# Schumer Urges Filibuster to Block Gorsuch Confirmation
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 23, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845 "2017-03-23T16:45:20Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 28
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/541 "2017-04-05T17:21:47Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> If you want to see some full-on partisan hypocrisy, just search this board for ‘filibuster’ and look at the posts pre-2016. I’ve seen the same people flip their opinion of the filibuster in sync with whether or not their party is in the majority at that time. People on both sides of the political fence.
>
> Lots of prominent lefties on this board were perfectly okay with getting rid of the filibuster or making it much harder to carry out - when the Democrats held a majority in the Senate.
Still am. But as long as it exists, I don’t advocate unilateral disarmament.
I hope that isn’t too tough a concept to grasp.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/542 "2017-04-05T17:36:34Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#):
>
> If the Democrats had any hope of achieving anything by filibustering the new nominee, then the decision to do so might make sense. But they don’t have any hope of that, because all the Republicans will do is remove the filibuster option. All the Democrats will achieve, then, is to force the Republicans to do something that 99% of the country’s population won’t care about in any significant way.
I guess we have different definitions of ‘achieving anything.’
One possibility - unlikely, I’ll concede - is that three GOP Senators will decide the filibuster is more important to them than Judge Gorsuch. That’s one way to win.
But let’s assume that doesn’t happen, that the Dems filibuster and the GOP blows up the SCOTUS filibuster.
1. If the Dems take the White House in 2020 and regain the Senate majority, the SCOTUS filibuster is already gone if that President should get an opportunity for a SCOTUS nomination. That’s a win.
Why? Because although the Dems could get rid of the SCOTUS filibuster then just as easily as McConnell could do now, they get a good deal more nervous about violating longstanding norms than the GOP does.
1. If they choose to get rid of the filibuster on legislation, there’s now a bipartisan tradition of knocking down the filibuster. It would be just the third and last step in the sequence of ending the filibuster. They might well have the guts to do this if the GOP knocks down the SCOTUS filibuster now. If not, they almost certainly won’t. So again, win for the Dems.
> [@](#):
>
> In my opinion, the Democrats should suck it up, admit their guy lost, admit that they don’t have the power to do anything but whine about Judge Garland, and take the “high” road by judging Judge Gorsuch on the basis of his actual qualifications. This would gain them political capital, both from the Republican Senators who are moderates, and from the public.
Wait a second, I thought you just said that 99% of the public didn’t care about this in any meaningful way. And we’ve already seen what ‘moderates’ McCain and Graham have had to say: that it would be awful to get rid of the filibuster, but this nomination is apparently so important that they must vote for the awful.
I’ve been waiting since about 2002 for Republican ‘moderates’ to vote anywhere near as moderately as they talk. But almost inevitably, they fall in line. There’s no political capital to be had there.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/543 "2017-04-05T17:38:37Z")
What “lefties” here are saying that it’s wrong to get rid of the filibuster? I’m looking forward to it – and I think the Democrats’ action in filibustering is appropriate. Just because I want it gone doesn’t mean that I don’t think the Democrats should use it when it’s still in place.
---
### Author:  [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/544 "2017-04-05T17:39:58Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#):
>
> The Democrats are, in my opinion, making a serious tactical and strategic error here. They are going to be viewed much like the spoiled child who, upset at the unfair decision of his mother earlier in the day, continues the tantrum at home, despite the fact that this will now deprive him of something down the road. “I’m so mad at you from before, I’m going to make you punish me harder now!”
Democrats are going to be happy that their Senators stood up to Trump even if it was futile, Republicans won’t care about procedure as long as their guys gets on the Court, and non-partisans won’t care at all for the most part. Maybe some people will moan about civility but no one listened to them during the Merrick Garland saga or the nuclear option in 2013 or the Gang of 14 back in 2005. Or when the Senate was slow-walking Bill Clinton’s nominees in the late 90s. This has all been coming for a long time.
At this point, any Republican Senator who votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee from a Democratic President has written their own political death warrant by primary challenge (see, e.g., Dick Lugar). I’m not as sure that the Democrats have quite gotten to that extreme yet, but they’re catching up. But here’s the thing - although it’s arguably corrosive for the institution _it’s what their primary voters want_. If the situation on the ground becomes less polarized then you’ll see the Senate maybe rethink the brinksmanship, as well.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/545 "2017-04-05T17:42:26Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#):
>
> The Democrats…are going to be viewed much like the spoiled child who, upset at the unfair decision of his mother earlier in the day, continues the tantrum at home, despite the fact that this will now deprive him of something down the road.
1. Who’s going to view them like that? (Besides the crew on Fox and Friends.)
2. What are the Dems depriving themselves of down the road? A SCOTUS filibuster that can be dispensed with at any time of Mitch McConnell’s convenience might as well already not exist. If Trump/Pence gets a second SCOTUS nomination, the Dems won’t be able to filibuster that one if they, as the phrase goes, ‘keep their powder dry’ now.
Might as well just kill the illusion.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/546 "2017-04-05T17:43:29Z")
I’m actually pleased, in a yay-team partisan way, that the filibuster is removed under these circumstances. Here, the Republicans can correctly say they are responding to the 2013 maneuver, and replacing a conservative with a conservative that all agree is qualified.
If the next [Trump nominee](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822450) is Roy Moore, or Priscilla Owen, then by that time the lack of a filibuster will be old news. Democrats won’t have any way to derail the nomination except [beseiging the Capitol building](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20092678&postcount=2), half-joking [murder](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20093677&postcount=45), or simply insisting that Merrick Garland is already on the Court, because the Senate didn’t give him a hearing and therefore consented by failing to object. (The **Chronos** Theory).
I won’t, actually, be doing any partisan yay-team if it’s Roy Moore. But you get the idea.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/547 "2017-04-05T17:48:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I’m actually pleased, in a yay-team partisan way, that the filibuster is removed under these circumstances. Here, the Republicans can correctly say they are responding to the 2013 maneuver, and replacing a conservative with a conservative that all agree is qualified.
If you ignore the fact that the 2013 maneuver was effective forced by the GOP blocking virtually all of Obama’s nominees, sure. It’s like claiming that you were forced to shoot someone in self-defense - because they beat you up after you held them at gunpoint.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/548 "2017-04-05T17:49:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I’m actually pleased, in a yay-team partisan way, that the filibuster is removed under these circumstances. Here, the Republicans can correctly say they are responding to the 2013 maneuver, and replacing a conservative with a conservative that all agree is qualified.
Yeah, how many judicial nominations were the Republicans holding up in 2013? And how many now?
And of course, thirty years ago, the Dems, and several Rupublicans, were mean to Bork. So bothsides.
> [@](#):
>
> If the next [Trump nominee](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822450) is Roy Moore, or Priscilla Owen, then by that time the lack of a filibuster will be old news. Democrats won’t have any way to derail the nomination
Except getting three Republicans to vote against it. Same as now, for all practical purposes.
Basically, you’re saying that they wouldn’t be able to find three Republicans to vote against a genuinely crackpot SCOTUS nominee like Moore or Owen. Can’t say I disagree, but doesn’t it make you embarrassed to be a Republican?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/549 "2017-04-05T17:58:01Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Yeah, how many judicial nominations were the Republicans holding up in 2013? And how many now?
>
> And of course, thirty years ago, the Dems, and several Rupublicans, were mean to Bork. So bothsides. Except getting three Republicans to vote against it. Same as now, for all practical purposes.
>
> Basically, you’re saying that they wouldn’t be able to find three Republicans to vote against a genuinely crackpot SCOTUS nominee like Moore or Owen. Can’t say I disagree, but doesn’t it make you embarrassed to be a Republican?
Notice how my position with respect to the filibuster has never changed in the 18 years I have been posting here?
Notice how you say Republicans “held up” nominations, but Democrats were merely “mean” to Bork?
