Support NeoGAF

[elrechazado]

Why should they accept any GOP pick though? The GOP didn't accept any Obama pick. They were already talking about getting ready to fight every Clinton pick when they thought she was going to win.

So fight. They can kill the filibuster whenever they want. So don't stand down on the fear they might do that now rather than later. Most people will support a fight here. They will likely gain more support than they lose by fighting this pick.

And again the GOP fought Obama before he even made a pick. So fight everyone. Why not? He gets in anyway but they can say they fought.

There are very important differences in the government between now and then that are key to understanding why the situation is not the same.

 

[Already Torn]

So wait, Trump picked a constitution originalist? Isn't he pretty blatantly violating the constitution all over the place? Or is this like people saying they're pro life while they're deporting Americans out to die in the Middle East?

 

[Kinsei]

What are you burning down? He is going to be confirmed one way or another.

The filibuster. Why bother even having the damn thing if Dems are too scared to use it. Better to send a message then to just stand by like cowards so that the GOP can use ti the next time a Dem gets the chance to select a justice.

 

[faisal233]

There are very important differences in the government between now and then that are key to understanding why the situation is not the same.

Its not the same, but how about some concessions?

I'll trade Sessions for no filibuster.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

It is a strawman because your claiming I'm implying don't do anything now when I'm not. Your strategy is the same tired one that got the progressive movement screwed to begin with and now you think it'll work this time for some unknown reason.

You are stating that people will forget what we are doing now in two years, i.e. so what is the point.

I would really love for you to explain to me how filibustering this pick works in progressives favor.

The filibuster. Why bother even having the damn thing if Dems are too scared to use it. Better to send a message then to just stand by like cowards so that the GOP can use ti the next time a Dem gets the chance to select a justice.

JFC. Use it on a pick that changes the dynamics of the court, are you guys blatantly forgetting we are replacing Scalia and not RBG, Breyer, etc?

You are accomplishing NOTHING using it now. He will be confirmed.

No it did not. Again, if Hillary had not been so demonized for the last 40 plus years that letter matter what so-ever. For fuck sakes Trump and Co are using private servers right now and have you heard a single person who squawked about Hillary's servers squawking about his?

No. '

Because if his base wasn't going to care about all the other shit that's already out on him then they wouldn't care about this. The Comey letter only gave people who wanted to run away an excuse to do it.

To your latter point, I want the Dems to build the type of media empire the Repubs have. I want them to be loud and out, every single place they go about how shitty the Repubs are. I want the entire Dem base to have the same fear some old lady in bumfuck has about the 'Mooslims'. Get them to the polls whether its via fear or righteousness. Make it clear that they will stand up for their ideals even if they have to burn everything down. and doing this starts with fighting Trump's picks.

You are completely disregarding polling on the matter, but w/e. I'm done with re litigating 2016.

 

[Angelus Errare]

hopefully we only have to worry about the next 4 years

Hopefully. Hopefully the idiots of America are done with their "protests votes", writing in "Harambe/Hennessey", "her emails", "their both the same", "My vote doesn't matter", "Bernie or bust"

 

[Vena]

Surprised he picked Gorsuch immediately, this feels like a Trump move rather than a Bannon one. I'd have expected Hardiman first for a ploy against obstructionism to then switch it to Gorsuch or worse.

Just opening Gorsuch is rather direct to the point, and they may as well approve him. He's just a Scalia replacement which as far as I can tell shouldn't lead to any changes on the SCOTUS sway as it had been before Scalia's untimely passing.

 

[JP_]

So wait, Trump picked a constitution originalist? Isn't he pretty blatantly violating the constitution all over the place? Or is this like people saying they're pro life while they're deporting Americans out to die in the Middle East?

Trump doesn't have a deep constitutional philosophy he's just shoring up support from republicans by replacing Scalia with Scalia 2.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

It's very disturbing how this is being treated and announced.

IT'S NOT A FUCKING GAME SHOW











where's my Brawndo

EDIT: jfc, you know he's going to pick BOTH

Blurring the lines.

 

[Operations]

Why should they accept any GOP pick though? The GOP didn't accept any Obama pick. They were already talking about getting ready to fight every Clinton pick when they thought she was going to win.

So fight. They can kill the filibuster whenever they want. So don't stand down on the fear they might do that now rather than later. Most people will support a fight here. They will likely gain more support than they lose by fighting this pick.

And again the GOP fought Obama before he even made a pick. So fight everyone. Why not? He gets in anyway but they can say they fought.

