reason to keep the fight for later. We know they (this nominated one and, god forbid, another potential one or two) will still get confirmed in the end one way or another, but at least the GOP will own everything they're going to do and the Dems show some spine to re-energize the base.
You know why
This is the reason to do everything you can to block him. Repubs cant really play the obstruction card when all they did was play it for 4+ years. The admin being such a shit show just makes it easier. They are actually justified in being obstructionists.
People are uninformed, misinformed, apathetic to anything that doesn't directly, immediately affect them, and just plain fucking ignorant.
ShironRedshift
Member
That makes no sense. You think it will be Republicans who care about the balance of the court? Ginsburg goes, the filibuster goes regardless. McConnell ain't going to be able to resist the pressure from Trump and from his own base to fill her seat in that situation. This logic is just totally breaking by head. "Republicans totally won't be salivating over Ginsburg's seat, and will totally leave it alone, but only if you leave alone Scalia's! We tooooootally won't come after it if you don't do that! No fingers crossed behind our back or anything! Really!" Don't get by why argument is getting any ground, because it completely falls apart on its face--trusting Republicans to act in good faith like that never leads to anything good, and it's surprising to hear anyone who would call themselves a progressive try to make that argument.
Either they plan to get rid of the filibuster either way, or they don't. Either way, force them to own it. No point relying on hypotheticals. Just use the tools you got.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
The difference is 2018. If they can pull just enough wins to prevent even a tiebreaker, going nuclear would be pointless, thus preserving it for later on down the line.
Forcing them to do it now is a big risk, and to me is a sign the Democrats don't think they have very good odds in 2018.
Future PhaZe
Member
This is absolutely the end game plan. Better for this to happen so that when the dems take over they can run roughshod over the republicans in pursuit of policy.
We'll just need a candidate for president that has the balls to toss bipartisanship in the bushes in order to get his agenda through. Bipartisan politics died during the Obama era via Republican hands. This is the political reality now.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Preserve what for after 2018? If the GOP nukes it then it won't be coming back.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
You would have wanted the Democrats to oppose Trump on TPP?
BoosterDuck
Banned
Garland was a best case scenario for the right too
Dems shouldn't let the GOP push them around they need to grow a backbone
jack_package_200
Banned
Al Franken or Kamala Harris.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Most legal scholars that I've seen weigh in have said that Gorsuch is basically qualified and the kind of judge you could expect to be nominated by any conservative president. The parts of his confirmation hearing I watched showed a guy who was basically cut from the Scalia cloth, but smarter than Scalia, overall, and with the possibility of not always skewing in a conservative direction.
Now, filibustering this on the grounds that the GOP were disgusting for what they did to Garland? I'm on board with that. But Scalia-lite replacing Scalia is hardly an end of the world scenario.
plagiarize
Banned
Blows up in their face how?
Say the dems vote to confirm Gorshuch. How does that stop the GOP nuking the filibuster and ramming through an ideologue should Ginsberg pass away? It doesn't.
if gorsuch is qualified then the standards are too low. he's a fucking sociopath.
Pretty sure democrats supported a lot of the cabinet appointees. It's not gridlock everything, just some things.
This is all for show and political posturing. The Democrats have no power to do anything at all until they can flip Senate seats, and I simply disagree with the political strategy. It is a given that the Senate Republicans will go nuclear. Use it to your advantage rather than 'get it over with.'
Garland has no bearing here to the electorate the Democrats need to win back. They don't care about revenge for Garland or even remember his existence.
What do you gain in forcing the nuclear option now with a nominee that looks competent and articulate to the general public beyond points with the base?
Either force them to nominate a more center-right nominee with the second pick or use the filibuster on a less polished pick.
this is literally all that matters. 2016 was a loss because the base didn't turn out, the only hope for the next two elections is doing things that make liberals and leftists actually excited to vote for democrats again.
the party indicating that it's willing to stand up to the right wing for the first time in 30 years would be good for that.
plagiarize
Banned
Theirs. The real argument is the GOP will do whatever they need to do to win a news cycle, so it's dead already. We just don't have the timestamp.
There might be a possibility they don't nuke it. But if they need to they will for something terrible. Every time something has been in their way the last 15 years, they broke precedent, and norms and pushed partisanship to get the result they wanted.
Nothing has changed, and to expect rationality is just insane at this point.
Democrats need to draw their line and hold. You only muddy the waters and provide cover by wishfully thinking DC is operating on the same rules it did 20 years ago.
kittenbreath
Member
Yeah, I have severe doubts about the wisdom of putting the filibuster at risk for what is essentially a status quo nominee, as opposed to someone who changes the balance of the Court - not when Trump could realistically appoint Ginsburg or Kennedy's successor...
But I think the calculation here is that Democrats couldn't extract any concession from the GOP that they wouldn't go nuclear for Trump's next nominee, so they might as well stand their ground here. Otherwise they risk alienating the party base and looking like fools when the GOP inevitably betrays them.
Did you even watch the video?
ShironRedshift
Member
Dems ain't retaking the Senate in 2018, if that's what your arguing. I can tell you that right now, no matter how badly Trump messes up. The House will very much be in play, but not the Senate. Last year was the chance for retaking it, and it didn't happen. The map in 2018 was always unfavorable in Democrats in the Senate, and nothing's changed in that regard since D's are mostly defending. Ain't going to happen.
And this whole argument relies on making a deal with Republicans, assuming them to be trustworthy. What's to stop them from going back on this deal, and replacing Ginsburg's seat with a Scalia clone should she pass, either way? Especially with the base salivating over the possibility of having her seat? Nothing. Just like they have any number of times before, they'd have no problem not following through at all. This whole thing is dumb and shortsighted.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked