Support NeoGAF

[Makonero]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/23/14982598/neil-gorsuch-democrats-nuclear-option-strategy



I love this point by Vox.

YEP

gotta play the game according to the rules that have been decided, and by not hearing out Garland, the Republicans have set up the game this way

 

[SolarPowered]

How it fucking should be. No cooperation with Russian backed fascists and beyond partisan hacks who literally stole a supreme court nomination from Obama. Let them destroy the filibuster so they can get utterly FUCKED come 2020.

I welcome this

 

[frogger]

good, grow come balls.

 

[War Peaceman]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/23/14982598/neil-gorsuch-democrats-nuclear-option-strategy



I love this point by Vox.

True. Also, if you just let people do what they want because of the threat of the fillibuster, then what's the point of doing anything. If Republicans really want something to happen, they can nuke the fillibuster and let it happen. However nuking the fillibuster leaves them vulnerable to it being used against them in future. If you let them hold it above your head then you are just letting them get what they want without any upside. It isn't a choice.

Plus, the Republicans didn't even fillibuster Garland.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Not calling their bluff just makes zero sense.

If they don't change the filibuster rules for Gorsuch, then yay, we avoided a pretty shitty guy being appointed to the Supreme Court. If they do change the rules, then Gorsuch gets in, but he would have got in anyway if Democrats didn't obstruct.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that Republicans will not use the "nuclear option" to get in a truly abhorrent right-wing justice. Why would they not use every tool available to push through the candidate that really would benefit them? The answer is that they would.

 

[Anoregon]

Not calling their bluff just makes zero sense.

If they don't change the filibuster rules for Gorsuch, then yay, we avoided a pretty shitty guy being appointed to the Supreme Court. If they do change the rules, then Gorsuch gets in, but he would have got in anyway if Democrats didn't obstruct.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that Republicans will not use the "nuclear option" to get in a truly abhorrent right-wing justice. Why would they not use every tool available to push through the candidate that really would benefit them? The answer is that they would.

Because they fucking love the fillibuster and once it's gone, it's gone. Even the most die-hard republican shitheel in the senate realizes that eventually the democrats will have the majority again, and at that point not having filibuster will be devastating.

 

[pigeon]

Because they fucking love the fillibuster and once it's gone, it's gone. Even the most die-hard republican shitheel in the senate realizes that eventually the democrats will have the majority again, and at that point not having filibuster will be devastating.

Then I bet they won't want to bust the filibuster this time.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Is there anything that prevents the filibuster from being reinstated?

Could you just nuke it for a short time and then bring it back?

 

[kirblar]

Because they fucking love the fillibuster and once it's gone, it's gone. Even the most die-hard republican shitheel in the senate realizes that eventually the democrats will have the majority again, and at that point not having filibuster will be devastating.

McConnell doesn't want it gone.

 

[Dhx]

Spicy couldn't have phrased that worse.

"We urge Schumer and the Democrats to allow for an up or down vote."

LOLOLOL

Is he speaking in Reddit terms? Spicer does look like the type of dude that browses Reddit all day.

That's the common phrasogy for a simple majority or clean vote. Unless I'm missing the joke.

 

[jurgen]

Is there anything that prevents the filibuster from being reinstated?

Could you just nuke it for a short time and then bring it back?

Takebacksies rarely exist in politics. Reid nuked it in '13 but McConnell restored it because he thinks it's important if Republicans are the minority again.

I'm not sure the Democrats should really want to cause of the filibuster when there's a chance Ginsburg or Breyer's seat will need filling. Gorsuch is filling a conservative seat. I'd save this filibuster fight for when we're looking at a dramatic flip of the courts, because we might need to save ammo.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Honestly, Gorsuch is a perfectly competent judge, from what I can tell, and was prob the best case scenario for Dems. This is a risk.

have you read about that one trucker case?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/21/opinions/judge-gorsuch-the-frozen-truck-driver-opinion-callan/

its crazy what this man believes

i know cnn is considered fake news by many but this has been subject to the senate hearing

 

[Byakuya769]

Takebacksies rarely exist in politics. Reid nuked it in '13 but McConnell restored it because he thinks it's important if Republicans are the minority again.