Why filibuster? The nominee is not worst case scenario and the dems don't have the numbers to filibuster for years. Be glad the candidate is not insane and move on.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

So wait, Trump picked a constitution originalist? Isn't he pretty blatantly violating the constitution all over the place? Or is this like people saying they're pro life while they're deporting Americans out to die in the Middle East?

"Constitutional Originalist" is code for racism and government established religion are ok.

 

[The Albatross]

I'm actually pleasantly surprised by this choice, even as a big Trump opponent. Yes he's a conservative justice, but we knew we'd get a conservative justice, and at least he has a strong pedigree, plus has had bipartisan support in the past including an endorsement from Obamas white house ethics czar.

What I'm pleased with is that he's by the books, clerked under Justice Kennedy, and doesn't seem like a selection out of left field (or right field...) Like all of Trump's other choices minus Sessions and Mattie.

I guess what I mean is, he's not the Betsy Devos of Scotus nominees and the bar has been so low for the last 10 days that Ive come to be happy with "just a conservative"

 

[Kephar]

I don't know if I'm just jaded or pragmatic. Gorsuch is going to be confirmed basically no matter what. The dems aren't the GOP, they haven't sold their souls to party over country. They also have a finite amount of energy and resources. Trying to block this pick accomplishes nothing. There's no ideological leg to stand on for the politicians other than being anti-Trump unless some horrible black mark and scandal is uncovered in the vetting process. They don't even have The flimsy excuse the GOP had in blocking Garland. I'd honestly rather they put their energies towards battles they have a chance of winning.

Except the fact that they do have a flimsy excuse, Trump lost the popular vote by an unprecedented 3 million.If a President's 3rd year is good enough then such a loss is more than enough reason to deny him such an important decision. It would also be a good way to publicize just how badly Trump actually lost.

 

[Kinsei]

You are stating that people will forget what we are doing now in two years, i.e. so what is the point.

I would really love for you to explain to me how filibustering this pick works in progressives favor.



JFC. Use it on a pick that changes the dynamics of the court, are you guys blatantly forgetting we are replacing Scalia and not RBG, Breyer, etc?

You are accomplishing NOTHING using it now. He will be confirmed.

So would the next justice Trump appoints. At this point it's better to send a message than to roll over like a spineless wimp.

 

[greatgeek]

I can swallow this if he is indeed Scalia-like on certain issues and in his writing.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I guess what I mean is, he's not the Betsy Devos of Scotus nominees and the bar has been so low for the last 10 days that Ive come to be happy with "just a conservative"

Aptly put, exactly my feelings.

 

[lightskintwin]

Roland Martin comments on Trump's Supreme Court pick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2RIAqmywIQ

His message is pretty much give 'em hell. LOL

 

[slit]

You are stating that people will forget what we are doing now in two years, i.e. so what is the point.

I would really love for you to explain to me how filibustering this pick works in progressives favor.

They will forget it in two years if the Dems play the same old "lets roll over and bide our time". It forces the GOPs hand, if they are going to nuke the filibuster they are going to do it anyway now or later. Take your pick. Is it guaranteed to work? No, but this middle of the road shit isn't either. Your strategy relies on the other side having some sort of fair game mentality.

 

[Vena]

So would the next justice Trump appoints. At this point it's better to send a message than to roll over like a spineless wimp.

I don't see any reason to burn down the filibuster over Gorsuch, save the fights for more meaningful things. He's not a "bad" nomination aside from being a conservative leaning judge but his overall opinions on many issues aren't outwardly clear and he's sided with Obama's decisions in the past.

 

[plagiarize]

There are very important differences in the government between now and then that are key to understanding why the situation is not the same.

Yes. But like Stump points out, what can the GOP do with THIS pick that makes things worse? Someone more conservative or less qualified isn't going to make moderates wavering or far left people looking for reasons not to vote liberal vote in ways that help trump. It won't likely change a single decision unless you think this pick is going to break from the gop picks and vote with the Dems in a 5-4 decision, and thatshe clearly never happening.

The GOP lost the popular vote. The electoral college was relatively close. So there is a very good argument to be had that the pick shouldn't be a pick that only represents republicans.

I don't see how this hurts the Dems if they strongly oppose it. And I don't see how it hurts america. If we lose one of the three oldest judges, and they want to replace them with another judge just like this one, and we confirmed this one... that makes it harder to fight the next. Imho.

