Support NeoGAF

[barber]

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

I thought the last sentence made it clear that i believe the possibilities of that happening are as close to 0 as possible.
Yeah, the only thing that actually stops them from killing the fillibuster is that it can be still useful for them to repell some stupid house laws by just pinning them on the democrats. But for a 30 year new judge they would be happy to abandon it (unless shit hits the fan in an even greater way with the UHCA).

 

[Escape Goat]

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.

It might matter. Say they don't filibuster Gorsuch and RBG dies/retires. The ideological makeup of the court is about to under a major shift towards conservative values. Gay marriage and Roe v Wade passed with the 5-4 split. That may make moderate/blue state Republicans less willing to go nuclear.

I don't think McConnell wants to remove the filibuster but he will. Some Democrats are trying to work a deal where they do an up and down vote on Gorsuch and McConnell promises not to kill the filibuster for the rest of Trump's term. How is this enforced? I have no idea.

 

[Fenderputty]

Democrats don't have a winning move here, all roads are shitty to tread.

Two party system is destroying the country and those in power continue to benefit.

The winning move is to filibuster Gorsuch.

The hyperbole in here is palpable.

 

[Jobbs]

Honestly not a fan of gridlock everything but I guess its par for the course.

It's more than just par for the course.

It's not Judge Gorsuch's turn. This was Obama's pick. This was Obama's seat to fill. Obama's nominee wasn't allowed a vote. He wasn't even met with. Republican lawmakers just pretended he didn't exist. They were prepared to hold the seat for 4 years if Hillary had won the election.

We need a return to normalcy where Presidents can make their appointments and senates can vote on them, sure, but it can't be only one side that gets this.

 

[pigeon]

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

Here's your post:

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?

I read this as you saying that filibustering might have bad consequences if there are more nominations in the future.

I think this is a false argument, for the reasons I gave.

 

[pigeon]

It might matter. Say they don't filibuster Gorsuch and RBG dies/retires. The ideological makeup of the court is about to under a major shift towards conservative values. Gay marriage and Roe v Wade passed with the 5-4 split. That may make moderate/blue state Republicans less willing to go nuclear.

This is exactly false. In that situation, Republicans are much more willing to go nuclear, because the potential gain is much larger.

I don't think McConnell wants to remove the filibuster but he will. Some Democrats are trying to work a deal where they do an up and down vote on Gorsuch and McConnell promises not to kill the filibuster for the rest of Trump's term. How is this enforced? I have no idea.

It's not. That's why it's a terrible idea.

 

[Escape Goat]

This is exactly false. In that situation, Republicans are much more willing to go nuclear, because the potential gain is much larger.



It's not. That's why it's a terrible idea.

If Trump put forth Scalia 2.0 to replace RBG it would leave liberals/moderates incensed. That would apply pressure to moderate Republicans to avoid nuking the filibuster and forcing Trump to moderate his pick.

 

[aceface]

Block all votes on a Supreme Court judge as long as the president is under investigation by the FBI. Don't need to make it about Gorsuch. There shouldn't be a lifetime appt made by a President who might be impeached. Makes sense to me.

 

[pigeon]

If Trump put forth Scalia 2.0 to replace RBG it would leave liberals/moderates incensed. That would apply pressure to moderate Republicans to avoid nuking the filibuster and forcing Trump to moderate his pick.

This explains why the Senate refusing to consider Garland was such an anchor for them.

Politics just doesn't work that way. Most normal people don't think much about the Supreme Court, and politicians consistently operate under the (apparently correct) assumption that there are no political consequences for actions related to the Supreme Court. That's why it's so hard to fail to get confirmed.

Furthermore, even if it were true, the potential benefits from such a move would be so high that McConnell would just whip his caucus to confirm them anyway.

 

[Forgotten_Taco]

If Trump put forth Scalia 2.0 to replace RBG it would leave liberals/moderates incensed. That would apply pressure to moderate Republicans to avoid nuking the filibuster and forcing Trump to moderate his pick.

Liberals are already incensed, McConnel doesn't give a shit. I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Escape Goat]

Liberals are already incensed, McConnel doesn't give a shit. I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water.