I'm not sure the Democrats should really want to cause of the filibuster when there's a chance Ginsburg or Breyer's seat will need filling. Gorsuch is filling a conservative seat. I'd save this filibuster fight for when we're looking at a dramatic flip of the courts, because we might need to save ammo.

What would having that in the clip do? You're getting Alito part 2 at best. So filibuster, get non crazy person and have ultra right person instead... yay?

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Republicans will just go nuclear again and force a simple majority vote

 

[jurgen]

What would having that in the clip do? You're getting Alito part 2 at best. So filibuster, get non crazy person and have ultra right person instead... yay?

You're getting a medium Thomas-Alito hybrid to replace a Scalia now. Do you want to risk having no filibuster against a Scalia replacing Ginsberg down the road?

It would be a smaller victory now and, potentially, a larger defeat later.

 

[ShironRedshift]

You're getting a medium Clarence Thomas to replace a Scalia now. Do you want to risk having no filibuster against a Scalia replacing Ginsberg down the road?

It would be a smaller victory now and a potentially larger defeat later.

Are you arguing that Republicans can be trusted and can be held to that, and won't just backstab the Dems and get rid of it anyway in that situations? The GOP, of all parties? Also, it's an odd argument that Republicans would be totaaaaaly willing to gut the filibuster for someone who doesn't move the Court in any significant way, but as long as Democrats are willing to play nice, if Ginsburg passes, that of all times will be when Republicans will let it stand? Yeah, no. If they're willing to gut it now, they'd be willing then. Might as well use it while we have it and force them to own it and make that call.

 

[Calamari41]

Are you arguing that Republicans can be trusted and can be held to that, and won't just backstab the Dems and get rid of it anyway in that situations? The GOP, of all parties? Also, it's an odd argument that Republicans would be totaaaaaly willing to gut the filibuster for someone who doesn't move the Court in any significant way, but as long as Democrats are willing to play nice, if Ginsburg passes, that of all times will be when Republicans will let it stand? Yeah, no. If they're willing to gut it now, they'd be willing then. Might as well use it while we have it and force them to own it and make that call.

I think that the Republicans would face a significantly higher political cost if they nuked the filibuster in order to replace Justice Ginsburg with Ted Cruz than they'll take for nuking it to replace Scalia with another Scalia.

 

[TyrantII]

Takebacksies rarely exist in politics. Reid nuked it in '13 but McConnell restored it because he thinks it's important if Republicans are the minority again.

I'm not sure the Democrats should really want to cause of the filibuster when there's a chance Ginsburg or Breyer's seat will need filling. Gorsuch is filling a conservative seat. I'd save this filibuster fight for when we're looking at a dramatic flip of the courts, because we might need to save ammo.

Again, at which point the GOP will take it away and nominate some 30 year old super conservative.

The Dems have no leverage over if the filibuster stays or goes. You can't save something for the future you have no control over. Using it now or not using makes it no more or less likely to be around next year.

This is exactly the situation where is should be used optimally. Especially if the GOP does not want to blow it up for fear of 2018.

 

[Principate]

Again, at which point the GOP will take it away and nominate some 30 year old super conservative.

The Dems have no leverage over if the filibuster stays or goes. You can't save something for the future you have no control over. Using it now or not using makes it no more or less likely to be around next year.

This is exactly the situation where is should be used optimally. Especially if the GOP does not want to blow it up for fear of 2018.

Considering Trump's dramatically falling approval rate I wouldn't be betting on a second term for him. I imagine republicans are acutely aware of this which is why now probably is the best time.

 

[XMonkey]

At the very minimum his confirmation vote should not even be considered until the results of the FBI's investigation are known. Democrats must stand firm on this.

Let McConnell decide if he really wants to get rid of the filibuster.

 

[jurgen]

I think that the Republicans would face a significantly higher political cost if they nuked the filibuster in order to replace Justice Ginsburg with Ted Cruz than they'll take for nuking it to replace Scalia with another Scalia.

If the decisions existed in a vacuum, yes, I would agree. But do you have them keep the filibuster for now and keep the door open for potential compromise on issues (especially with growing bad blood between Trump and his own party) or do you poison the well now?

At the very minimum his confirmation vote should not even be considered until the results of the FBI's investigation are known. Democrats must stand firm on this.

