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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who’s going to view them like that? (Besides the crew on Fox and Friends.)
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.
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 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, half-joking murder, 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.
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.
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?
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:
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!
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:
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.