# Is it time for the dems to fight dirty? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907 "2018-06-11T20:37:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bionic\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/49beb7/32.png) [@bionic\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bionic_man)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/21 "2018-06-12T04:42:31Z")
I think its time for the Democrats to take off the gloves ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/22 "2018-06-12T04:50:49Z")
So… OK… Republican legislators are pretty much uniformly disgusting and immoral human beings right now. You know why? More than half the fucking **country** is disgusting and immoral human beings right now. Otherwise how did the politicians get there. Now what? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/23 "2018-06-12T06:54:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t see the escalation being one sided. You bring up Garland, but before Garland was Miguel Estrada. Democrats and Republicans both use procedural moves to advance their goals. Currently the Democrats just haven’t been as good at it. [Scrubs basically.](http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub) We need some good limericks about _Tu Quoque_, but I’ll post mine in the Pit. > [@](#): > > Estrada was a conservative ideologue with no experience as a judge … no experience as an academic … had “never thought about Roe v. Wade” … and was a personal friend of Ann Coulter More importantly, GWB was just asked to appoint a more acceptable Judge. _ **Obama was told in no-uncertain terms that no judge he appointed would be approved.** _ Other than that, yeah sure, Estrada / Garland? Exactly the same. John Kerry / John Bolton — what’s the difference? Preventing vs. Helping Minorities to Vote — Same-same. Mods, close the thread please. The D’s and R’s are indistinguishable. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/24 "2018-06-12T07:31:58Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > **Bricker** is correct. Having judges “make laws to do what is right” only sounds like a splendid idea as long as the judge’s idea of what is right and yours are the same. And having judges strictly adhere to bad laws, or laws badly written that some have found semantic loopholes into leads to bad outcomes too. Plus if all you want is strict literalism at all times, damn all contexts and outcomes, just fire all judges and replace them with very short shell scripts. Streamline the whole thing right up. But the judicial is not, and I don’t think it’s supposed to be, there merely to rubber stamp the legislative or executive. Them balances need checked, dawg. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/25 "2018-06-12T11:00:31Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > Yes, it is high time that the Dems start fighting dirty as _hell._ I don’t care if the base of the party is more indignant to such tactics; they can be dragged along and will likely be supportive after the Dems start producing tangible policy outcomes. > > Shame Gorsuch into resigning; failing that, impeach him or just add more SCOTUS seats so that he spends the rest of his life writing angry dissents that nobody cares about. Depending on the results of the Mueller investigation, the Dems should take a similar tactic towards _all_ of Trump’s court nominees. > > When the GOP goes low, the Dems have to start going lower. Aiming for the high ground all the time is surely helping Hillary Clinton during all her free time spent not being president. The next Dem president expands the court by 2 seats; the next Rep expands it by 4. By 2150 every American is a Supreme Court justice. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/26 "2018-06-12T12:17:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > They could have waited for a Republican President and a seat to open on the Court. They did. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/27 "2018-06-12T12:28:04Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > And I think you mean ‘seque’ into the most recent piece of evidence, not riding a scooter into it. Or maybe not, you tell us. I believe the word _you_ were looking for is “ **segue**.” “Seque” is a subjunctive conjugate of the Spanish word “secar,” meaning “to dry.” ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/28 "2018-06-12T12:56:43Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > The next Dem president expands the court by 2 seats; the next Rep expands it by 4. By 2150 every American is a Supreme Court justice. I’m more worried that there will never be a “next Dem President.” Will anyone stop Bannon’s plan to use the 2020 census — which encourages Hispanics to pretend not to exist — as the biggest gerrymandering scandal ever? In my, increasingly rare, optimistic moments I fantasize that the GOP will never have more than 48 Senators again, that the filibuster will be eradicated and centrists will regain control of SCOTUS. I do hope that the rising power of the Alt-Right provokes a backlash. While I personally would never advocate illegal activities at SDMB, if/when the Democrats regain control a militant Alt-Left might find Second Amendment remedies to the problem of a Bannonist majority on SCOTUS. ---