Notice how I don’t really care what your opinion is, because I’m convinced it arises from a desire to advance Democrats’ interests and you will fluidly adopt or discard principles in service to that goal?
If not, then you are invited to start.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/550 "2017-04-05T17:59:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> If you ignore the fact that the 2013 maneuver was effective forced by the GOP blocking virtually all of Obama’s nominees, sure.
(post snipped)
What was it that Chucky has been saying lately? “The answer isn’t to change the rules, it’s to change the nominee”. Why didn’t Obama try that in 2013?
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/551 "2017-04-05T18:00:07Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> If you want to see some full-on partisan hypocrisy, just search this board for ‘filibuster’ and look at the posts pre-2016. I’ve seen the same people flip their opinion of the filibuster in sync with whether or not their party is in the majority at that time. People on both sides of the political fence.
I think it’s kind of a mixed bag. Many people have been consistent, others not so much. I say this because I actually did do this and here is what I found:
May-16:
> [@The Dems will sweep into power in both the House and the Senate as well as the Presidency](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-dems-will-sweep-into-power-in-both-the-house-and-the-senate-as-well-as-the-presidency/754482/9):
>
> The Democrats will take control of the Senate. (And their first action should be to change the filibuster rules. Do it immediately while the iron is hot, or they’ll regret it later.)
Mar-17:
> [@Pleonast](#):
>
> I’d prefer the filibuster be completed removed from the Senate rules in all cases. It’s undemocratic.
Pretty consistent.
Nov-12:
> [@Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/8):
>
> The Bush tax cuts are due to expire again. I want them expired. I want the Senate to revoke the filibuster opening day. I want a resolution restoring the tax cuts for the 98% of Americans with lowest income.
Mar-17:
> [@septimus](#):
>
> The Democrat should filibuster every thing they can.
That’s not as consistent.
Some were clear on the different approaches by party:
> [@John Boehner vows to repeal Obamacare. Will he and the repubs succeed?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-boehner-vows-to-repeal-obamacare-will-he-and-the-repubs-succeed/626602/34):
>
> I think it should be kept for Democrats only and repealed for Republicans.
> [@The filibuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-filibuster/626633/47):
>
> > [@The filibuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-filibuster/626633/17):
> >
> > Assuming you don’t wish to enshrine “Democrats get a filibuster and Republcians don’t” into law…
>
> I would enact such a rule immediately if I thought we could get away with it. And so would the Republicans.
Some were more prescient:
> [@Senate ends the filibuster for executive and judicial nominees](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-ends-the-filibuster-for-executive-and-judicial-nominees/674458/46):
>
> I predict that will change if say Scalia retired and Obama got to name his replacement.
>
> I applaud the move, I don’t think for a minute that McConnell would hesitate to eliminate all filibusters should he gain the majority and had a Republican president, even if Reid didn’t do what he did.
> [@Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/214):
>
> There is really no reason to keep the 60 vote cloture rule on anything now and it would be unrealistic to expect that limitation to hold. I expect the reservation for SCOTUS appointments and other legislation to fall by the wayside in short order.
And others less prescient:
> [@Whither the filibuster? Any chance of a rules change?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-the-filibuster-any-chance-of-a-rules-change/640292/3):
>
> The filibuster has such a long tradition in the Senate it’s not going anywhere.
And I think these folks were all speaking favorably about eliminating the filibuster, and I can’t see any having changed their view since:
> [@John Boehner vows to repeal Obamacare. Will he and the repubs succeed?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-boehner-vows-to-repeal-obamacare-will-he-and-the-repubs-succeed/626602/20):
>
> For certain issues I would like to see the filibuster set aside. Appointments of officials such as Cabinet officials, ambassadors, and members of the judiciary.
>
> Give it a max of one hour per Senator. Then vote. Straight majority takes it. Voting, up or down, is a part of the job of Senator.
> [@Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/7):
>
> I really hope they completely eliminate the filibuster and the even worse secret hold for appointments. I’d be happy if it were gone completely, but at least let’s get in the people we need to run jobs.