Again, would you people have blocked all of Clinton's appointments since he was under investigation by the FBI as well? And I'm not talking about bullshit investigations like his infidelity either.

 

[toddhunter]

Takebacksies rarely exist in politics. Reid nuked it in '13 but McConnell restored it because he thinks it's important if Republicans are the minority again.

I'm not sure the Democrats should really want to cause of the filibuster when there's a chance Ginsburg or Breyer's seat will need filling. Gorsuch is filling a conservative seat. I'd save this filibuster fight for when we're looking at a dramatic flip of the courts, because we might need to save ammo.

I don't understand this. If it doesn't work now, how is it supposed to work when there is more at stake?

Use the ammo now. If it doesn't work, find more ammo.

 

[metalslimer]

Why should we let someone into a lifetime appointment chosen by a potential traitor?

 

[Tranqueris]

Takebacksies rarely exist in politics. Reid nuked it in '13 but McConnell restored it because he thinks it's important if Republicans are the minority again.

I'm not sure the Democrats should really want to cause of the filibuster when there's a chance Ginsburg or Breyer's seat will need filling. Gorsuch is filling a conservative seat. I'd save this filibuster fight for when we're looking at a dramatic flip of the courts, because we might need to save ammo.

Harry Reid never touched the Supreme Court filibuster.

In 2013, Democrats, led by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, finally gave in to frustration over the refusal by the chamber’s Republican minority to approve President Barack Obama’s appointees, notably appeals-court judges. With the support of 52 Democrats, Reid succeeded in deploying the nuclear option, easing passage of several of Obama’s executive-branch and judicial nominees.

Reid limited the scope of his maneuver to appointments below the level of Supreme Court justice; for the Supreme Court, traditional filibuster and cloture rules would still apply. The fact that Reid left that exception is what brought us to the current faceoff.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tions-answered-about-nuclear-option-filibust/

 

[pigeon]

I'm not sure the Democrats should really want to cause of the filibuster when there's a chance Ginsburg or Breyer's seat will need filling. Gorsuch is filling a conservative seat. I'd save this filibuster fight for when we're looking at a dramatic flip of the courts, because we might need to save ammo.

Why would McConnell not nuke the filibuster at that time, when the pressure is much greater?

If you can offer a reasonable argument, I will agree that filibustering Gorsuch is the wrong move. Nobody seems to have one.

 

[Mully]

It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.

Yeah. Just going out on a whim here, but how about Merrick Fucking Garland?

 

[jurgen]

Why would McConnell not nuke the filibuster at that time, when the pressure is much greater?

If you can offer a reasonable argument, I will agree that filibustering Gorsuch is the right move. Nobody seems to have one.

Because he walked back the "Reid Rule" that was implemented in 2013 in the 113th Congress after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 114th Congress. Because of this, he doesn't want to set up or ratify any precedent that could harm Republicans in the future if they're in the minority - which given the way midterm elections function as a referendum on the sitting President, is a possibility in 2018.

Thomas is probably going to be on the outs in the second half of Trump's term. If the filibuster is nuked, the administration isn't going to be able to get a comparable replacement to that ideology on the court and may be forced to settle for another Kennedy, which would displease conservatives.

 

[pigeon]

It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.

It's actually baffling to me that people are just utterly convinced that there's a large supply of potentially confirmable Supreme Court nominees, in the pool of which Gorsuch is relatively moderate.

This is basically totally false. Potential Supreme Court nominees are not easy to manufacture, and out of them, a nominee that is more conservative than Scalia is by no means a relatively normal choice.

 

[Ac30]

Because he walked back the "Reid Rule" that was implemented in 2013 in the 113th Congress after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 114th Congress. Because of this, he doesn't want to set up or ratify any precedent that could harm Republicans in the future if they're in the minority.

What did he walk back? As far as I'm aware the fillibuster for court and cabinet positions is still gone.

 

[pigeon]

Because he walked back the "Reid Rule" that was implemented in 2013 in the 113th Congress after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 114th Congress.

As another poster noted, this is not true. It should actually be pretty obvious to you that this is false; since all of Trump's cabinet nominees have been confirmed with less than 60 votes, they were not subject to filibusters.

But even if we assume it is true...this is an argument for filibustering Gorsuch, since McConnell will presumably not want to bust the filibuster for Gorsuch either.

