# Democratic strategy regarding Supreme Court justices **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297 "2016-11-28T17:25:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/481 "2017-02-01T17:18:02Z")
Not only would there be nothing to prevent the dems from taking it down themselves, but it’s 100% certain that they would do so. They would have to be complete morons to limit themselves if the Republicans weren’t limiting themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Smitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Smitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smitty)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/482 "2017-02-01T18:12:25Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > Gorsuch is an illegitimate nominee, and that illegitimacy will hang over him for the length of his duration on the Court, should he (God forbid) be confirmed. The Democrats should exercise whatever powers they can to prevent Trump from _ever_ appointing a SCOTUS justice; if that leads to the elimination of the filibuster, then so be it. The Republicans won’t be in complete control forever. You are both factually and strategically wrong. Gorsuch is in no way illegitimate. Supreme Court nominees become Supreme Court justices only with…sing along if you know the words…advice and consent of the Senate. Garland did not get that consent. And, no, it doesn’t matter that he didn’t get a hearing or a vote. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say what process the Senate must use to give or withhold consent. The Senate gets to make its own rules; and the rules in place at the time as approved by a majority of its members were followed. You don’t like it? Either get better candidates, or convince more people to vote for the ones you have. Strategically, the “I’m taking my ball and going home” method doesn’t really work for Democrats. It is contrary to their very philosophy. Democrats are the party that claims government is a good and effective force. So refusing to participate in the process goes against their own instincts and beliefs. Republicans can get away with it because they can say they are following their own beliefs - that government should do less - and sell that to their voters. Dems don’t really have that option. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/483 "2017-02-01T18:14:03Z")
> [@Smitty](#): > > You are both factually and strategically wrong. > > Gorsuch is in no way illegitimate. Supreme Court nominees become Supreme Court justices only with…sing along if you know the words…advice and consent of the Senate. Garland did not get that consent. And, no, it doesn’t matter that he didn’t get a hearing or a vote. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say what process the Senate must use to give or withhold consent. The Senate gets to make its own rules; and the rules in place at the time as approved by a majority of its members were followed. You don’t like it? Either get better candidates, or convince more people to vote for the ones you have. > > Strategically, the “I’m taking my ball and going home” method doesn’t really work for Democrats. It is contrary to their very philosophy. Democrats are the party that claims government is a good and effective force. So refusing to participate in the process goes against their own instincts and beliefs. Republicans can get away with it because they can say they are following their own beliefs - that government should do less - and sell that to their voters. Dems don’t really have that option. Democrats have the option of using delaying tactics within the rules (until they’re changed), and filibustering. Hopefully, they will use those options. And good riddance to the filibuster, if it indeed gets nuked. ---
**Author:** ![Navy\_draftee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ec9cab/32.png) [@Navy\_draftee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Navy_draftee)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/484 "2017-02-01T18:59:21Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I think Ginsburg will tough out another 4 years until past January 2021, waiting for a Democratic president. Same for all the other liberal justices likewise. So all in all it’s well possible that Trump will only ever nominate 1 SCOTUS justice, and your fears are unfounded. Ginsberg will not be able to “tough it out” for much longer at all. Many people in nursing homes don’t look as frail and near the end. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/485 "2017-02-01T19:07:18Z")
Don’t discount what PCP said. Near the end for Thurgood Marshall he was no longer up to being a SC Justice but he hung on and relied increasingly on his clerks to write his opinions for him. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/486 "2017-02-01T19:17:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Don’t discount what PCP said. Near the end for Thurgood Marshall he was no longer up to being a SC Justice but he hung on and relied increasingly on his clerks to write his opinions for him. It’s possible… but just as I imagine that most conservatives would hope that (for example) Thomas would hang on, with the aid of his clerks, through the end of a Democrat’s term, I imagine most liberals would hope that RBG, were she declining, would somehow hang on as well. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/487 "2017-02-01T19:22:52Z")