> [@Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/43):
>
> The filibuster was fine as a rarely-used symbolic gesture. But now it has become a regularly-used means of obstructionism.
>
> Republicans don’t fight fair, and I would bet dollars to donuts that, having turned the filibuster into a standard weapon, the first time they gain control of the Senate they will change the rules to prevent the Democrats from doing the same. Why not beat them to the punch for once?
> [@Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/291):
>
> I have no objection to demonstrations of dismay and even political theater, most of politics is theater, to one degree or another. But the script is already written, and it was written by the consent of the governed.
>
> If Obama decides to stage _Hamlet_, and the Congress has already approved, it is not the privilege of a minority in the Senate to refuse to cast an actor in the title role.
* * *
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> Personally, I like the filibuster, but only if they go back to the old rules of actually having to hold the floor. That puts pressure on both sides to eventually negotiate a solution, and the filibuster should be all about negotiation and compromise. Just saying, “I object!” and thereby exercising a consequence-less veto over anything you don’t like just leads to obstructionism and gridlock.
When I looked, this was actually a common sentiment. Here are folks agreeing with you:
> [@Whither the filibuster? Any chance of a rules change?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-the-filibuster-any-chance-of-a-rules-change/640292/7):
>
> I don’t want to get rid of the filibuster, but I’d like to see it go back to the old-fashioned way- the filibustering Senators should _have_ to stay in the Senate and keep talking. Filibusters should be _physically_ exhausting- not just politically exhausting- so they’re only used when the minority feels it’s most necessary.
> [@If SCOTUS gridlock continues after the election, what could a president Clinton do?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-scotus-gridlock-continues-after-the-election-what-could-a-president-clinton-do/762239/88):
>
> This is where backbone needs to be shown. Kill the procedural filibuster and make them actually **filibuster**. See how long it takes them to get tired of showing themselves to actively be total asses on national TV every day.
> [@A modest proposal on judicial filibusters](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-modest-proposal-on-judicial-filibusters/311349/1):
>
> So, my modest proposal is simple: require filibustering Senators to go out there and shut the Senate down by actually filibustering. Make them experience the discomfort and fatigue. Additionally, increase pressure on supporting Senators to change positions and vote for cloture by allowing no other Senate votes to take place while a filibuster is ongoing. If a filibuster returns to being an extreme, disruptive event, it will only be used in the most “extraordinary circumstances.”
> [@Time to eliminate Senate filibusters?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-eliminate-senate-filibusters/491756/4):
>
> I wouldn’t be opposed to removing the _procedural filibuster_, which as I understand it means “we declare we have enough votes that we’ll threaten to allow this filibuster on this subject if you don’t capitulate, but we won’t _actually_ jeopardize any of our Senators’ reputations by making them do the dirty work of _actually_, in fact, conducting a filibuster.”
> [@Should Procedural Filibustering Be Abolished?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-procedural-filibustering-be-abolished/486789/7):
>
> IMHO, the _procedural_ filibuster should be abolished.
* * *
And here’s what I said:
> [@Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/235):
>
> I personally think there should be an up or down vote on the nominees, and don’t really support the filibuster in any situation, …
My position is unchanged.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/552 "2017-04-05T18:00:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I’m actually pleased, in a yay-team partisan way, that the filibuster is removed under these circumstances. Here, the Republicans can correctly say they are responding to the 2013 maneuver, and replacing a conservative with a conservative that all agree is qualified.
>
> If the next [Trump nominee](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822450) is Roy Moore, or Priscilla Owen, then by that time the lack of a filibuster will be old news. Democrats won’t have any way to derail the nomination except [beseiging the Capitol building](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20092678&postcount=2), half-joking [murder](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20093677&postcount=45), or simply insisting that Merrick Garland is already on the Court, because the Senate didn’t give him a hearing and therefore consented by failing to object. (The **Chronos** Theory).
>
> I won’t, actually, be doing any partisan yay-team if it’s Roy Moore. But you get the idea.