It's not just about liberals but moderates. So, I'm sorry, but it does.

 

[Fenderputty]

If Trump put forth Scalia 2.0 to replace RBG it would leave liberals/moderates incensed. That would apply pressure to moderate Republicans to avoid nuking the filibuster and forcing Trump to moderate his pick.

Liberals and moderates were so incensed at the thought of this happening they stayed home on Nov 2016

It's not just about liberals but moderates. So, I'm sorry, but it does.

Moderates care about RGB getting replaced by someone less liberal? Really?

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

Block all votes on a Supreme Court judge as long as the president is under investigation by the FBI. Don't need to make it about Gorsuch. There shouldn't be a lifetime appt made by a President who might be impeached. Makes sense to me.

Not this shit again. You think government is bad now you haven't seen nothing if a FBI investigation is enough to neuter a sitting president from doing anything.

 

[Staccat0]

I guess this will be a good moment for Dems to take notes on how they should have destroyed the GOP for being obstructionists. I sincerely doubt the Republicans are gonna mind much.

 

[Forgotten_Taco]

It's not just about liberals but moderates. So, I'm sorry, but it does.

No, it doesn't. Moderates aren't going turn out and make a fuss over RBG.

It is going to piss off an active base if the Democrats cut a deal.

Right now the energy and enthusiasm is with the Democrats to filibuster now. While it might be there in a year, or two, or three there's no guarantees.

There's no guarantee Trump will even get another SC pick, or that the Republicans will still control the senate if he does.

 

[pigeon]

It's not just about liberals but moderates. So, I'm sorry, but it does.

There is no evidence for this position and plenty of recent evidence against it.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Honestly not a fan of gridlock everything but I guess its par for the course.

Ill take gridlock over hurtling towards the abyss

 

[Strike]

Go for it.

 

[CazTGG]

Question: If Gorsuch gets filibustered and denied, isn't there always the nuclear option for Trump to use during a recess session that could see him placed onto the court or would that require him to choose a different judge?

 

[Amibguous Cad]

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.

I'm about 50-50, but to state the other side:

Assume the filibuster is dead as a door nail. The aim of Democrats, then, is not to prevent any of Trump's nominees, but to exact the highest price possible for going nuclear (and force Reps to go nuclear before Dems retake government). That price is going to be higher a couple years down the line when Trump tries to replace a moderate with a Scalia.

Reading some of your previous posts, you seem to think that the government isn't held accountable for the supreme court, which.... I can't really endorse. If no one pays attention to this and it's carte blanche, why did no one go nuclear on this before? What changed?

 

[Baron Aloha]

Good

For the folks saying the dems shouldn't do this because "it could be worse"... tell me how?

Yes, you can get a bigger asshole on the court, but at the end of the day a conservative vote is still a conservative vote. It doesn't actually matter who it comes from. This guy is going to side with the conservatives on everything. He was chosen to replace Scalia for a reason.

 

[pigeon]

I'm about 50-50, but to state the other side:

Assume the filibuster is dead as a door nail. The aim of Democrats, then, is not to prevent any of Trump's nominees, but to exact the highest price possible for going nuclear (and force Reps to go nuclear before Dems retake government). That price is going to be higher a couple years down the line when Trump tries to replace a moderate with a Scalia.

Since I don't believe there is any political penalty, I don't believe this is true.

In the general case, I actually think the whole idea of "replacing X" is flawed, as it implies some hypothetical ideal or correct state of SCOTUS that we're currently near. This is not really how the Supreme Court works. Once the justice is dead, they're dead. All that matters is who gets nominated, not whether they resemble the previous justice.

Reading some of your previous posts, you seem to think that the government isn't held accountable for the supreme court, which.... I can't really endorse. If no one pays attention to this and it's carte blanche, why did no one go nuclear on this before? What changed?

Norms? Nobody ever blockaded a nomination the way Garland was blockaded before, either.

 

[barber]

I'm about 50-50, but to state the other side:

Assume the filibuster is dead as a door nail. The aim of Democrats, then, is not to prevent any of Trump's nominees, but to exact the highest price possible for going nuclear (and force Reps to go nuclear before Dems retake government). That price is going to be higher a couple years down the line when Trump tries to replace a moderate with a Scalia.

