Support NeoGAF

[Candescence]

If McConnell wants to take the nuclear option (despite criticising the dems for even considering it), he'll do it sooner than later. But it hasn't been done for a reason, and he'd likely be utterly terrified of said reason - if the Dems retake both chambers of Congress and the White House, they could annihilate whatever legacy Trump leaves overnight, especially since the Dems are considerably more unified than the GOP ever could hope to be anytime soon.

Again - he's gonna have to do it sooner or later if he wants to commit to it. The Dems might as well milk the filibuster for all its worth until then, give the GOP a taste of its own medicine. After the disgraceful shit the GOP did with Garland, Gorsuch didn't even deserve a hearing, nevermind nomination, and the Dems should frustrate Trump and the GOP as much as possible, especially with the FBI investigation confirming the possibility that the Trump campaign did indeed work with the Russians. The Dems won a surplus of seats in both houses in spite of the unexpected Trump wave, the GOP must be terrified of what might happen in the midterms if Trump's popularity doesn't improve.

 

[metalslimer]

The FBI investigation gives a perfect excuse politically

 

[Dhx]

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

And in the end, this is why they will filibuster, even if they think it's a bad idea, all political calculus be damned.

If you take a step back, this sort of purity testing is what drove the Republicans to where they are today. I say this not to equate but to caution. There is something to be said for political pragmatism as opposed to being held hostage by your base.

First past the post is just the worst. Blow it all up or nothing will ever change. But I digress.

 

[The Albatross]

Meh, I'd take Gorsuch over whoever's next. I think this is a losing battle that won't go well for progressives in the country. I think you save your filibuster here.

Gorsuch is qualified, seemingly well liked prior to his nomination. He's conservative, but so will be every Trump nominee, and Gorsuch had signalled previously that he'd wouldn't be in lock-step with the President. As a matter of argument, I think that Democrats would be justified in opposing Gorsuch, saying that they won't consider a SCOTUS nominee from Trump until the Russia-meddling investigation is resolved. But, politically, this is a major risk for Democrats and the reward is merely "Trump appoints another nominee in 6 months." While I think there is a strong relationship between TRump and Russian meddling, I don't think that any nacent FBI investigation is going to give enough evidence to be able to indict the President and force Congress to seek impeachment, and even in that dream scenario for Democrats, the result is that Mike Pence becomes president and appoints another justice... Who will probably be more socially conservative than Gorsuch, who at least seems more judicially pragmatic on social issues. But that's even in the incredible unlikely scenario that the FBI investigation reveals impeachable evidence and that Republicans in congress feel adequately threatened of losing seats that they'd break from the party against Trump in such a scenario... Which is also unlikely.

Republicans had nothing to lose by blocking Garland. They were expected to lose seats in Congress, they were expected to lose the White House, so they figured, why not just completely obstruct this last nominee for 6 months until the election. The election turned out to be a major surprise for Republicans and Democrats. Democrats have much to lose here, as they can change senate rules to only require a 51-seat majority for Supreme Court nominees, which would then open the door for all of Trump's future nominees without contest. Especially given the stakes of the 2018 midterm elections, where Democrats have more seats threatened than Republicans in the senate, so even with Trump's unpopularity, it's up in the air whether they can gain seats to get a small majority or break even.

Big risk, virtually no reward, IMO.

 

[NastyBook]

I remember them saying they were going to start doing this on Twitter.

GOOD.

 

[Ac30]

Meh, I'd take Gorsuch over whoever's next. I think this is a losing battle that won't go well for progressives in the country. I think you save your filibuster here.

Gorsuch is qualified, seemingly well liked prior to his nomination. He's conservative, but so will be every Trump nominee, and Gorsuch had signalled previously that he'd wouldn't be in lock-step with the President. As a matter of argument, I think that Democrats would be justified in opposing Gorsuch, saying that they won't consider a SCOTUS nominee from Trump until the Russia-meddling investigation is resolved. But, politically, this is a major risk for Democrats and the reward is merely "Trump appoints another nominee in 6 months." While I think there is a strong relationship between TRump and Russian meddling, I don't think that any nacent FBI investigation is going to give enough evidence to be able to indict the President and force Congress to seek impeachment, and even in that dream scenario for Democrats, the result is that Mike Pence becomes president and appoints another justice... Who will probably be more socially conservative than Gorsuch, who at least seems more judicially pragmatic on social issues. But that's even in the incredible unlikely scenario that the FBI investigation reveals impeachable evidence and that Republicans in congress feel adequately threatened of losing seats that they'd break from the party against Trump in such a scenario... Which is also unlikely.

Republicans had nothing to lose by blocking Garland. They were expected to lose seats in Congress, they were expected to lose the White House, so they figured, why not just completely obstruct this last nominee for 6 months until the election. The election turned out to be a major surprise for Republicans and Democrats. Democrats have much to lose here, as they can change senate rules to only require a 51-seat majority for Supreme Court nominees, which would then open the door for all of Trump's future nominees without contest. Especially given the stakes of the 2018 midterm elections, where Democrats have more seats threatened than Republicans in the senate, so even with Trump's unpopularity, it's up in the air whether they can gain seats to get a small majority or break even.

Big risk, virtually no reward, IMO.

What's to stop them nuking it in 2019 when RBG passes, though? That would shift the court for a generation and there's no way the Republicans would let that chance pass.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.

I agree.

Wolf in sheep's clothing, just like Jeff Sessions.

No. I'mean from Alabama, and I can tell you that you would struggle to find worse.