I’d be concerned about losing the filibuster if I thought there was any chance the Republicans _wouldn’t_ get rid of it for the next vacancy if there was an actual filibuster threat… but I don’t. I think there’s no chance McConnell wouldn’t be happy to get rid of it then too, and I think there’s no chance the rest of his party wouldn’t go along with it.
Next up – getting rid of the legislative filibuster. Go team!
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/553 "2017-04-05T18:04:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> (post snipped)
>
> What was it that Chucky has been saying lately? “The answer isn’t to change the rules, it’s to change the nominee”. Why didn’t Obama try that in 2013?
[He did.](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/politics/republicans-block-another-obama-nominee-for-key-judgeship.html)
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/554 "2017-04-05T18:07:47Z")
Let’s assume that Trump will get to nominate two Supreme Court justices - one to replace Scalia, and one to replace a liberal. Your job as a Democrat is to attempt to stop one or both picks. Here are your options:
1. Filibuster Gorsuch, and lose the filibuster along with perhaps some political capital. Then watch as Trump is free to nominate the most radical right-winger he can find to replce the liberal, knowing that his pick can be easily confirmed.
2. Make a big show of how magnanimous you are being with Gorsuch, because a conservative is being replaced by a conservative of equally high qualification, and you are the reasonable party. Gain tons of political capital, which you can then use when a liberal retires and needs replacing. You can point to your ‘conservative for a conservative’ agreeableness in the previous nomination, claim that it is a precedent, and demand that The Senate appoint a moderate who is centrist or slightly left. And if you don’t get it, you can then filibuster, and claim that your earlier agreement on Gorsuch shows that you are being reasonable and the Republicans aren’t, and that your use of the filibuster is an extreme measure to counter an extreme pick, and not just an automatic obstruction of every conservative.
Also, you have to peel off 3 Republicans to sustain the filibuster. Your hope of doing that then when the nature of the court wouldn’t change is much better than now, where a liberal justice would change the fundamental partisan balance of the court.
Either way, the Republicans can ram through both appointments. Your job is to use what leverage you have to make the best of that situation. To do that you need to hold the filibuster in reserve. Blowing your only weapon on a candidate who is eminently qualified and who maintains the current balance on the court will destroy the political capital and threat of a filibuster you will need to make the best out of the next pick.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/555 "2017-04-05T18:13:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> Let’s assume that Trump will get to nominate two Supreme Court justices - one to replace Scalia, and one to replace a liberal. Your job as a Democrat is to attempt to stop one or both picks. Here are your options:
>
> 1. Filibuster Gorsuch, and lose the filibuster along with perhaps some political capital. Then watch as Trump is free to nominate the most radical right-winger he can find to replce the liberal, knowing that his pick can be easily confirmed.
>
> 2. Make a big show of how magnanimous you are being with Gorsuch, because a conservative is being replaced by a conservative of equally high qualification, and you are the reasonable party. Gain tons of political capital, which you can then use when a liberal retires and needs replacing. You can point to your ‘conservative for a conservative’ agreeableness in the previous nomination, claim that it is a precedent, and demand that The Senate appoint a moderate who is centrist or slightly left. And if you don’t get it, you can then filibuster, and claim that your earlier agreement on Gorsuch shows that you are being reasonable and the Republicans aren’t, and that your use of the filibuster is an extreme measure to counter an extreme pick, and not just an automatic obstruction of every conservative.
>
> Also, you have to peel off 3 Republicans to sustain the filibuster. Your hope of doing that then when the nature of the court wouldn’t change is much better than now, where a liberal justice would change the fundamental partisan balance of the court.
>
> Either way, the Republicans can ram through both appointments. Your job is to use what leverage you have to make the best of that situation. To do that you need to hokd the filibuster in reserve. Blowing your only weapon on a candidate who is eminently qualified and who maintains the current balance on the court will destroy the political capital and threat of a filibuster you will need to make the best out of the next pick.