Reading some of your previous posts, you seem to think that the government isn't held accountable for the supreme court, which.... I can't really endorse. If no one pays attention to this and it's carte blanche, why did no one go nuclear on this before? What changed?

Electing an african american president pretty much destroyed the small range of bipartisanship the republican base accepted.
And now that they have the complete validation that noone cares about blocking the Supreme Court hostage, they have no problem with doing that.

 

[XMonkey]

It's not just about liberals but moderates. So, I'm sorry, but it does.

The moderates are not driving the Republican Party right now. If Trump gets another pick later and the filibuster is still in place it will go away to allow them to appoint another. They would never pass that chance up.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

A moderate republican is still FAR right from the center, the term doesn't hold the same weight in 2017

 

[War Peaceman]

A moderate republican is still FAR right from the center, the term doesn't hold the same weight in 2017

Yup, gerrymandering has filled the house with loons. There are still degrees of insanity, but the vast majority are beyond reason.

The senate, less so.

 

[Erevador]

Gorsuch is eminently qualified.

He deserves to be quickly confirmed.

Merrick Garland was also an eminently qualified candidate who deserved to be quickly confirmed.

The world is an unjust place and we must make the best of it.

 

[War Peaceman]

Gorsuch is eminently qualified.

He deserves to be quickly confirmed.

Merrick Garland was also an eminently qualified candidate who deserved to be quickly confirmed.

The world is an unjust place and we must make the best of it.

'The world is an unjust place' absolves responsibility from those who broke the rules. It is an unjust place BECAUSE people behaved badly. Republicans stole Obama's democratically-deserved supreme court pick. This behaviour cannot be permitted. It should be resisted.

(This also ignores the game theory benefits of resisting as a means of mitigating future misbehaviour)

 

[pigeon]

Gorsuch is eminently qualified.

He deserves to be quickly confirmed.

Merrick Garland was also an eminently qualified candidate who deserved to be quickly confirmed.

The world is an unjust place and we must make the best of it.

It's not clear that confirming Gorsuch is making the best of this situation. I would assert that it is not.

 

[Jobbs]

Gorsuch is eminently qualified.

He deserves to be quickly confirmed.

Merrick Garland was also an eminently qualified candidate who deserved to be quickly confirmed.

The world is an unjust place and we must make the best of it.

If any democrats cooperated with republicans on this I'd feel the same disgust I felt watching the walking dead when

Spoiler

rick and friends were gathering shit for neagan.

nothing good comes from cooperating with horrible people who behaved horribly just in hopes that it doesn't get worse. It'll get worse. Stop being pussies, fight back, stand for something

 

[Iksenpets]

Gorsuch is eminently qualified.

He deserves to be quickly confirmed.

Merrick Garland was also an eminently qualified candidate who deserved to be quickly confirmed.

The world is an unjust place and we must make the best of it.

When norms are violated, retaliation is a necessary remedy. It's the only way we get back on track. Otherwise, it just becomes a game of Republicans constantly pushing the envelope with no consequences. Dems should literally filibuster anyone not named Merrick Garland. Gorsuch himself decided to reward a system in which qualified judges are abused for partisan gain when he agreed to be the Republicans' reward for what they did to Garland. He forfeited any right to fair treatment when he accepted a stolen seat, qualifications be damned.

Also, the filibuster is going to die eventually. Dems might as well force McConnell to be the one with its blood on his hands.

 

[Aaron Strife]

When norms are violated, retaliation is a necessary remedy. It's the only way we get back on track. Otherwise, it just becomes a game of Republicans constantly pushing the envelope with no consequences. Dems should literally filibuster anyone not named Merrick Garland. Gorsuch himself decided to reward a system in which qualified judges are abused for partisan gain when he agreed to be the Republicans' reward for what they did to Garland. He forfeited any right to fair treatment when he accepted a stolen seat, qualifications be damned.

Also, the filibuster is going to die eventually. Dems might as well force McConnell to be the one with its blood on his hands.

Bingo.