**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:** [June 12, 2018, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/29 "2018-06-12T13:17:52Z")
It’s important to understand why Republicans have been fighting dirty. They’ve been fighting dirty because in a diverse, pluralistic society, their policies don’t benefit as many people as typically Democratic policies do. In a society that is changing and becoming more diverse, their traditional white power establishment is threatened. Thus, they have to become less democratic in order to preserve that power. There were two ways Democrats can fight back: they can fight back by using people power, which is challenging but still preserves the kind of society we all want. Or they can fight dirty, but in the process, contributing in their own way to the collapse of Democratic norms and values. We’re all kinda fucked then. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/30 "2018-06-12T13:18:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They did. That’s disingenuous. Let’s say the Dems take the Senate next year. Would it be fair to never act on a single Trump judicial nominee, no matter how qualified, on the basis that they want to wait until Trump is out of office in 2021 before addressing vacancies in the judiciary? I bet a lot of folks advocating that Dems “fight dirty” would be fine with that. I am not. I think the Senate should deal with nominees on their merits. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/31 "2018-06-12T13:34:55Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > The next Dem president expands the court by 2 seats; the next Rep expands it by 4. By 2150 every American is a Supreme Court justice. Doesn’t matter. There have to be serious, severe, and lasting consequences for the Garland blockade and the installation of the illegitimate Gorsuch. Right now, the presumption seems to be that no Democratic senate will ever again confirm a Republican president’s SCOTUS nominee; what I am saying is that the Democratic response has to be vastly broader than that, and that it must reflect the kind of tit-for-tat escalation in procedural warfare that the GOP has been waging for years. A way out of the SCOTUS wars would obviously be a constitutional amendment that sets the number of seats at whatever given number, abolishes lifetime tenure, and swaps Gorsuch for Garland. That will never happen, though, so in the meantime the Dems need to just abolish the filibuster and add more seats. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/32 "2018-06-12T13:44:14Z")
I don’t think playing dirty will help at all. Well-meaning left-leaning vlogs already talk about partisan politics and tribalism being the problem, and how both sides need to move back to the “center”. In my view, all that talk helps legitimize the republicans because in reality it’s just not a symmetrical situation at all IMO. The modern GOP will deny reality, and all their former principles, to defend the behaviour of one of their own (principally but not only Trump). There’s very little of that on the other side. A few dirty tactics by the dems would be enough for \*everyone \*to believe that partisan politics is the main problem, and “both sides are as bad as each other” etc etc. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/33 "2018-06-12T13:44:27Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > There were two ways Democrats can fight back: they can fight back by using people power, which is challenging but still preserves the kind of society we all want. As enraged as I am with GOP behavior since the 90s (and especially since 2009), I agree that going lower is not the answer. First off, we suck at it, but more importantly it runs counter to our ideals. Fighting back through “people power” really just means convincing a small portion of the moderate center that we have better answers to today’s challenges than those lunatics over on the right. This shouldn’t be hard, but we’ve been failing pretty consistently at it over the last decade. And no wonder. Our core messages are all about long-term stuff (preventing climate change, ensuring equal opportunity), while the GOP owns short-term gratification (protect coal & oil jobs, get rid of illegals, cut taxes). Plus they own simple-minded rah-rah patriotism. The Sanders crowd gets this. Unfortunately, their short-term voter bait ($15 minimum wage! Free college! Repeal the 2nd Amendment!) is pure fantasy. Where’s our plausible, center-winning strategy? ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/34 "2018-06-12T13:53:12Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > It’s important to understand why Republicans have been fighting dirty. They’ve been fighting dirty because in a diverse, pluralistic society, their policies don’t benefit as many people as typically Democratic policies do. In a society that is changing and becoming more diverse, their traditional white power establishment is threatened. Thus, they have to become less democratic in order to preserve that power. > \*\* > There were two ways Democrats can fight back: they can fight back by using people power, which is challenging but still preserves the kind of society we all want\*\*. Or they can fight dirty, but in the process, contributing in their own way to the collapse of Democratic norms and values. We’re all kinda fucked then. The problem with that route is that whatever the Democrats do if and when they regain power, they will still be dependent on approval from a Supreme Court that has already been packed with right wing ideologues who give credence to cockamamie lawsuits against Democratic policies. You don’t even have to search very far for evidence of that; just look at the extent to which we’re already through the looking glass of anti-Obamacare lawsuits. Depending on whether Trump gets any more Court picks, it’s possible that SCOTUS turns into another branch of the Republican Party whose only purpose is to strike down Democratic laws. I mean, what would you have the Democrats _do_ if SCOTUS issues a 5-4 decision in 2022 that declares Medicare-for-All unconstitutional? The only appropriate response as I see it would be to add more seats. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/35 "2018-06-12T14:30:39Z")
