Support NeoGAF

[nintendoman58]

It's Scalia 2.0

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

So, he's not exactly preferable, but at the same time he's not a HOLY SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE kind of choice?

 

[Kinsei]

So, he's not exactly preferable, but at the same time he's not a HOLY SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE kind of choice?

Well it all depends on if a liberal justice dies in the next four years. You can bet your ass this guy would vote to repeal Roe v Wade, Ogberfell v Hodges, and the like.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

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.

My opinion, and I'm just, you know, a self-hating federal employee that has to go to work for DHS tomorrow, is that any response needs to be coordinated with a DNC chair (oh wait...) and that the party itself must be committed and united on a stated goal of nothing less than retaking the Senate, the House, and the Presidency.

You can fight the pick by fighting Trump without disparaging Gorsuch.

You fight the pick by tweeting that Donald didn't even make this decision, Steve Bannon did, and retweeting it 50k times so that Donald starts to question whether someone really is pulling his strings.

The only check on Donald Trump is Donald Trump. More importantly, the only check on Steve Bannon is Donald Trump.

The dude's a certifiable narcissist with an inferiority complex.

Exploit it in an organized fashion.

 

[nintendoman58]

Well it all depends on if a liberal justice dies in the next four years. You can bet your ass this guy would vote to repeal Roe v Wade, Ogberfell v Hodges, and the like.

I see. I'm Canadian, so I don't know what those are.

Though, I'm at glad to see that this thread isn't in a hysteric state of panic, so the choice probably could have been way worse.

 

[Ogodei]

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.

Pretty much. There's a good argument that this isn't a hill to die on, but the Democrats are mad as hell right now and we need to carry this momentum for another 21 months. There's signalling value to fighting like hell especially after the absolute horseshit the GOP pulled with Merrick Garland.

You capitulate here and then 2018 is another 2010, and onward come the Amendments.

 

[Kinsei]

I see. I'm Canadian, so I don't know what those are.

Though, I'm at glad to see that this thread isn't in a hysteric state of panic, so the choice probably could have been way worse.

Roe v Wade is abortion rights and Ogberfell v Hodges is gay marriage.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

It makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think of the fact the republicans literally stole this nomination and because our fucking country voted this dumb motherfucker instead of Hillary we're going to be living with his decision for possibly 4 fucking DECADES. Fuck it makes me angry.

First response wins again. I'm with you. Pisses me off.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

It has nothing to do with Obama not fighting. The people didn't fight. Most people didn't give a shit. There should have been massive protests when Republicans didn't even have a fucking hearing for Garland for a year. But it didn't happen. Trump is right about one thing, the people have spoken by not speaking. Pretty much the story of the election as well

Nobody fought because Garland is a shitty nomination, beloved by conservatives.

Obama almost never oriented to the progressives that can be mobilized, he always oriented to a couple alleged moderate republicans he desperately wanted to be his friend. Starting with the dissolution of the 2008 Obama for America organization. Clinton didnt learn the lesson and she lost.

I think it's pretty obvious that the Democrats would rather lose while keeping their donors happy than win with someone like Bernie Sanders who might alientate the donors. That's why Democrats winning doesnt count for anything. The working class still loses, it just bleeds out more slowly than with shameless clowns like Trump and Dubya.

Obama worked his ass off to cut social security and medicare under a "grand bargain", but the right wing ideologues put partisan obstructionism above all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-on-the-debt/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_story.html

Yet there's still poor souls in this thread talking about "blowback" if Democrats pursued the same obstructionism. Voters don't reward genetlemens honor and respect for Americas great institutions. Voters reward fucking results. A lot of what I see from Liberals is just weak losers making sad excuses for why they get beat up every time.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Neil Gorsuch actually seems like the safest pick here? Not a raging religious nut or bigot or fascist? Let's see what happens to him though.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Neil Gorsuch actually seems like the safest pick here? Not a raging religious nut or bigot or fascist? Let's see what happens to him though.

He is the safest pick. He's competent and qualified. Which is why the pick (but not him) is dangerous.

The danger is viewing the Gorsuch pick in isolation ("he's not that bad!" -- and no, he isn't) rather than part of an ongoing battle against the Republican party.

 

[nintendoman58]

Roe v Wade is abortion rights and Ogberfell v Hodges is gay marriage.

Ah. Well, I'm not too worried about those going away. I don't think, even with this current administration, that those are in any real danger right now, so long as the fight from the public keeps the pressure up.