First of all McConnell has no obligation to uphold any sort of gentleman's agreement with the Democrats to leave the filibuster alone if Breyer or Ginsburg step down (voluntarily or otherwise). Just about the only such agreement I'd accept would be one that seats Garland and Gorsuch - in that order, because I don't trust Republicans not to be like "we'll seat Garland next time there's a vacancy, oh tee hee, we lied."

Second, McConnell abolishing the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees just paves the way further for Democrats to get rid of it period next time we control the Senate. Like sure, it's great that we still have it as a tool to block Trump's agenda, but it's an antiquated rule that does nothing but grind progress to a halt and we should eliminate it. I'll be pissed as hell if say in 2021 we have a Dem president, Dem House and like 55 seats in the Senate and still can't get shit passed.

 

[ultratruman]

Doing this isn't smart, it's just going to get Republicans to remove the filibuster law. You can't fight fire with pyromaniacs.

Republican senators voted for Kagan and Sotomayor because they were qualified. Gorsuch, regardless of his politics, is absolutely qualified.

 

[Jobbs]

Doing this isn't smart, it's just going to get Republicans to remove the filibuster law. You can't fight fire with pyromaniacs.

Republican senators voted for Kagan and Sotomayor because they were qualified. Gorsuch, regardless of his politics, is absolutely qualified.

It's not Gorsuch's turn, don't recognize him as legitimate. Don't recognize this president as legitimate. He's under investigation by the FBI.

I would never vote for any democrat no matter who it was for any office ever again if they didn't filibuster Gorsuch.

 

[The Chosen One]

Doing this isn't smart, it's just going to get Republicans to remove the filibuster law. You can't fight fire with pyromaniacs.

Republican senators voted for Kagan and Sotomayor because they were qualified. Gorsuch, regardless of his politics, is absolutely qualified.

I agree.

This is poor politics by the Dems. We're on the verge of the Republicans having a huge egg on their face over their healthcare fiasco. There's going to be a lot of conservative Dems/moderate Republicans who will star regretting their vote for Trump. Or at the very least they may feel they need to get more Dems in the House.

But if Congressional Dems waste too much oxygen on blocking Gorsuch, they'll be perceived as engaging in a liberal crusade/retribution by swing voters. Dems priority should be getting the House back in the 2018 midterms. Blocking Gorsuch will just alienate the people they need to win over.

Also I don't understand what Schumer's end game is here. I do understand they need to do some deterrence so Republicans (or anyone) don't pull this stunt again. But this is just the wrong time and the wrong play. Dems have soooo many other cards to play right now. IMO, I would focus on taking advantage of the other current events and save the obstruction for the next Supreme Court vacancy.

 

[Maledict]

I'm sorry but what nonsense.

Swing voters and moderates don't give a flying fuck about the supreme court. We have objective proof of that - look what happened last year. Saying that the republicans are allowed to fundamentally destroy your democracy by going outside their duties, but the democrats aren't allowed to insist on the same standards that every other supreme court nominee for the past 30 years has adhered too is absolute garbage,

 

[firehawk12]

4 year filibuster?

 

[Jobbs]

4 year filibuster?

yeah.

that's what the republicans were going to do to Garland if Hillary won, btw. Just never have a vote ever for 4 years if needed.

 

[firehawk12]

yeah.

that's what the republicans were going to do to Garland if Hillary won, btw. Just never vote on him.

Man. I hope the Dems don't cave then.

 

[Jobbs]

Man. I hope the Dems don't cave then.

We can be reasonably sure this seat is never getting filled by anyone ever until the end of time unless the filibuster is done away with, which is why they'll probably do away with it before their time is up, lest the democrats get in and do away with it.

Even if that's nearly inevitable, it's best to go down fighting. If the democrats supported Gorsuch they would massively demoralize their base, who is still supremely pissed about the seat being stolen from Obama.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

They stole a seat that was, by every measure, Obama’s to appoint.

They stole a SCOTUS seat, and some of you are arguing that we shouldn't obstruct? What the hell do we have to lose? McConnell is such a petty fuck that we'll lose the filibuster eventually. I'd rather it be over defending a seat that belongs to us.

