Unfortunately, through a combination of voter apathy and voter stupidity, it worked. I share your bafflement, though arguably this is the latest expression of a deep-ingrained anti-intellectualism in the American culture. Being smart is actually a *hindrance *to political success.
That’s pretty much what Obama did with the Garland pick. The result from the Republicans was indeed “F IT ALL” etc. So you really don’t have an argument as to why the Dems shouldn’t be just as irresponsible, do you?
That said, the going-high argument is that the Senate does represent all Americans and has to act in all their interests, even if one party no longer believes so. A nominee of that party, who represents only the minority of voters, needs to make the case that he would indeed put country first. The names on Trump’s list do not do so.
Gawdamm, it only took a minute to check. Context, friend, context - and what the hell,here’s a Breitbart(!) cite, about the speech in which Schumer started by objecting to Roberts “hoodwinking” the Senate:
Clear now?
Yes, I do. It’s a simple one: Dems don’t control the Senate. That’s the big, important difference between the Garland situation and Trump’s nominee. With Garland, the opposition party controlled the Senate. With Trump, his same party will control it. All the Dems throwing a tantrum will accomplish is to get the filibuster nuked. If they want to preserve the little bit of minority power they have (the filibuster) they have to use it sparingly and prudently. If they want to see even that taken away from them, then they can adopt Fiveyearlurker’s approach, and no one will be surprised when the Senate nukes the filibuster and we get a Trump-appointed justice anyways.
The question to you was about responsibility, not power. Care to try again?
A “tantrum”, you say? How would you describe the Republicans’ response to the President’s Garland nomination? :dubious:
The question, as I understood it, was whether I had “an argument as to why the Dems shouldn’t be just as irresponsible” [as the Republicans, in refusing to hold a hearing for Garland], and yes, I do have an answer: “because you’ll lose your last shreds of federal power, and not even accomplish your goal of preventing a Trump nominee anyways” is my argument for why the Dems should not be “just as irresponsible”. Do you not understand that? Are you imagining there will be some other outcome? This isn’t a debate about what the morally-correct high road is. It’s one about practicalities, results, and consequences. It’s one about reality.
Nope, you aren’t recognizing the difference between power and responsibility. And yes, “what the morally-correct high road is” does still matter to some of us, and it’s sad(!) that to you it does not.
Even so, you claim the Democrats would lose power by acting irresponsibly. That wasn’t the case for the Republicans, now was it? There’s a good case that the Dems only get chumped by acting responsibly. The evidence is not with you.
I do note you decline to answer the Schumer and tantrum posts.
I’m a bit confused. Are you arguing that “OBSTRUCT ALL THE THINGS!!!” is the morally-correct high road? <— please answer this question, don’t just skip over it. I genuinely don’t understand your position here.
As for my claim that the Democrats would lose the filibuster power if they chose to filibuster any Trump nominee, do you think there is some other outcome that is more likely? If so, what do you envision as the likely outcome of that course of action?
The question was about irresponsibility and why the Democracts shouldn’t be thus. He gave a good answer- they are not in a position to do what the Republicans did.
No, I am absolutely not arguing that. I don’t see what’s confusing to you, unless you really don’t see a distinction between power and responsibility.
Yes, already explained. Maybe you’d be less confused about posts if you tried reading them? :dubious:
Where? You couldn’t have helped me out with a quote, link, or a post # to go back and read? Where did you explain what you think the likely outcome of Dems choosing to filibuster any Trump nominee would be? You’re going to try to make me guess?
Agreed. And when the GOP controls the Senate, it has every right to say that it doesn’t want a liberal or even a moderate.
Why is it not part of advising and consenting to say that the Senate will not confirm anyone Obama is likely to nominate? When that type of impasse happens, why is it not Obama being obstinate?
If Obama had nominated William Pryor, the GOP Senate would have gladly confirmed him. William H. Pryor Jr. - Wikipedia. But Obama wanted a center-left nominee and the GOP Senate did not.
I fail to see the Constitutional Crisis that supposedly happened.
Let me try to explain it: Traditionally, the Senate has given the President wide latitude in making Supreme Court appointments. The President choose who he wants, the Senate then gives this person a fair hearing and then they decide whether to accept them or not. If they do not, they presumably justify their vote by explaining why they think this person is so far out of the mainstream that they cannot accept them.
What the Republicans have done is essentially turned that on its head. They have said that if the President does not choose exactly who we would have chosen, then not only will we not vote to confirm them but we will not even bother to give them a hearing and explain the reasons for our vote.
So, now you basically have a Senate majority who is exercising all the power in choosing the nominee. The President is essentially a figurehead whose nominee will get a hearing only if it is who the Senate majority (or the most extreme wing of that majority) would have chosen anyway and otherwise it won’t even be considered.
And when the Democrats rejected Bork, why was that also not turning the process on its head?
Because Bork was bad? But Democrat nominees are good?
I kind of thought you could apply what I wrote to that specific case, but since you are apparently finding it difficult, here are the points:
(1) The Democrats gave Bork a fair hearing.
(2) The Democrats decided that Bork was too far outside the mainstream and so they voted not to confirm him. (And, in fact, several Republicans…6 by my count …joined the Democrats in this conclusion. Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia)
(3) When Reagan subsequently nominated someone else who was certainly not someone who they would have chosen but did not seem so extreme, they confirmed him.
By contrast, the Republicans did not give Garland any hearing…and, in fact, announced before he was chosen that whoever was chosen would not get a hearing.
And, they did not base this on a feeling that he was very far outside the mainstream; in fact, by all accounts, Garland is one of the most moderate people one would expect a President to choose.
The reasoning of the Republicans in this thread seems to be: “If the Democrats in the Senate ever exercise their right to reject a nominee, then it is equivalent if the Republicans reject any and all nominees (at least who are are not exactly who they would have nominated)…and they don’t even have to bother to give the person a hearing.”
Well, unless he’s the nominee. 
HurricaneDitka, do you think that there is any circumstance where the Democrats could filibuster anything and not lose that power? Because a power that you can never use under any circumstance is no power at all. And if we’re going to make a stand on something, what should it be?
Yes, I imagine there are, but I believe those circumstances have become extremely more limited since Reid went nuclear on non-SCOTUS appointments.
Like I said, I’d suggest the Senate Dems use the threat of a filibuster or, conversely, the promise of not filibustering, to try to influence Trump’s pick to someone they find more agreeable than the worst of his list of 21. I imagine that saying ALL 21 is a bridge too far and would likely trigger the nuclear option, but saying some portion of the 21 are too extreme while others aren’t probably gives the Dems some say in the nomination and preserves the filibuster, in it’s post-Reid-weakened-form, for some other battle down the road, perhaps Trump’s second SCOTUS nominee.
missed the edit window, but that would require something that I’m not sure the Dems are capable of: going along (at least to the point of a handful of them supporting a cloture vote) with a nominee they probably dislike, perhaps intensely.