I'm just thankful he didn't choose somebody that would have been absolutely disastrous in general.

 

[Lothar]

So, he's not exactly preferable, but at the same time he's not a HOLY SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE kind of choice?

Worse, he won't even allow us to die as he's against euthanasia.

 

[plagiarize]

Pretty much. There's a good argument that this isn't a hill to die on, but the Democrats are mad as hell right now and we need to carry this momentum for another 21 months. There's signalling value to fighting like hell especially after the absolute horseshit the GOP pulled with Merrick Garland.

You capitulate here and then 2018 is another 2010, and onward come the Amendments.

Put it another way, if Scalia just died I wouldn't be saying we should fight, because the fight isn't about how this is a reasonable conservative pick, it's that it should never have been their pick in the first place. And we shouldn't just roll over and confirm the guy.

 

[Blader]

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.

I don't buy this at all. For one, I think many will just plain forget about this in a year's time; if this was happening closer to an election, then I'd absolutely advocate the filibuster as a way to drum up the base just as the GOP did, but let's be real. There are going to be a shit ton more appalling decisions and scandals coming out of the White House by the time November 2018 rolls around. The fight over Gorsuch, or the lack thereof, will be a distant memory by then and replaced by some new outrage driving Dems to the polls. So if the goal here is to score optics points, well, there will be plenty more opportunities between now and the midterms.

On top of that, I think any Democrat or progressive who would abandon the party over not pointlessly filibustering Gorsuch is probably not a reliable voter anyway.

I'm guessing Schumer will allow red-state Dems to back Gorsuch to avoid Gorsuch. Manchin and Tester aren't the ones leading rallies or rushing to airport protests; they're not facing any real pressure from their constituents over this and likely won't face any repercussions over it either. So may as well pin the blame for no filibuster on them.

 

[adj_noun]

Mr. Bush appointed Judge Gorsuch, 49, to the 10th Circuit in 2006. There, he has earned a reputation as an originalist, trying to interpret the Constitution in accord with the understanding of those who drafted and adopted it.

I loathe originalism. It's absurd.

 

[Kinsei]

Ah. Well, I'm not too worried about those going away. I don't think, even with this current administration, that those are in any real danger right now, so long as the fight from the public keeps the pressure up.

I'm just thankful he didn't choose somebody that would have been absolutely disastrous in general.

Overturning Roe v Wade is the one thing republicans harp on about as much as repealing Obamacare. The second there's a conservative majority in the supreme court say bye bye to abortion rights.

 

[stormplyr]

I think the republicans need to be careful with using the nuclear option. They need to be just as careful with the situation as the democrats. Come 2020 if the republicans don't win the presidency and say RBG and Kennedy last another 4 years. The republicans will be in a horrible spot if they go nuclear now. That would allow the democrats to potentially nominate 3 justices. Both sides need to be strategic in how they play their cards. It's certainly a tough situation.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

Overturning Roe v Wade is the one thing republicans harp on about as much as repealing Obamacare. The second there's a conservative minority in the supreme court say bye bye to abortion rights.

So we better hope that Ruth can hold out for another four years.

 

[Blader]

So we better hope that Ruth can hold out for another four years.

Three years at least. Republicans have set the precedent now that any court seat that opens in an election year should remain open until after the election. Which is probably a good argument for keeping the filibuster; it doesn't stop them from still nuking it in 2020, but it does force them into the mental gymnastics to explain why it isn't completely hypocritical.

 

[elrechazado]

Three years at least. Republicans have set the precedent now that any court seat that opens in an election year should remain open until after the election. Which is probably a good argument for keeping the filibuster; it doesn't stop them from still nuking it in 2020, but it does force them into the mental gymnastics to explain why it isn't completely hypocritical.

Have to control the Senate for that to work - good luck with that.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Three years at least. Republicans have set the precedent now that any court seat that opens in an election year should remain open until after the election. Which is probably a good argument for keeping the filibuster; it doesn't stop them from still nuking it in 2020, but it does force them into the mental gymnastics to explain why it isn't completely hypocritical.

This is not a solid argument.

Republicans will not respect precedent; they'll spin any narrative necessary to justifying "winning" results. They'll nuke the filibuster whenever they can tilt the court rightward 5-4 for decades.

 

[Autodidact]

...but it does force them into the mental gymnastics to explain why it isn't completely hypocritical.