 

[elrechazado]

Yes. But like Stump points out, what can the GOP do with THIS pick that makes things worse? Someone for conservative or less qualified isn't going to make moderates wavering or far left people looking for reasons not to vote liberal vote in ways that help trump. It won't likely change a single decision unless you think this pick is going to break from the gop picks and vote with the Dems in a 5-4 decision, and thatshe clearly never happening.

The GOP lost the popular vote. The electoral college was relatively close. So there is a very good argument to be had that the pick shouldn't be a pick that only represents republicans.

I don't see how this hurts the Dems if they strongly oppose it. And I don't see how it hurts america. If we lose one of the three oldest judges, and they want to replace them with another judge just like this one, and we confirmed this one... that makes it harder to fight the next. Imho.

That very good argument has never been a very good argument ever, and is just echo chamber wishful thinking.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Liberals should vote no on Gorsuch but not filibuster. First, imagine that you evaluate nominees along two axes; the first axis is competence (do they have a basically sound mind, are they intelligent, are they respected by their peers, ABA recommendation, etc.) Gorsuch appears to be competent. It is not a thing you could take for granted with Trump; we could have easily gotten a Harriet Miers situation or worse. The second axis is on ideas or philosophy (i.e. their rulings are things I would agree with). The entire shortlist was full of extremely conservative justices, Gorsuch included, anyone Trump would nominate would be conservative, and anyone Republicans would confirm with their majority would be conservative. So this is about what we might have expected, and in a hypothetical reality where some other Republican than Trump had won election, this is what we'd have got.

Given that Gorsuch is competent but not ideologically desireable, why not filibuster? Suppose Gorsuch is confirmed as opposed to Scalia still being alive - what rulings are likely to change? None. 9-0 rulings are still likely to be 9-0. More importantly, which 5-4 rulings under Scalia would change to 5-4 the other way under Gorsuch? Well, if you're a Liberal, you're looking for rulings where the four liberals and Scalia voted against Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. Do these exist? I doubt it. Certainly almost nothing of consequence. In reality, 5-4 rulings are almost invariably either the 4 liberals and Kennedy, the 4 liberals and Roberts, or the four conservatives and Kennedy. Other configurations are exceedingly rare. Conservatives are fighting to defend the balance of power that existed when Scalia was alive. Liberals are fighting to change it. The only way that could be done would be to appoint someone to the left of Kennedy (so 5-4 decisions where Kennedy joined the conservatives become 5-4 decisions with the 4 liberals and Garland or whoever the nominee is). Appointing anyone to the right of Kennedy gets essentially the same results.

Ok, but why not filibuster anyway to leave the current 4-4 state open as long as possible? Well, it depends. If you believe that the Republicans would simply do away with the filibuster any time Democrats try it, then it doesn't matter if they filibuster or not, Gorsuch is still getting through. (There might be emotional value in going down swinging, but the result is the same). If you believe that the Republicans will do away with the filibuster after it is used the first time, but it'll work the first time, then you want to save the filibuster for Trump appointing someone to replace Breyer, RBG, or even Kennedy (all of which would actually change the Supreme Court). If you believe the Republicans won't do away with the filibuster no matter what, I've got a bridge to sell you. So we do no better by filibustering. But if it's really the case they won't end the filibuster, then you trade off having the 4-4 divided and useless court for a little while longer for the fact that it might end up being a 4-3 conservative court by the end of Trump's term assuming there's a cold war of never confirming a nominee again and for the most part the liberal coalition is a lot more vulnerable to age-related dropout than the conservative coalition.

Note that all of the logic laid out so far is just predicated on Republicans exerting maximum will to get what they want. If you re-frame this in the typical good governance setup where what Republicans do depends on public outrage, then I am not sure that you are going to get public outrage about Gorsuch. Trump plainly could have done worse.

Certainly none of this mandates supporting his nomination, speaking approvingly, or not grilling him during questioning. I just simply mean I see little strategic benefit from filibustering. It's hard to think of a circumstance where doing so results in a better outcome.

Normally I'd say "see if you can pick off Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski" but I doubt it given their willingness to exhibit party discipline during last summer's fiasco. And I think it's more likely you'll lose Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. Maybe Heidi Heitkamp too.

Quoting this for people who seem to be missing what some of us are arguing for. This is precisely where I'm coming from.

 

[SapphiCine]

*deep sigh* Was there truly nothing Obama could have done? I feel so mad at him for not doing enough to fill that seat. This should be one of his biggest failures.

 

[Kinsei]

I don't see any reason to burn down the filibuster over Gorsuch, save the fights for more meaningful things. He's not a "bad" nomination aside from being a conservative leaning judge but his overall opinions on many issues aren't outwardly clear and he's sided with Obama's decisions in the past.

