I’m down with the filibuster. Republicans started this crap by holding up Garland, so the Dems have a duty to resist.
And before some “brilliant” Conservative comes in bitching like the Swedish Fucking Chef - i.e., “Bork! Bork Bork Bork!” - if you count Robert Bork’s nomination as analogous to Merrick Garland’s, then you have to count Abe Fortas’s nomination for Chief Justice too.
Pretty much this^^.
Talking heads on one of the channels last night were discussing the possibility of a deal to move Garland through with an agreement to not filibuster by the Dems now in exchange for a few Reps agreeing not to nuke the filibuster for a future nominee.
Then the discussion got down to whether the parties felt they could trust one another. And what does each side they get out of such a deal when it comes down to the nuts and bolts.
Net result of the discussion is that the Republicans would be giving up the future opportunity of swinging the ideological balance of the court in exchange for preserving the filibuster. Democrats would be ceding the nomination of Gorsuch in the hope that Republicans would honor the agreement and not nuke a filibuster when the ideological balance would be at stake. A bad deal all around.
Filibuster Gorsuch or not, he’ll be on the court save for a dramatic and unexpected last minute revelation.
The real fight is the next time one of the liberal wing of the court retires or dies.
I’m happy to discuss Abe Fortas.
10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voted for cloture; 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against cloture; 12 Democrats absented themselves from the vote.
Go on. Or any other “brilliant” liberal who has something to add?
Exactomundo!!
And, d’oh. I did it too…
Should said been Gorsuch there.
I can’t imagine the Republicans agreeing to a deal that permits the Dems to filibuster the next nominee. Why would they?
The Democrats can’t stop Gorsuch, so any deal that says “we will let him go thru” is meaningless. He’s gonna go thru anyway.
I suppose they could say that they were no longer going to politicize the process, so any qualified nominee will be confirmed, but that kind of a deal will go out the window the instant a President nominates someone who might overturn Roe v. Wade or gay marriage.
If and when Gorsuch is confirmed, Trump will have fulfilled 100% of my hopes for his Presidency. If and when Ginsberg is gone, and another conservative is confirmed, it will be more than I reasonably could hope for.
A 6-3 majority where the 6 is young - probably the best legacy Trump could leave.
Regards,
Shodan
keep the battle lines simple. Make the filibuster happen this time if it’s going to happen. Nothing beyond a “gentlemen’s agreement”, that and 25 cents makes a quarter, in return for a wimpy burger next time.
If Trump wanted to de-politicize the process and offer an olive branch, he could have nominated someone more central (yet on the conservative side). The time to be magnanimous is when one has the Presidency and both houses and almost 4 years on the shot clock.
Trump? Magnanimous? Surely you kid…? 
Does getting 100% of your hopes outweigh any particular percentage of your fears?
It doesn’t matter who Trump/the Republicans nominated for SCOTUS, the elected Democrats will not confirm them. Period. End of story.
Therefore, I see no reason for the elected Republicans not to change the filibuster rule. I would prefer that this filibuster remain in place, but life’s a bitch. Life goes on. The voters, and their elected representatives, will learn to live with whatever comes along.
Republicans still could do so, and get a huge PR victory out of the entire thing.
“Unfortunately Gorsuch appears to be unpalatable to those dirty libruls, and the Supreme Court simply can’t function any longer without a full panel. In the interest of the country, the nomination for Gorsuch will be repealed, and Merrick Garland will be nominated in his place, given that he’s been acceptable to both sides from the very start.”
Republicans get someone they didn’t mind in the first place, come off looking magnanimous to the general public, and gain political capital for the next fight. Unfortunately, they lose points with the faction that requires all Republican victories be measured by the tears and gnashing of teeth from the left.
Even if the scenario could be spun by better words than mine, to make the Democrats look like assholes, the GOP is ruled by the far right, and thus couldn’t make this work.
Trump shouldn’t be allowed to pick a Supreme Court Justice in what may be the last year of his Presidency. 
I don’t see how “firing up the base” with a filibuster is particularly useful 2 years before mid-terms.
I think the whole “campaigns don’t really start until Labor Day” BS was blown out of the water years ago. The stage for the 2010 midterms was set in the Tea Party summer of 2009.
The way to win nowadays is figure out how to keep people fired up and involved. And right now, the Dems have some serious grassroots mojo going on; if they can sustain it, life will be good. But if they let it dissipate, they won’t be able to resurrect it on command come September 2018. Hence filibuster.
I think filibuster is a bad idea.
Grill him hard then let him in. He* is* a accomplished jurist.
It’s not enough to fire up the base on mid-term day. You have to fight every battle, every day. It’s not good enough to just give up, day after day, because why bother? You can’t just turn to people on mid-term day and say, “Oh - right. Mid-terms. Let’s win this!”
If you want people to support you, you have to make your case every day that you’re fighting hard for things that are important to those people. This is a side effect of the 24-hour news cycle and it’s kind of embarrassing that Dems have taken so long to figure it out.
Also - keep in mind that the Russian investigation and Donald’s War on Republican Representatives are the background here. The longer things drag on, the harder it’s going to be for Donald to get his agenda across.
As far as what the Democrats gain if the Republicans use the nuclear option, what they gain is not having to worry about appealing to the “moderates” the next time there is a Democratic president and a senate with 50-59 Democrats.
I have no inside info, obviosuly. but my hunch is, Schumer would be (and WILL be) willing to confirm Gorsuch (or, at any rate, willing to let the GOP majority confirm him) with a few stipulations and guarantees from Mitch McConnell.
No, the Dems aren’t happy to have Gorsuch replace Scalia, especially when it looked as if they’d finally have a clear liberal majority. But replacing Scalia with another conservative doesn’t change the balance. We’d still have 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and Kennedy (who’s reliably conservative on business & law/order issues, generally liberal on social issues).
Bu the NEXT appointment Trump gets will probably come with the death or resignation of Kennedy or a liberal (Breyer or Ginsburg). THAT would change the balance mightily. And THAT is something Schumer can’t take lying down.
I think he wants a deal- something like “We’ll let you vote on Gorsuch, but you have to give us the power to block the next Trump appointee. No way Pryor or Edith Jones replaces Notorious RBG.”
To which the response ought to be “whaddya mean ‘let us’? You can’t stop it - we’ll just eliminate the filibuster.”
A PR victory with who?
Speaking as part of the GOP base, Garland is not acceptable to me, and Gorsuch is. Who gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what the libruls want? They didn’t win the election, so they don’t get what they want.
And the Supreme Court will have a full panel, once Gorsuch is confirmed.
Regards,
Shodan