I don't envy our chances, competing with the gold medalists.

 

[Kinsei]

Three years at least. Republicans have set the precedent now that any court seat that opens in an election year should remain open until after the election. Which is probably a good argument for keeping the filibuster; it doesn't stop them from still nuking it in 2020, but it does force them into the mental gymnastics to explain why it isn't completely hypocritical.

What gymnastics would they need to pull? The American people proved that they don't give a shit about anything related to the supreme court this past year.

 

[TaterTots]

Remember that time Obama wanted a moderate and everyone was like, "fuck that?" The right no longer wants a middle ground or someone to straddle both sides. It's gonna be their way or the highway.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I loathe originalism. It's absurd.

Conservative justices are motivated by "originalism" in precisely the same way homophobes are motivated by Leviticus.

Spoiler

Not at all.

 

[Iksenpets]

Gorsuch is basically Scalia 2.0. We'll have the same basic court balance we had a year ago. That said, Dems should mount a unified filibuster and force McConnell to go nuclear to get him through. The filibuster is going to die at some point, may as well make sure the blood is on the GOP's hands. And vengeance for Garland. Gotta extract whatever meager price from them that we can for that.

I don't buy the logic that the filibuster needs to be preserved for later. They'll blow it up the first time you don't give them what they want, whether that's now or next time. They know this is their shot.

 

[Blader]

This is not a solid argument.

Republicans will not respect precedent; they'll spin any narrative necessary to justifying "winning" results. They'll nuke the filibuster whenever they can tilt the court rightward 5-4 for decades.

Oh I know. I fully expect that the Republicans will nuke the filibuster if McConnell believes that he can't get eight Dems to support a Trump SCOTUS pick. Doesn't matter if it's Gorsuch now or another nominee to shift the court further right down the line; the filibuster will be killed whenever it's invoked, regardless of the context.

The point I'm making is that if McConnell is arguing that the Senate should not vote on a SCOTUS in an election year until after the election, then from that point of view, it's not hypocritical to say we should confirm Gorsuch now; that's consistent. It would be hypocritical, though, if another seat opens in 2020 and McConnell decides the Senate needs to ram through a replacement. I'm not saying that will stop them from nuking the filibuster and still confirming whoever Trump puts up. All I'm saying is that, as long as the filibuster is doomed, it should be invoked and killed a situation that puts Senate Republicans in a more publicly uncomfortable position. It won't change the outcome, but as long as nothing is changing the outcome, make the situation worse for them.

What gymnastics would they need to pull? The American people proved that they don't give a shit about anything related to the supreme court this past year.

So in that case, there's really no pressure for Dems to filibuster at all.

 

[Kinsei]

Oh I know. I fully expect that the Republicans will nuke the filibuster if McConnell believes that he can't get eight Dems to support a Trump SCOTUS pick. Doesn't matter if it's Gorsuch now or another nominee to shift the court further right down the line; the filibuster will be killed whenever it's invoked, regardless of the context.

The point I'm making is that if McConnell is arguing that the Senate should not vote on a SCOTUS in an election year until after the election, then from that point of view, it's not hypocritical to say we should confirm Gorsuch now; that's consistent. It would be hypocritical, though, if another seat opens in 2020 and McConnell decides the Senate needs to ram through a replacement. I'm not saying that will stop them from nuking the filibuster and still confirming whoever Trump puts up. All I'm saying is that, as long as the filibuster is doomed, it should be invoked and killed a situation that puts Senate Republicans in a more publicly uncomfortable position. It won't change the outcome, but as long as nothing is changing the outcome, make the situation worse for them.



So in that case, there's really no pressure for Dems to filibuster at all.

They filibuster to force the GOP to nuke it. That way they'll never have a Garland situation on their hands again. Why bother waiting for a scenario that might never happen?

 

[elrechazado]

They filibuster to force the GOP to nuke it. That way they'll never have a Garland situation on their hands again.

What did garland have to do with the filibuster?

 

[AuthenticM]

What are these guys' position on gerrymandering?

 

[Blader]

They filibuster to force the GOP to nuke it. That way they'll never have a Garland situation on their hands again. Why bother waiting for a scenario that might never happen?

What does one have to do with the other? The Garland situation was because the GOP had a majority in the Senate and could simply not schedule a hearing for Garland with the Judiciary Committee. Had nothing to do with the filibuster.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Nobody fought because Garland is a shitty nomination who would've moved the court net rightward.