I believe it will burn no matter what the second dems try to use it. It's better to send a message instead of being cowards and keeping it around so the repubs can block the next justice the dems try to appoint.

 

[aeolist]

JFC. Use it on a pick that changes the dynamics of the court, are you guys blatantly forgetting we are replacing Scalia and not RBG, Breyer, etc?

You are accomplishing NOTHING using it now. He will be confirmed.

you are delusional if you think they'd blow up the filibuster for this guy and not when trump nominates robo-hitler to replace rbg.

the filibuster is a zombie. use it while you've got it, either way it's not going to last.

 

[elrechazado]

*deep sigh* Was there truly nothing Obama could have done? I feel so mad at him for not doing enough to fill that seat. This should be one of his biggest failures.

What would you like him to have done? Stamp his feet and use magic to alter the Constitution?

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

you are delusional if you think they'd blow up the filibuster for this guy and not when trump nominates robo-hitler to replace rbg.

the filibuster is a zombie. use it while you've got it, either way it's not going to last.

Right...so why blow up the zombie on a pick that doesn't change the dynamics of the court?

Can some of you guys read Stumpokapow's post?

 

[The Albatross]

Liberals should vote no on Gorsuch but not filibuster. First, imagine that you evaluate nominees along two axes; the first axis is competence (do they have a basically sound mind, are they intelligent, are they respected by their peers, ABA recommendation, etc.) Gorsuch appears to be competent. It is not a thing you could take for granted with Trump; we could have easily gotten a Harriet Miers situation or worse. The second axis is on ideas or philosophy (i.e. their rulings are things I would agree with). The entire shortlist was full of extremely conservative justices, Gorsuch included, anyone Trump would nominate would be conservative, and anyone Republicans would confirm with their majority would be conservative. So this is about what we might have expected, and in a hypothetical reality where some other Republican than Trump had won election, this is what we'd have got.

Given that Gorsuch is competent but not ideologically desireable, why not filibuster? Suppose Gorsuch is confirmed as opposed to Scalia still being alive - what rulings are likely to change? None. 9-0 rulings are still likely to be 9-0. More importantly, which 5-4 rulings under Scalia would change to 5-4 the other way under Gorsuch? Well, if you're a Liberal, you're looking for rulings where the four liberals and Scalia voted against Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. Do these exist? I doubt it. Certainly almost nothing of consequence. In reality, 5-4 rulings are almost invariably either the 4 liberals and Kennedy, the 4 liberals and Roberts, or the four conservatives and Kennedy. Other configurations are exceedingly rare. Conservatives are fighting to defend the balance of power that existed when Scalia was alive. Liberals are fighting to change it. The only way that could be done would be to appoint someone to the left of Kennedy (so 5-4 decisions where Kennedy joined the conservatives become 5-4 decisions with the 4 liberals and Garland or whoever the nominee is). Appointing anyone to the right of Kennedy gets essentially the same results.

Ok, but why not filibuster anyway to leave the current 4-4 state open as long as possible? Well, it depends. If you believe that the Republicans would simply do away with the filibuster any time Democrats try it, then it doesn't matter if they filibuster or not, Gorsuch is still getting through. (There might be emotional value in going down swinging, but the result is the same). If you believe that the Republicans will do away with the filibuster after it is used the first time, but it'll work the first time, then you want to save the filibuster for Trump appointing someone to replace Breyer, RBG, or even Kennedy (all of which would actually change the Supreme Court). If you believe the Republicans won't do away with the filibuster no matter what, I've got a bridge to sell you. So we do no better by filibustering. But if it's really the case they won't end the filibuster, then you trade off having the 4-4 divided and useless court for a little while longer for the fact that it might end up being a 4-3 conservative court by the end of Trump's term assuming there's a cold war of never confirming a nominee again and for the most part the liberal coalition is a lot more vulnerable to age-related dropout than the conservative coalition.

Note that all of the logic laid out so far is just predicated on Republicans exerting maximum will to get what they want. If you re-frame this in the typical good governance setup where what Republicans do depends on public outrage, then I am not sure that you are going to get public outrage about Gorsuch. Trump plainly could have done worse.

Certainly none of this mandates supporting his nomination, speaking approvingly, or not grilling him during questioning. I just simply mean I see little strategic benefit from filibustering. It's hard to think of a circumstance where doing so results in a better outcome.