The idea that Democrats have not been playing dirty all along is laughable. Democrats in the Senate they pushed Obamacare through on a reconciliation vote. There had never been a judicial nominee successfully filibustered until they did it to Estrada just for being Hispanic. They then filibustered another 9 nominees. When in the minority they made a deal only to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances which they broke as soon as they got in the majority. When they got in the majority they then eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees so the Republicans could not do what they had just done 20 times. They attempted to filibuster Alito and Roberts. They accused Thomas of sexual harrasment, and rejected Bork. When Clinton picked Supreme Court justices his nominees got 9 and 3 no votes. Bush’s nominees got 22 and 42 no votes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/36 "2018-06-12T14:54:21Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > True, > > So Bricker, if following the model of the OP we wait until two Republican legistators “happen to get food poisoning” making them unable to vote, and then we pass a law in Virginia that says that all residents need to show ID in order to vote and the only ID we will accept is union cards student ID’s, and a state provided ID that is available at the Colonial Williamburg courthouse between the hours of 12:00 and 12:15. You see the legality of what we have done and go on your merry way? > > Or would you look to some activist judges to maybe take a look at it to see if its Kosher. > > Of course with the understanding that if we managed to pack the court with two additional judges who agreed our way then you’d admit you must have been wrong. Judges are not activist when they consider whether a law runs afoul of constitutional guarantees. Judges ARE activist if they create novel theories of what constitutional guarantees exist. In the example you offer, I believe that applying existing constitutional caselaw to the scheme you describe would result in striking down the law. I don’t agree that’s activist: a judge who did that would be applying existing case law, not creating new law, or new constitutional guarantees. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/37 "2018-06-12T15:00:09Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > There had never been a judicial nominee successfully filibustered until they did it to Estrada just for being Hispanic. That’s not accurate. They did it to Estrada just for being a conservative lawyer who was Hispanic. They were terrified of a future nomination for a Supreme Court Justice Estrada, someone who would run counter to the liberal narrative that Hispanics are Democrats. So, no: not just for being Hispanic. They’re not racists. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/38 "2018-06-12T15:09:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Let’s say the Dems take the Senate next year. Would it be fair to never act on a single Trump judicial nominee, no matter how qualified, on the basis that they want to wait until Trump is out of office in 2021 before addressing vacancies in the judiciary? > > I bet a lot of folks advocating that Dems “fight dirty” would be fine with that. I am not. I think the Senate should deal with nominees on their merits. I’d be fine with it morally, as retribution, and plus it would be friggin hilarious to hear the gnashing of teeth. I do not know if it would be effective or not. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2018, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/39 "2018-06-12T15:39:01Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I’d be fine with it morally, as retribution, and plus it would be friggin hilarious to hear the gnashing of teeth. I do not know if it would be effective or not. It’s remarkable that when it comes to society in general, liberals (like myself) often embrace the maxim of eye-for-an-eye leaving everyone blind; but the idea that this would apply to politics seems outside of anyone’s conception (either left or right). ---
**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:** [June 12, 2018, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907/40 "2018-06-12T15:39:46Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > We need some good limericks about _Tu Quoque_, but I’ll post mine in the Pit. This isn’t a tu quoque because it’s not saying that one position is wrong based on hypocrisy. It’s a challenge to the original premise. The original premise was that Democrats need to fight dirty, saying that _“On one hand, such moves are absolutely an escalation. On the other, this escalation currently is entirely one-sided”_. That premise is flawed because it’s not accurate. Stating how it’s not accurate is far from a tu quoque. > [@](#): > > More importantly, GWB was just asked to appoint a more acceptable Judge. _ **Obama was told in no-uncertain terms that no judge he appointed would be approved.** _ I agree that those are different things. But they are differences of degree, not of kind. Response to Garland’s nomination was absolutely an escalation, but so was the response to GWB. So was the situation that called for the gang of 8’s compromise, and so was Reid’s killing of the judicial filibuster, and the subsequent Republican killing of the SCOTUS fillibuster. All of those were escalations. The point is, the escalations haven’t been one sided. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Let’s say the Dems take the Senate next year. Would it be fair to never act on a single Trump judicial nominee, no matter how qualified, on the basis that they want to wait until Trump is out of office in 2021 before addressing vacancies in the judiciary? > > I bet a lot of folks advocating that Dems “fight dirty” would be fine with that. I am not. I think the Senate should deal with nominees on their merits. I think not acting on any nominee would also be an escalation, and simultaneously within the current rules of the senate. I can’t speak to fairness, but my preference would be that nominees get an up or down vote. After that, voters should decide if that’s how they want the senate to run. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-for-the-dems-to-fight-dirty/815907.md?page=3)