Either way, the Republicans _will_ ram through both appointments. There is no reasonable possibility of “leverage” any more. Only opportunities to energize and motivate one’s base voters to ensure their turnout is maximized for the next election. While they’re in the minority, this should be the absolute #1 priority for the Democrats. In this case, it means pushing as hard as possible against this nominee… and praying like hell RBG and the other “liberal” judges survive until control of the Senate switches back.
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/556 "2017-04-05T18:15:22Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> I think it’s kind of a mixed bag. Many people have been consistent, others not so much. I say this because I actually did do this and here is what I found:
>
> May-16:
> Mar-17:
> Pretty consistent.
>
> Nov-12:
> Mar-17:
> That’s not as consistent.
>
> Some were clear on the different approaches by party:
>
> Some were more prescient:
>
> And others less prescient:
> And I think these folks were all speaking favorably about eliminating the filibuster, and I can’t see any having changed their view since:
>
> * * *
>
> When I looked, this was actually a common sentiment. Here are folks agreeing with you:
>
> * * *
>
> And here’s what I said:
>
> My position is unchanged.
I agree with all that. I didn’t try to tally it all up, as there were a LOT of hits.
---
### Author:  [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/557 "2017-04-05T18:16:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Either way, the Republicans _will_ ram through both appointments. There is no reasonable possibility of “leverage” any more.
I, for one, am very happy that you and other Democrats think like that. I am much less sure than you in the intestinal fortitude of squishes like Collins and Murkowski. I am pretty sure that if the nominee was Pryor and not someone milquetoast like Gorsuch, they’d not be voting to eliminate the filibuster. Thanks to Democrats right now, they won’t get the opportunity to squish out next time.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/558 "2017-04-05T18:18:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Either way, the Republicans _will_ ram through both appointments. There is no reasonable possibility of “leverage” any more. Only opportunities to energize and motivate one’s base voters to ensure their turnout is maximized for the next election. While they’re in the minority, this should be the absolute #1 priority for the Democrats. In this case, it means pushing as hard as possible against this nominee… and praying like hell RBG and the other “liberal” judges survive until control of the Senate switches back.
I agree that the Republicans will ram through their appointees. However if Democrats push too hard in a fight they’re probably going to lose, Trump will look like a winner. His popularity is cratering because people are realizing that he’s incompetent. If he’s seen as winning a big fight his popularity will increase, giving him more leverage. I would think the best alternative for Democrats is to not draw attention to the losing battles. Focus on Russia. Don’t give him a big victory he can point to.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/559 "2017-04-05T18:23:18Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#):
>
> I agree that the Republicans will ram through their appointees. However if Democrats push too hard in a fight they’re probably going to lose, Trump will look like a winner. His popularity is cratering because people are realizing that he’s incompetent. If he’s seen as winning a big fight his popularity will increase, giving him more leverage. I would think the best alternative for Democrats is to not draw attention to the losing battles. Focus on Russia. Don’t give him a big victory he can point to.
This particular move is about motivating Democratic voters, not about trying to beat Trump. There was no way to not “lose” in the Gorsuch battle – therefore, IMO, it’s best to try and focus on turnout.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/560 "2017-04-05T18:25:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Either way, the Republicans _will_ ram through both appointments. There is no reasonable possibility of “leverage” any more. Only opportunities to energize and motivate one’s base voters to ensure their turnout is maximized for the next election. While they’re in the minority, this should be the absolute #1 priority for the Democrats. In this case, it means pushing as hard as possible against this nominee… and praying like hell RBG and the other “liberal” judges survive until control of the Senate switches back.
Well, the truth is that I’m sorry to see the filibuster go. I thought it was a mistake for the Democrats to eviscerate it in 2013, and it’s a mistake now to deliver the _coup de grace_. I’m not going to shed tears, mind you, but on balance I thought it was a useful tool to have in the toolbox. There will come a day, in 2020, or 2022, at some point, when the GOP is in the minority and President Warren appoints someone ultra-liberal, when this folly will be clear.
But, meh, nothing for it. If they pull a knife, you pull a gun; if they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. That’s the DC way.
(With apologies to Sean Connery).
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=27)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=29)