Normally I'd say "see if you can pick off Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski" but I doubt it given their willingness to exhibit party discipline during last summer's fiasco. And I think it's more likely you'll lose Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. Maybe Heidi Heitkamp too.

What an excellent and well argued post.

 

[aeolist]

Right...so why blow up the zombie on a pick that doesn't change the dynamics of the court?

because it literally doesn't matter in terms of confirmations. republicans will get what they want every time, the question is of optics and responding to the base. people are angry and want a fight, if democrats keep rolling over that will either dissipate or the party will implode.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Okay, I'm going to bed. We aren't even having a discussion anymore.

 

[plagiarize]

That very good argument has never been a very good argument ever, and is just echo chamber wishful thinking.

The court survived with 8 judges for a year. It can survive a few more months. The GOP will nuke the filibuster the first time the Dems use against anything major.

I'm not sold on the notion that letting the gop do what they want for a while until a strategic opportunity to make them nuke the filibuster is the way to go.

Dems in the senate who are seen as weak standing up against Trump are going to be in trouble. They are currently fighting cabinet picks that will get confirmed anyway, and I've only seen hardliner Trump supporters upset about it. My conservative friends that aren't pro Trump or voted for him only to stop a Clinton SC pick don't seem to be mad about it. Nor do they seem to think the Dems wouldn't be justified in slowing this down.

After the gop blocked for 10 months or whatever, people expect the Dems to do something. If they won't retaliate after that I think that hurts them. They need to be strong, loud and inspirational to spur people to action.

You don't stop someone trying to be a dictator by trying to play by unwritten rules of etiquette when he's trying to shred the actual rules of government.

 

[ratcliffja]

Liberals should vote no on Gorsuch but not filibuster. First, imagine that you evaluate nominees along two axes; the first axis is competence (do they have a basically sound mind, are they intelligent, are they respected by their peers, ABA recommendation, etc.) Gorsuch appears to be competent. It is not a thing you could take for granted with Trump; we could have easily gotten a Harriet Miers situation or worse. The second axis is on ideas or philosophy (i.e. their rulings are things I would agree with). The entire shortlist was full of extremely conservative justices, Gorsuch included, anyone Trump would nominate would be conservative, and anyone Republicans would confirm with their majority would be conservative. So this is about what we might have expected, and in a hypothetical reality where some other Republican than Trump had won election, this is what we'd have got.

Given that Gorsuch is competent but not ideologically desireable, why not filibuster? Suppose Gorsuch is confirmed as opposed to Scalia still being alive - what rulings are likely to change? None. 9-0 rulings are still likely to be 9-0. More importantly, which 5-4 rulings under Scalia would change to 5-4 the other way under Gorsuch? Well, if you're a Liberal, you're looking for rulings where the four liberals and Scalia voted against Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. Do these exist? I doubt it. Certainly almost nothing of consequence. In reality, 5-4 rulings are almost invariably either the 4 liberals and Kennedy, the 4 liberals and Roberts, or the four conservatives and Kennedy. Other configurations are exceedingly rare. Conservatives are fighting to defend the balance of power that existed when Scalia was alive. Liberals are fighting to change it. The only way that could be done would be to appoint someone to the left of Kennedy (so 5-4 decisions where Kennedy joined the conservatives become 5-4 decisions with the 4 liberals and Garland or whoever the nominee is). Appointing anyone to the right of Kennedy gets essentially the same results.

Ok, but why not filibuster anyway to leave the current 4-4 state open as long as possible? Well, it depends. If you believe that the Republicans would simply do away with the filibuster any time Democrats try it, then it doesn't matter if they filibuster or not, Gorsuch is still getting through. (There might be emotional value in going down swinging, but the result is the same). If you believe that the Republicans will do away with the filibuster after it is used the first time, but it'll work the first time, then you want to save the filibuster for Trump appointing someone to replace Breyer, RBG, or even Kennedy (all of which would actually change the Supreme Court). If you believe the Republicans won't do away with the filibuster no matter what, I've got a bridge to sell you. So we do no better by filibustering. But if it's really the case they won't end the filibuster, then you trade off having the 4-4 divided and useless court for a little while longer for the fact that it might end up being a 4-3 conservative court by the end of Trump's term assuming there's a cold war of never confirming a nominee again and for the most part the liberal coalition is a lot more vulnerable to age-related dropout than the conservative coalition.

Note that all of the logic laid out so far is just predicated on Republicans exerting maximum will to get what they want. If you re-frame this in the typical good governance setup where what Republicans do depends on public outrage, then I am not sure that you are going to get public outrage about Gorsuch. Trump plainly could have done worse.