Garland was replacing Antonin Scalia...

 

[Kinsei]

What did garland have to do with the filibuster?

Without the threat of the filibuster republicans wouldn't have been able to block Garland, no?

EDIT: Ah, it seems I was completely wrong.

 

[Blader]

Garland was replacing Antonin Scalia ����

all neoliberals look alike to sugarhigh.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Garland was replacing Antonin Scalia...

Youre right. Updated.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

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.

Some of this seems reasonable but I have a couple of minor critiques here. The Democratic base views this seat as stolen from them and are already angry enough about that. The current base of the Democrats are viewed by the base as spineless and not mounting a sufficient opposition to stop Trump or his agenda. Doesn't the bad message not filibustering send only really hurt the Democrats with their angered base? It seems pointless to try and preserve the filibuster when it doesn't really accomplish anything good and Democrats will probably want to remove it the next time they appoint a nominee anyways. I don't see how getting rid of the filibuster is really a bad thing for Democrats in the future, since it seems largely worthless to have the potential to filibuster if it won't be used and will be immediately discarded when used. At least going down fighting gives some measure of reassurance to an angry and increasingly organized base.

 

[davepoobond]

i think they should fillibuster this one since they will probably take it away next rule-making session regardless.

 

[CopperPuppy]

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"

This is the mindset that worries me. He's shoveled so much shit down our throats that we're relieved when fed a single turd.

 

[RDreamer]

Personally, I think dems should hold the line for a while and just come out and say Donald Trump should not make a nomination in the last year of his presidency.

 

[Nafai1123]

I understand the argument for not filibustering and it honestly makes a lot of sense but I do think that Democrats are already frustrated with the complacency that we've seen in some of the confirmation hearings. People are mad and they want their representatives to be mad too. This is not normal and we should not be treating it as such. Republicans will nuke the filibuster regardless so force their hand and stop tip toeing around controversy like we're still fighting typical conservatism.

 

[Vermillion]

Better or worse than Scalia?

 

[LiK]

Fuck, knew he would choose that guy over the blue collar.

 

[Branduil]

To me, "we shouldn't use the filibuster because then we might lose it" is exactly the kind of spineless calculation that is also actually really stupid that has come to define the democrats in the last few years.

Republicans will never do the right thing. Plan for that and fight them to the death on everything.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Personally, I think dems should hold the line for a while and just come out and say Donald Trump should not make a nomination in the last year of his presidency.

At that point, we might as well just agree that no president will ever be allowed to make a nomination in their last year again

 

[Tarydax]

I understand the argument for not filibustering and it honestly makes a lot of sense but I do think that Democrats are already frustrated with the complacency that we've seen in some of the confirmation hearings. People are mad and they want their representatives to be mad too. This is not normal and we should not be treating it as such. Republicans will nuke the filibuster regardless so force their hand and stop tip toeing around controversy like we're still fighting typical conservatism.

To me, "we shouldn't use the filibuster because then we might lose it" is exactly the kind of spineless calculation that is also actually really stupid that has come to define the democrats in the last few years.

Republicans will never do the right thing. Plan for that and fight them to the death on everything.

Agreed. If Republicans are actually serious about getting rid of the filibuster, they can get rid of it whenever they want. There's literally nothing stopping them. If they're going to get rid of it, make them get rid of it now so they have to own up to every shitty piece of legislation they pass. Besides, John McCain and Ted Cruz both said they were going to filibuster any justice Hillary would have nominated, and the Republican Party still wouldn't have paid a price for that at all if this last election is anything to go by.

Voters don't care about obstructing SC justices. If they did, the Republican Party would have been punished rather than rewarded.

 

[Kusagari]

Better or worse than Scalia?

He basically is Scalia.

 

[Jobbs]

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.

Yes.

It's unfortunate that our politics is in this place, but the only thing worse than both sides obstructing eachother tooth and nail is if only one side does it. It's simply not okay that only one side gets a turn, that only one side gets to govern and have appointments when in the whitehouse. It's not okay. Until we establish some kind of norm where both sides get to have a turn, then no one should.

 

[Future PhaZe]

They have to force the nuclear option. The optics are necessary.

 

[hurricanrana]

This is wrong.

 

[_woLf]

Any Democrat that backs this bigot has no backbone.

They should stall his appointment for 4 years.