 

[Escape Goat]

Not confirming Garland was fucking beyond the pale. Each and every Republican should be ashamed of themselves. I'd like them to filibuster, but consider how many Supreme Court picks Trump might get. 1 or 2 more? RBG is 84 and Kennedy is 80. Breyer is 78. They may well live to be 100, but I wouldn't bet on it. And they may decide to retire. Who knows?

Its all calculated moves. There are no good options left. America decided and we're all going to have to live with the consequences.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You're getting a medium Thomas-Alito hybrid to replace a Scalia now. Do you want to risk having no filibuster against a Scalia replacing Ginsberg down the road?

It would be a smaller victory now and, potentially, a larger defeat later.

Can someone explain how this logic works?

If they have the nuclear option, they have the nuclear option. Banking on Republicans to "play fair" and respect the Democrats not filibustering this pick is insanity. Republicans play to win no matter the method.

 

[pigeon]

Not confirming Garland was fucking beyond the pale. Each and every Republican should be ashamed of themselves. I'd like them to filibuster, but consider how many Supreme Court picks Trump might get. 1 or 2 more? RBG is 84 and Kennedy is 80. Breyer is 78. They may well live to be 100, but I wouldn't bet on it. And they may decide to retire. Who knows?

Why does this matter? McConnell can kill the filibuster at any time.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Takebacksies rarely exist in politics. Reid nuked it in '13 but McConnell restored it because he thinks it's important if Republicans are the minority again.

I'm not sure the Democrats should really want to cause of the filibuster when there's a chance Ginsburg or Breyer's seat will need filling. Gorsuch is filling a conservative seat. I'd save this filibuster fight for when we're looking at a dramatic flip of the courts, because we might need to save ammo.

Gorsuch is straight shit, with a terrible record. He's worth fighting for

 

[Zeus Molecules]

You're getting a medium Thomas-Alito hybrid to replace a Scalia now. Do you want to risk having no filibuster against a Scalia replacing Ginsberg down the road?

It would be a smaller victory now and, potentially, a larger defeat later.

Once again the republican would then just nuke the filibuster then as needed. Not nuking it now does not preserve it for later

 

[Escape Goat]

Why does this matter? McConnell can kill the filibuster at any time.

What? I just said why. That leaves a simple majority for any further appointments.

 

[pompidu]

Can someone explain how this logic works?

If they have the nuclear option, they have the nuclear option. Banking on Republicans to "play fair" and respect the Democrats not filibustering this pick is insanity. Republicans play to win no matter the method.

Filibuster can be removed and reinstated as pleased. There is no 'saving' a filibuster just to use it later.

 

[Makonero]

Can someone explain how this logic works?

If they have the nuclear option, they have the nuclear option. Banking on Republicans to "play fair" and respect the Democrats not filibustering this pick is insanity. Republicans play to win no matter the method.

100% agreed. Stop pussyfooting around and actually force Republicans to take ownership of all the crap they're doing. No reason to play nice with the big babies who threw tantrums until they got their way.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Obstruct everything. There's clearly no repercussions for doing so.

I am not opposed to using the filibuster here. But the only thing that's clear is that there are no repercussions for Republicans obstructing everything. We don't know that Democrats have that same luxury, and my suspicion is that they do not.

As I have stated a handful of times in the Politics thread, Republicans have a sycophantic Fox News covering for them at every turn, and the Democrats have no such media organ operating in their favor. Also, right wing media has bred their base to actively loathe the government doing anything, and obstruction helps support those goals. Democrats, on the other hand, operate under the assumption that public institutions actually work and government involvement is both welcomed and useful.

By all means, use the filibuster here. If the GOP goes nuclear, so be it. But Democrats should be wary that obstructing everything will be as beneficial for them as it was the GOP. At the very least, they have to be prepared to make a compelling argument to the people each time they do it (and with GOP policies, such arguments shouldn't be all that difficult to make).

 

[toddhunter]

Once again the republican would then just nuke the filibuster then as needed. Not nuking it now does not preserve it for later

Well the one thing that might change is the popularity of the republicans. In three years they might be so unpopular and facing such a big defeat that they can't go nuclear.