Certainly none of this mandates supporting his nomination, speaking approvingly, or not grilling him during questioning. I just simply mean I see little strategic benefit from filibustering. It's hard to think of a circumstance where doing so results in a better outcome.

Normally I'd say "see if you can pick off Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski" but I doubt it given their willingness to exhibit party discipline during last summer's fiasco. And I think it's more likely you'll lose Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. Maybe Heidi Heitkamp too.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Regarding the filibuster, what is stopping the Republicans from nuking it while they're in power only to reinstate it should they lose power? Is there not a waiting period between the election and inauguration like with the president in which they could quickly draft through such legislation? Without the filibuster to block the bill to reinstate the filibuster, they could theoretically pass such a bill very quickly unless I'm mistaken.

 

[bgbball31]

Duck Durbin (D-IL) released a statement saying he will support a vote for Gorsuch.

Filibuster is off the table then, right?

 

[Mackenzie 92]

*deep sigh* Was there truly nothing Obama could have done? I feel so mad at him for not doing enough to fill that seat. This should be one of his biggest failures.

I think we all got complacent, (including Bams) thinking it was just an extended delay. We were all too busy dreaming about Hillary and a Dem senate confirming 2 or 3 new liberal judges.

In retrospect I think we all would have fought harder for Garland and there most definitely would have been protests and more of a fight from the White House to get him confirmed.

 

[BFIB]

He only picked the younger guy so he could ensure decades of Trump being mentioned as the one who appointed him.

 

[slit]

Right...so why blow up the zombie on a pick that doesn't change the dynamics of the court?

Can some of you guys read Stumpokapow's post?

It'll be that much more demoralizing to the cause when it does fail when it counts and it WILL FAIL. I'm not even saying filibuster for four years. I'm saying don't make it easy for them, point out and scream why this is bad for the country before doing anything.

 

[Resident_UA]

All things considered I can't get mad at this choice. At least this guy is somewhat qualified unlike pretty much everyone in Trump's cabinet...

 

[plagiarize]

Duck Durbin (D-IL) released a statement saying he will support a vote for Gorsuch.

Filibuster is off the table then, right?

No. We don't need every dem to filibuster. Heck, one can do it.

This is basically saying 'I support not doing the shit the gop did under Obama, even though we couldn't do that shit without control of the senate so it's pretty much a moot point.'

 

[Kinsei]

Duck Durbin (D-IL) released a statement saying he will support a vote for Gorsuch.

Filibuster is off the table then, right?

Spineless prick. (Him, not you, obviously)

 

[ryseing]

*deep sigh* Was there truly nothing Obama could have done? I feel so mad at him for not doing enough to fill that seat. This should be one of his biggest failures.

He put up a moderate that in a sane world the Republicans would have accepted, but McConnell made it very clear that no nominee was getting through.

No point in getting frustrated with Obama about this.

 

[plagiarize]

He put up a moderate that in a sane world the Republicans would have accepted, but McConnell made it very clear that no nominee was getting through.

No point in getting frustrated with Obama about this.

And a reminder, the gop also made it clear that they were going to try and block any and all nominees that Clinton made should she be elected.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Liberals should vote no on Gorsuch but not filibuster. First, imagine that you evaluate nominees along two axes; the first axis is competence (do they have a basically sound mind, are they intelligent, are they respected by their peers, ABA recommendation, etc.) Gorsuch appears to be competent. It is not a thing you could take for granted with Trump; we could have easily gotten a Harriet Miers situation or worse. The second axis is on ideas or philosophy (i.e. their rulings are things I would agree with). The entire shortlist was full of extremely conservative justices, Gorsuch included, anyone Trump would nominate would be conservative, and anyone Republicans would confirm with their majority would be conservative. So this is about what we might have expected, and in a hypothetical reality where some other Republican than Trump had won election, this is what we'd have got.

Given that Gorsuch is competent but not ideologically desireable, why not filibuster? Suppose Gorsuch is confirmed as opposed to Scalia still being alive - what rulings are likely to change? None. 9-0 rulings are still likely to be 9-0. More importantly, which 5-4 rulings under Scalia would change to 5-4 the other way under Gorsuch? Well, if you're a Liberal, you're looking for rulings where the four liberals and Scalia voted against Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. Do these exist? I doubt it. Certainly almost nothing of consequence. In reality, 5-4 rulings are almost invariably either the 4 liberals and Kennedy, the 4 liberals and Roberts, or the four conservatives and Kennedy. Other configurations are exceedingly rare. Conservatives are fighting to defend the balance of power that existed when Scalia was alive. Liberals are fighting to change it. The only way that could be done would be to appoint someone to the left of Kennedy (so 5-4 decisions where Kennedy joined the conservatives become 5-4 decisions with the 4 liberals and Garland or whoever the nominee is). Appointing anyone to the right of Kennedy gets essentially the same results.