Meh, I'd take Gorsuch over whoever's next. I think this is a losing battle that won't go well for progressives in the country. I think you save your filibuster here.

Gorsuch is qualified, seemingly well liked prior to his nomination. He's conservative, but so will be every Trump nominee, and Gorsuch had signalled previously that he'd wouldn't be in lock-step with the President. As a matter of argument, I think that Democrats would be justified in opposing Gorsuch, saying that they won't consider a SCOTUS nominee from Trump until the Russia-meddling investigation is resolved. But, politically, this is a major risk for Democrats and the reward is merely "Trump appoints another nominee in 6 months." While I think there is a strong relationship between TRump and Russian meddling, I don't think that any nacent FBI investigation is going to give enough evidence to be able to indict the President and force Congress to seek impeachment, and even in that dream scenario for Democrats, the result is that Mike Pence becomes president and appoints another justice... Who will probably be more socially conservative than Gorsuch, who at least seems more judicially pragmatic on social issues. But that's even in the incredible unlikely scenario that the FBI investigation reveals impeachable evidence and that Republicans in congress feel adequately threatened of losing seats that they'd break from the party against Trump in such a scenario... Which is also unlikely.

Republicans had nothing to lose by blocking Garland. They were expected to lose seats in Congress, they were expected to lose the White House, so they figured, why not just completely obstruct this last nominee for 6 months until the election. The election turned out to be a major surprise for Republicans and Democrats. Democrats have much to lose here, as they can change senate rules to only require a 51-seat majority for Supreme Court nominees, which would then open the door for all of Trump's future nominees without contest. Especially given the stakes of the 2018 midterm elections, where Democrats have more seats threatened than Republicans in the senate, so even with Trump's unpopularity, it's up in the air whether they can gain seats to get a small majority or break even.

Big risk, virtually no reward, IMO.

QFT

 

[toneroni]

When Trump's in power, that's the best action to take.

Yep

 

[Jobbs]

If you take a step back, this sort of purity testing is what drove the Republicans to where they are today.

you mean in total power controlling government at every level? and about to tilt the court towards conservatives for another generation by stealing a seat with absolutely no ramifications of any kind?

 

[Iksenpets]

Meh, I'd take Gorsuch over whoever's next. I think this is a losing battle that won't go well for progressives in the country. I think you save your filibuster here.

Gorsuch is qualified, seemingly well liked prior to his nomination. He's conservative, but so will be every Trump nominee, and Gorsuch had signalled previously that he'd wouldn't be in lock-step with the President. As a matter of argument, I think that Democrats would be justified in opposing Gorsuch, saying that they won't consider a SCOTUS nominee from Trump until the Russia-meddling investigation is resolved. But, politically, this is a major risk for Democrats and the reward is merely "Trump appoints another nominee in 6 months." While I think there is a strong relationship between TRump and Russian meddling, I don't think that any nacent FBI investigation is going to give enough evidence to be able to indict the President and force Congress to seek impeachment, and even in that dream scenario for Democrats, the result is that Mike Pence becomes president and appoints another justice... Who will probably be more socially conservative than Gorsuch, who at least seems more judicially pragmatic on social issues. But that's even in the incredible unlikely scenario that the FBI investigation reveals impeachable evidence and that Republicans in congress feel adequately threatened of losing seats that they'd break from the party against Trump in such a scenario... Which is also unlikely.

Republicans had nothing to lose by blocking Garland. They were expected to lose seats in Congress, they were expected to lose the White House, so they figured, why not just completely obstruct this last nominee for 6 months until the election. The election turned out to be a major surprise for Republicans and Democrats. Democrats have much to lose here, as they can change senate rules to only require a 51-seat majority for Supreme Court nominees, which would then open the door for all of Trump's future nominees without contest. Especially given the stakes of the 2018 midterm elections, where Democrats have more seats threatened than Republicans in the senate, so even with Trump's unpopularity, it's up in the air whether they can gain seats to get a small majority or break even.

Big risk, virtually no reward, IMO.

There's no risk because if next time he does nominate someone that bad, they'll nuke it if you try to filibuster. Believing that there's risk here requires believing that Republicans will make a good faith effort to find a compromise candidate if they're replacing RGB or something next time. They won't. They'll give you another Gorsuch or worse, and they'll drop the nuke if you resist.

There's no reward other than the satisfaction of having fought against something wrong with every tool available to you. But when you're this deep in the minority, that's really the best you can hope for, other than the 1% chance that McConnell really does chicken out from ending the filibuster and let's you get away with it.

 

[RinsFury]

Good. Block everything these fucks do.

 

[Ac30]

you mean in total power controlling government at every level? and about to tilt the court towards conservatives for another generation by stealing a seat with absolutely no ramifications of any kind?

And completely ineffectual? I can't wait for the day that the Justice Dems kill single payer because they didn't get UHC. There's always room for compromise.

Not here, of course, but not voting dems over this is ehhhh

 

[pigeon]

I feel like this thread is really demonstrating why we should filibuster Gorsuch because clearly many people in this thread seem to think they have informed opinions on politics and yet apparently they've never heard of Merrick Garland.

That's why SCOTUS doesn't matter politically!

 

[IrishNinja]

If you take a step back, this sort of purity testing is what drove the Republicans to where they are today

this meme really needs to die

I feel like this thread is really demonstrating why we should filibuster Gorsuch because clearly many people in this thread seem to think they have informed opinions on politics and yet apparently they've never heard of Merrick Garland.

That's why SCOTUS doesn't matter politically!

also true