Of course at this point they'll just pick the most right wing mother fucker imaginable to give them a nuclear supreme court anyway.

 

[pigeon]

What? I just said why. That leaves a simple majority for any further appointments.

It's already a simple majority for any further appointments, because if McConnell thinks they will fail in the future, he will remove the filibuster then.

If you are worried that McConnell might remove the filibuster now, you need to explain why he would not just do it in the hypothetical future situation where there are more appointments to make.

Rule one of hostage negotiation is that you don't give anything unless you get hostages. We cannot enforce a pledge by McConnell to not nuke the filibuster in the future, so we have nothing to gain by not filibustering now.

 

[Escape Goat]

It's already a simple majority for any further appointments, because if McConnell thinks they will fail in the future, he will remove the filibuster then.

If you are worried that McConnell might remove the filibuster now, you need to explain why he would not just do it in the hypothetical future situation where there are more appointments to make.

Rule one of hostage negotiation is that you don't give anything unless you get hostages. We cannot enforce a pledge by McConnell to not nuke the filibuster in the future, so we have nothing to gain by not filibustering now.

There is a simple majority for lower court appointments, not Supreme Court judges.

 

[XMonkey]

It's already a simple majority for any further appointments, because if McConnell thinks they will fail in the future, he will remove the filibuster then.

If you are worried that McConnell might remove the filibuster now, you need to explain why he would not just do it in the hypothetical future situation where there are more appointments to make.

Rule one of hostage negotiation is that you don't give anything unless you get hostages. We cannot enforce a pledge by McConnell to not nuke the filibuster in the future, so we have nothing to gain by not filibustering now.

Precisely. Not sure why this is so hard to understand for some people.

 

[Miletius]

I was wrong about Democrats -- I didn't think they'd do it. Even though it's gonna get shut down I think it's better than nothing. I wasn't going to blame them if they didn't, and I won't blame them when they can't stop his nomination either. Nice to see them at least try though.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

There is a simple majority for lower court appointments, not Supreme Court judges.

There is a simple majority at any time McConnell wants one.

 

[pigeon]

There is a simple majority for lower court appointments, not Supreme Court judges.

No. Since McConnell has the power to nuke the filibuster at any time, if he ever wants to appoint a Supreme Court justice with a simple majority, he can do so. That's how that works.

 

[Escape Goat]

No. Since McConnell has the power to nuke the filibuster at any time, if he ever wants to appoint a Supreme Court justice with a simple majority, he can do so. That's how that works.

Which he is only going to do if Dems filibuster. I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Which he is only going to do if Dems filibuster. I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore.

I'm not following, either. He can nuke it now or nuke it later. It matters not when if that's the end result either way. If you're arguing against using the filibuster so that it isn't nuked, the result is the same -- a simple majority gets Gorsuch confirmed.

Filibuster -> nuke -> simple majority.
No filibuster -> simple majority.

It's not as if playing nice this time around (a) helps now or (b) helps later.

 

[barber]

Which he is only going to do if Dems filibuster. I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore.

There are three cases:
If they fillibuster now:
A: Dems fillibuster now, rules are changed to accept with simple majority.

They dont filibuster:
B: Dems dont fillibuster now, another new Supreme Court Justice resigns / dies, Dems try to fillibuster, the rules are changed to accept with simple majority
C: Dems dont fillibuster and a deal is made to choose a somewhat centrist next judge, fillibuster is maintained.

In both cases A and B, Republicans have the power to choose however they want as they are able to change the rules to simple majority whenever they want. Case C requires that the guys that rejected to hold a hearing for nearly a year to act bipartisan enough.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

A: Dems fillibuster now, rules are changed to accept with simple majority.

B: Dems dont fillibuster now, another new Supreme Court Justice resigns / dies, Dems try to fillibuster, the rules are changed to accept with simple majority

C: Dems dont fillibuster and a deal is made to choose a somewhat centrist next judge.

In both cases A and B, Republicans have the power to choose however they want as they are able to change the rules to simple majority whenever they want. Case C requires that the guys that rejected to hold a hearing for nearly a year to act bipartisan enough.

Case C is not ever happening seeing how the republicans have no real reason to move to the center when they can force the pick of their dream constitutionalist conservative judge.

bipartisanship is all but dead