Ok, but why not filibuster anyway to leave the current 4-4 state open as long as possible? Well, it depends. If you believe that the Republicans would simply do away with the filibuster any time Democrats try it, then it doesn't matter if they filibuster or not, Gorsuch is still getting through. (There might be emotional value in going down swinging, but the result is the same). If you believe that the Republicans will do away with the filibuster after it is used the first time, but it'll work the first time, then you want to save the filibuster for Trump appointing someone to replace Breyer, RBG, or even Kennedy (all of which would actually change the Supreme Court). If you believe the Republicans won't do away with the filibuster no matter what, I've got a bridge to sell you. So we do no better by filibustering. But if it's really the case they won't end the filibuster, then you trade off having the 4-4 divided and useless court for a little while longer for the fact that it might end up being a 4-3 conservative court by the end of Trump's term assuming there's a cold war of never confirming a nominee again and for the most part the liberal coalition is a lot more vulnerable to age-related dropout than the conservative coalition.

Note that all of the logic laid out so far is just predicated on Republicans exerting maximum will to get what they want. If you re-frame this in the typical good governance setup where what Republicans do depends on public outrage, then I am not sure that you are going to get public outrage about Gorsuch. Trump plainly could have done worse.

Certainly none of this mandates supporting his nomination, speaking approvingly, or not grilling him during questioning. I just simply mean I see little strategic benefit from filibustering. It's hard to think of a circumstance where doing so results in a better outcome.

Normally I'd say "see if you can pick off Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski" but I doubt it given their willingness to exhibit party discipline during last summer's fiasco. And I think it's more likely you'll lose Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly. Maybe Heidi Heitkamp too.

This is 100% accurate. It also represents how smart the Gorsuch pick was. A non-trivial amount of Democrats are going to have the opinion that, well, it could've been worse. (And yes, it could've.) Gorsuch, unlike a Betsy DeVos, is not going to foment the mobilization of an opposition. He's effectively the Scalia replacement, and because the GOP controls the Senate, he's getting through no matter what.

Dems need to operate under the reality that, whenever it generates a better outcome for the GOP, they'll remove the filibuster: SCOTUS picks yield outsize, generational changes. For that reason, Gorsuch will be confirmed; there's absolutely no question about it.

"Saving the filibuster" as a political move has no value: if another vacancy opened up and it meant tilting the 5-4 rightward for decades to come, that vote threshold's lowered, as it achieves a positive result for the GOP, and I sincerely believe that GOP voters are more concerned with "winning" as opposed to respecting institutional norms.

Anecdotally, I believe that the average voter cares more about Tom Brady allegedly deflating footballs than arcane, byzantine Senate procedures. Some norms are easier to understand. If that's true, then the filibuster serves no utility, except that it yields media coverage and provides a bully pulpit.

Does Gorsuch represent a hill to die on? Probably not. It's not Pryor. He really is, objectively, brilliant, qualified, and the best hope Dems could've expected.

But not fighting means suppressing whatever momentum exists now. If this were Jeb! nominating Gorsuch, I think advocating for the filibuster would be silly. Jeb! respects institutions, norms, and the rule of law. I don't believe the same about Trump and Bannon, and I think the Gorsuch pick is markedly shrewd because it generates a divide in how Dems mount their opposition.

There will be hand-wringing. Half of the caucus will want to fight; the other half won't. Some Dem voters will like the response; the others won't. We'll spend more time fighting internally about how to respond than preparing to address future threats (e.g., the pick to replace Kennedy).

 

[Seth Enosh]

No. We don't need every dem to filibuster. Heck, one can do it.

This is basically saying 'I support not doing the shit the gop did under Obama, even though we couldn't do that shit without control of the senate so it's pretty much a moot point.'

You need 41 Dems to sustain the filibuster though. Otherwise it's more of an attempted filibuster (like how Obama tried and failed to filibuster Alito) than an actual one.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Tell me about. I'm turning 30 this year, and it suddenly on me that the world we're inheriting from the baby boomers is one that is designed to spite and hinder the younger generations, while at the same time, they expect us to be grateful for the soon to be husk of a world we'll have to spend our later years in. I can definitely understand how you would be feel powerless and complacent. It's really hard, and 2016 was a major turning point for Gen X and Millenials who see that the world is heading for a bad place.