 

[Angelus Errare]

The amount of people in this thread saying Democrats are in the wrong to filibuster because it's not "fair" to the qualified Gorsuch is hilarious, pathetic, and sad.

 

[Culex]

By allowing Gorsuch to be nominated and then confirmed, we are allowing what the Republicans did to Garland to be copacetic, A-OK, and proper.

That shit cannot happen.

 

[Slime]

I agree with this guy:

“The bombshell revelation that U.S. officials have information that suggests Trump associates may have colluded with the Russians means we must pause the entire Trump agenda. We may have an illegitimate President of the United States currently occupying the White House.”

“Other than allowing routine governmental functions, there must be a total and complete shutdown of any agenda item being pushed by the Trump Administration. Congress cannot continue regular order and must stop voting on any Trump-backed agenda item until the FBI completes its Trump-Russia collusion investigation.”

“Congress must immediately form an independent commission and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the collusion allegations with impartiality and independence. Congress also needs to pass the Resolution of Inquiry, authored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and I, to compel the Trump Administration to publicly disclose information on its Russian ties to the American people. At this point in our nation's history, there is nothing more important than finding out whether or not high crimes were committed by associates of Donald Trump or possibly by Trump himself.”

https://lieu.house.gov/media-center...rt-trump-associates-possible-collusion-russia

Obstruct in any way possible until Trump is either absolved or impeached.

 

[entremet]

Republicans started this not giving Merrick Garland a chance.

They deserve it.

 

[Jobbs]

I agree with this guy:



https://lieu.house.gov/media-center...rt-trump-associates-possible-collusion-russia

Obstruct in any way possible until Trump is either absolved or impeached.

Beyond that it should be a stance of absolute and complete obstruction as long as GOP is in power no matter what's happening. Anything less would mean democrats are the spineless pussies everyone always says they are.

Anyone talking about what's right or dignified or high road hasn't been paying attention. In politics, total shamelessness, complete obstruction, and being the biggest assholes possible is not punished in any way. We know that it isn't. We just watched it not be for 6 years. We just watched it not be with Trump's election. There is no bottom to race to.

 

[harriet the spy]

I don't have (and I'm sure even the loudest of you don't either) the actual, non-armchair political saviness to deeply understand whether filibustering is a good idea from a strategic point of view.

But petty as that might be - hell if i don't actually enjoy democrats giving republicans a taste of their own medicine. Obstruct obstruct obstruct everything this government offers, including free puppies.

 

[King Tubby]

This is poor politics by the Dems. We're on the verge of the Republicans having a huge egg on their face over their healthcare fiasco. There's going to be a lot of conservative Dems/moderate Republicans who will star regretting their vote for Trump. Or at the very least they may feel they need to get more Dems in the House.

But if Congressional Dems waste too much oxygen on blocking Gorsuch, they'll be perceived as engaging in a liberal crusade/retribution by swing voters. Dems priority should be getting the House back in the 2018 midterms. Blocking Gorsuch will just alienate the people they need to win over.

If standing up against this administration is enough to outweigh all of the bullshit the Trump White House is pumping out, it's a lost cause anyway. Filibuster this man. The Democrats need to give a voice to the anger that their base is feeling. They have a motivation and credibility problem. They need to nut up or shut up.

 

[Maxim726X]

Good

For the folks saying the dems shouldn't do this because "it could be worse"... tell me how?

Yes, you can get a bigger asshole on the court, but at the end of the day a conservative vote is still a conservative vote. It doesn't actually matter who it comes from. This guy is going to side with the conservatives on everything. He was chosen to replace Scalia for a reason.

Eh... Not that I disagree in principle, but SC judges can be unpredictable.

Roberts upheld the ACA, and was chosen by Bush the lesser.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

If Republicans get the opportunity to fill another seat beyond Scalia's to enjoy a 6-3 advantage on the court (for the next 20-30 years) they will do WHATEVER is necessary, including backing out of any "deal" made with Dems for this pick. They don't care about the short-term heat that such a move would generate as their shameless handling of Garland shows.

Filibustering Gorsuch is the only option, and do so by saying he was picked by a President currently under FBI investigation for collusion with a foreign adversary.