It sounds like we’re saying the same thing. (So I don’t get the “… but” part.) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/488 "2017-02-01T19:24:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It sounds like we’re saying the same thing. (So I don’t get the “… but” part.) Sorry… maybe I’m just used to us disagreeing, so I assume you disagreed. Apologies! ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/489 "2017-02-01T20:45:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Why would the GOP make such a promise? They wouldn’t, which is why I think it’s pointless for the Democrats to hold off on filibustering Gorsuch. > [@](#): > > It isn’t a question of good faith, because the GOP \*\*can \*\*force the issue. How will the Dems push the GOP into some kind of bargain? Because, as I said, our government is predicated on the idea that our government will work together. That means compromise and deal making are part of the bargain. One side ramming its agenda through is not Democracy, it’s Tyranny. Bi-partisanship is the foundation of our entire government. > [@](#): > > Liberals sowed the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind. If you look to the Supreme Court to push whatever you want thru because they agree with you, you had better be ready to deal with what you get when they don’t agree with you. The fact that we’re debating whether the Democrats should display bi-partisanship here is proof that it’s not the Democrats who have abandoned bi-partisanship. The fact that we have no such debate about whether the Republicans should or would display bi-partisanship is proof of who, exactly, is sowing the seeds of disaster, here. Unless Republicans are will to be partners in good faith, it’s useless for the Democrats to try and work with them. That’s why good faith is the question here. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/490 "2017-02-01T20:56:15Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > [Trump has started campaigning for 2020 already](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/31/president-trump-has-already-socked-away-more-than-7-million-for-his-2020-reelection/?utm_term=.7a2ec250e9d3). So, I guess, since a campaign is underway, we should block any Trump nominations until the people have spoken? The Republicans had the power to block a new justice. The Democrats don’t, given that the Repubs can eliminate the filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/491 "2017-02-01T20:59:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Democrats should say Trump shouldn’t nominate anyone in his last year of office, on the assumption that his impeachment is in a perpetual state of imminence. [Biden](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAzVNmOYgM) already did that… to President Bush and proclaimed that it was a tradition to do so. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/492 "2017-02-01T21:12:18Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > I think if the Dems can simply vote no, as a group, on this nomination, without making much fuss about it, the Republicans will have to try to explain why it is so important to break the 60 vote rule. While they are blustering and posing for that particular fight, Thrump might self-destruct. Republicans aren’t stupid. They knew when they blocked Garland that they would someday pay a big price. What big price are they going to pay? The republicans aren’t paying anything; they’re winning. They’re going to shove their nominees up democrats asses and make them like it. They won’t pay a price until the country collapses economically and until the white folk who voted them into power vote them out. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/493 "2017-02-01T21:22:24Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > On the one hand, our entire governement is predicated on the idea that people of good will will cooperate to work together to do what’s best for the country, even if they disagree. What happens when two sides fundamentally disagree on “what’s best for the country” consists of? Our politics are divided because the country is ideologically and culturally divided. The nation hasn’t been this polarized on what should be considered fundamentally right and wrong since the Antebellum period. To name just one example, abortion: half the country considers it part of a woman’s reproductive freedom, and the other half considers it prenatal infanticide. There’s no way to bridge that gap; one side has to win and the other has to lose. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/494 "2017-02-01T21:25:21Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > What happens when two sides fundamentally disagree on “what’s best for the country” consists of? Our politics are divided because the country is ideologically and culturally divided. The nation hasn’t been this polarized on what should be considered fundamentally right and wrong since the Antebellum period. To name just one example, abortion: half the country considers it part of a woman’s reproductive freedom, and the other half considers it prenatal infanticide. There’s no way to bridge that gap; one side has to win and the other has to lose. You must not have been around in the 60s. And your example— when has the country NOT been split about 50/50 on that? It’s not that the country is more divided, it’s that we have so many media outlets telling us about it. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/495 "2017-02-01T22:42:03Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I think the democrats have made a tactical error in that they should have decided upon one of the earlier nominees and provided stiffer resistance. If they filibuster an otherwise uncontroversial nominee just because they’re angry at Trump, it could backfire and make them look petty. A better tactic might be to stonewall the DeVos nomination, wait to see who Trump picks for SCOTUS, and then decide which direction to go. If Trump picks a nightmare SCOTUS nominee they could try to stop it but otherwise they ought to try to work on DeVos, or one of the remaining nominees who has yet to be confirmed. I said it a couple of days ago and I’ll say it again: get over the SCOTUS appointment – all the democrats had to do to get that nomination was to beat a horribly flawed candidate, the equivalent of Tiger Woods needing a 3 meter putt to to win the Masters or Morten Anderson kicking an extra point to win the Super Bowl. It didn’t happen. They still have a golden opportunity to score a victory by taking down Betsy DeVos, which might seem like a symbolic victory, but it’s an important one. Take the easy points. Save the two-point conversion for later in the game. If they dig in and fight this appointment, who actually seems like another John Roberts at worst, then they’re wasting their political ammo. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/496 "2017-02-01T23:04:06Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I said it a couple of days ago and I’ll say it again: get over the SCOTUS appointment – all the democrats had to do to get that nomination was to beat a horribly flawed candidate, the equivalent of Tiger Woods needing a 3 meter putt to to win the Masters or Morten Anderson kicking an extra point to win the Super Bowl. It didn’t happen. > > They still have a golden opportunity to score a victory by taking down Betsy DeVos, which might seem like a symbolic victory, but it’s an important one. Take the easy points. Save the two-point conversion for later in the game. If they dig in and fight this appointment, who actually seems like another John Roberts at worst, then they’re wasting their political ammo. They have no ammo, except symbolically, and the chance to kill the filibuster. Waiting won’t change anything, except to demoralize liberals who are currently excited about opposing Trump. Better to push hard from the get go, both to keep their base excited and to force Mitch to make big changes to Senate rules. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/497 "2017-02-01T23:13:54Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > …The fact that we’re debating whether the Democrats should display bi-partisanship here is proof that it’s not the Democrats who have abandoned bi-partisanship. > > The fact that we have no such debate about whether the Republicans should or would display bi-partisanship is proof of who, exactly, is sowing the seeds of disaster, here. > > Unless Republicans are will to be partners in good faith, it’s useless for the Democrats to try and work with them. That’s why good faith is the question here. (post shortened) Talk, talk, talk gives people a warm, fuzzy feeling. But it still comes down to votes. Does the (insert political party name here) have enough votes to get what they want? Currently, if the Democrat Party wants to have any meaningful participation in the current selection process, they need to overcome the will of the voters that gave the Republican Party a majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Currently, the best that the Democrat Party can do is slow down the selection process. Are the Democrats willing to make any deals with elected Republicans that will cause those elected Republicans to switch their vote to side with the Democrats? Or should elected Democrats stand on the sidelines and howl about how ineffective they are? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/498 "2017-02-01T23:21:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They have no ammo, except symbolically, and the chance to kill the filibuster. Waiting won’t change anything, except to demoralize liberals who are currently excited about opposing Trump. Better to push hard from the get go, both to keep their base excited and to force Mitch to make big changes to Senate rules. No, better to wait until the liberal base has more support than just angry Elizabeth Warren pussy hatters. Otherwise, they invite the nuke option needlessly. Right now, yes, the Democrats have no ammo – accept that fact and pick fights wisely. But the more that Trump screws up – and he will – it would be nice to have a filibuster at a time when not only liberals but more moderate voters abandon Trump and the GOP. I’m done worrying about the angry left-wing base, many of whom basically abandoned the democratic party in November and allowed Trump to happen in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/499 "2017-02-07T17:30:18Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#): > > My prediction is that one of the left leaning supreme court judges will fall gravely ill but the Democrats will keep him or her technically alive using Frankenstein-like methods to keep Trump from filling another seat on the court. Along related lines: [‘Can she eat more kale?’ Hordes of people want reassurance RBG’s health is good.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/can-she-eat-more-kale-hordes-of-people-want-reassurance-rgbs-health-is-good/2017/02/01/c813b638-e8aa-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.23548e96d3e1) Reads like an Onion article. > [@](#): > > On Tuesday evening, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s long-empty seat. On Wednesday morning, liberals woke up, did the math and realized it was time to be concerned about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fiber intake. Also bone density. Also exposure to airborne viruses (Madame Justice, what is your flu shot status?), and salmonella, and slippery ice, and also: Has anyone heard how scientists are coming along with a Zika vaccine? > > “I’m very interested in this.” says Jeanette Bavwidinski, a community organizer in Pennsylvania. “I’m interested in what her daily regimen is. Like, what are you all feeding RBG? Is she getting enough fresh air? Is she walking? Is she staying low-stress? What is she reading? Is she reading low-stress things?” > > “Can she eat more kale?” asks Kim Landsbergen, a forest ecologist in Ohio. “Eat more kale, that’s all I can say. We love you. Eat more kale.” > [@](#): > > “I kept thinking, you know, I could organize a bunch of gays,” says John Hagner, a consultant for Democratic campaigns who lives in Washington. “I could organize the gays, and we would just make a protective circle around her at all times. We could help her get up and down the stairs. We got this.” > > With a rainbow phalanx protecting the justice against potential slips and falls, Hagner would then feel free to turn his attention away from external dangers, and toward microbial pathogens. “At that point,” he says, “what I’m mostly concerned about is the cancer. Is she getting her checkups? Do her doctors realize how important it is for her to get her checkups? Do they? The woman is 98 pounds.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297/500 "2017-02-07T17:37:01Z")
I wish nothing but good health for the Notorious RBG. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democratic-strategy-regarding-supreme-court-justices/773297.md?page=24)