The best thing I can say is that you can't give up. There's still, and the protests and outrage we've seen in the last couple months is reassuring. But we can't allows ourselves to fall into despair, because that's what they want for us. To be in despair and apathetic. Just hold out, stay strong, and be ever vigilant.

But they're not listening.

The most frightening aspect of Trump's actions over his first 10 days is the deafening silence of the legislature, which is controlled by Republicans. There is no resistance as he abandons our values, alienates our trade partners and our allies, and emboldens our enemies.

Within our government framework, the judiciary does not have a lot of teeth to it. The primary check against the executive branch wielding too much power or acting irresponsibly is the legislature's ability to codify restrictions on executive actions, remove federal officials, and advise and consent to federal official appointments.

Only 10 out of 300 or so congressional republicans are openly opposing the actions of Trump, either because of political reasons or because they agree with the goals of Trump's executive actions. But it is their responsibility to maintain a balance of power, and if they sit idly by while Trump officials recklessly ignore court orders, constitutional provisions against imposing religious tests, granting equal protections to all persons, due process, and foreign emoluments, then they will be powerless to stop him when it's too late.

How do I quell a building rage when passionate cries and pleas for help are ignored? How do I not lose myself?

 

[plagiarize]

This is 100% accurate. It also represents how shrewd the Gorsuch pick was. A non-trivial amount of Democrats are going to have the opinion that, well, it could've been worse. (And yes, it could've.) Gorsuch, unlike a Betsy DeVos, is not going to foment the mobilization of an opposition. He's effectively the Scalia replacement, and because the GOP controls the Senate, he's getting through no matter what.

Dems need to operate under the reality that, whenever it generates a better outcome for the GOP, they'll remove the filibuster: SCOTUS picks yield outsize, generational changes. For that reason, Gorsuch will be confirmed; there's absolutely no question about it.

"Saving the filibuster" as a political move has no value: if another vacancy opened up and it meant tilting the 5-4 rightward for decades to come, that vote threshold's lowered, as it achieves a positive result for the GOP, and I sincerely believe that GOP voters are more concerned with "winning" as opposed to respecting institutional norms.

Anecdotally, I believe that the average voter cares more about Tom Brady allegedly deflating footballs than arcane, byzantine Senate procedures. If that's true, then the filibuster serves no utility, except that it yields media coverage and provides a bully pulpit.

Does Gorsuch represent a hill to die on? Probably not. It's not Pryor. He really is, objectively, brilliant, qualified, and the best hope Dems could've expected.

But not fighting means suppressing whatever momentum exists now. If this were Jeb! nominating Gorsuch, I think advocating for the filibuster would be silly. Jeb! respects institutions, norms, and the rule of law. I don't believe the same about Trump and Bannon, and I think the Gorsuch pick is brilliantly shrewd because it generates a divide in how Dems mount their opposition.

There will be hand-wringing. Half of the caucus will want to fight; the other half won't. Some Dem voters will like the response; the others won't. We'll spend more time fighting internally about how to respond than preparing to address future threats (e.g., the pick to replace Kennedy).

I think it could have been worse. I think no matter what, he will be confirmed. That is why I think we need to fight this though. Right now people who had abandoned Dems are starting to think about coming home. I don't think anyone who thinks this pick is fine is going to stop supporting the Dems for fighting it on principle. And they should. Yes, Gorsuch is a reasonable pick. But so was Garland.

 

[SummitAve]

Dems seem more upset at the precedence of not hearing Garland than the removal of the filibuster, but we shall see. At least they are actually going to through with the process.

 

[Branduil]

The Dems absolutely must filibuster. They will demoralize and lose their base if they don't, and Republicans nuking the filibuster would still work against them when the Dems regain power. Norms don't apply any more, this is war.

 

[nintendoman58]

Okay, I wasn't online for the past two hours, is this an extremely horrifying choice?

 

[Kinsei]

Okay, I wasn't online for the past two hours, is this an extremely horrifying choice?

It's Scalia 2.0

Not nearly as bad a Trump could have chosen but still someone worth fighting.

 

[slit]

Okay, I wasn't online for the past two hours, is this an extremely horrifying choice?

The person? No not completely horrifying. The precedent that it sets if the Democrats just roll over after what went down with Garland? Yes that is pretty much horrifying.