Dems have been burned by trusting Republicans far too often for that to work. My guess is that they pull off the filibuster, McConnell goes nuclear, and we never need more than a simple majority for confirmation ever again.
You sound more like a Tea Party member than the base. Garland was acceptable to them.
If the filibuster only remains at the whim of Mitch McConnell, then it doesn’t really exist anymore. If that’s true, I’d prefer to find that out sooner rather than later.
[url=“https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/302513-reid-dems-could-change-rules-for-supreme-court-nominees%3Famp”]How soon they forget [\url]
I suppose, as long as you are confident that your party will always hold the reigns, and that there will never again be a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate - as long as you’re sure that you’ll never ever ever need the filibuster again - then I suppose this is a reasonable attitude to take. But it seems like folks on all sides, once in power, have a bad habit of assuming they will always be in power. You may come to regret destroying the tools of the minority should you find yourself in it again at some point.
Off to Great Debates.
The best tactic right now would be for someone (Who doesn’t seem to be a Democrat) to start pushing the idea that Gorsuch isn’t conservative enough. That sunk the AHCA, and that can sink this.
Outside the Tea Party, you can remind people of the need for the filibuster, as Trump is doing poorly enough that there may not be a Republican majority by the time the next seat opens.
In other words, fan the flames in the built-in separation in Republican Party right now. They lack any principle to unite them, so take advantage of that.
And, yes, if the filibuster does get removed, what I said above about Democrats possibly being in power when the next judge comes is still true. And, then, just to spite the Republicans, put back the filibuster right after we get what we want–something that no one seems to have realized is an option.
I don’t really think we can keep this ideal that being the “good guys” will win the day. It didn’t save us from Trump. Even though Gorsuch isn’t the end of the world, we still have to fight him.
There is no chance that, if they could remove the filibuster for Gorsuch, that they couldn’t also do so for the next guy (if they are still in power). Since he’ll be the guy that gives them their precious abortion ban back, they’ll be even more motivated then.
But there is a chance that we could stop this idea that they can just push through who they want. If the Democrats can grow some cajones and start the higher risk, higher reward tactics.
You have no idea whatever what the GOP base thinks.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah but 2018 looks damn good for the Senate for the Republicans. And with the age of several of the justices another SCOTUS opening for Trump to nominate is quite likely to arise.
Again, highly unlikely for the next opening. Even if Trump leaves office early, whether by impeachment or one-too-many cheeseburgers, that still leaves Pence with the nomination power.
It might seem nice to think long term, but justices serve a LONG time. Every single nomination is important.
And pulling and restoring the filibuster is a tactic that will never hold. Should one party do that then the other would feel obligated to respond in kind.
If Schumer and Leahy accede to the demands of their archliberal, anti-Trump base and attempt a filibuster, it will only backfire on them, in a spectacular fashion. McConnell will eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees to get Gorsuch through (taking a page from the Democrats’ 2013 playbook when Harry Reid did it for lower court nominees), and when the next Supreme Court justice retires, who will probably be Kennedy or Ginsburg, Trump will be able to get an even more rockribbed, solidly conservative jurist nominated and confirmed to replace said Justice.
It works for me. Was one of the main reasons I supported Trump, tbh
Cite away, O Great Master of All Things Republican.
There’s a flaw in your logic that you could drive a truck through. Even if it’s not done with Gorsuch, the filibuster can be eliminated at any time, including the theoretical confirmation of your rock-ribbed, solidly conservative jurist.
You want a cite that you don’t know what the GOP base thinks? That’s not how it works. You need to produce a cite that shows that Garland was acceptable to the GOP base. He wasn’t, which is why the GOP in Congress did not pay a price in the election.
Regards,
Shodan
Project much?
I’m an independent voter, but it gets pretty tiring to hear how the loser has to just roll over. As I wrote, a more centrist yet conservative pick that is clear they would preserve the status quo for Roe V Wade, LGBTQ rights, gay marriage would probably be acceptable for the majority of Americans. The very conservative base will cry foul and the left wingnuts won’t accept anything, but the majority of Americans are probably cool with that. And this is how the *leaders *of the US of A can help de-politicize the issue.
I’m pretty sure that there will be more vacancies over the next 4 years, and that would be the time to nominate someone more conservative. (Unless of course the conservatives have real concerns that Russian investigations will take down this Presidency so better go as right as possible now.)
Cute, but no cigar.
I could post a multitude of stories about endorsements by prominent Republicans (Senators and otherwise) before Obama nominated him, but you’d just argue that they didn’t represent the base. The very rationale for Obama was to put someone up who would be acceptable to Republicans in order to cast their obstructionism in high relief.
I also find interesting your claim that his so-called unacceptability was the reason for the GOP winning their seats, but that’s just a distraction from the original point.
Regardless, you claimed my ignorance and implied your knowledge. That’s on you. So, prove it.
So Dem’s don’t filibuster, Gorsuch is in and then another slot opens up and Trump nominates another “rockribbed, solidly conservative jurist” and then what … no filibuster again because the Republicans will just nuke it? Then what the fuck is the point to having an option of filibuster if it has absolutely no teeth.
I say filibuster and let the Republicans officially put it out of its misery. Hang it on them.
And yet … I have a question: if the filibuster were nuked, as it were, would that still prevent a good old fashion actual filibuster, like a Democrat wresting control of the floor and reading the phone book for three days?
The Dems picked up two seats in the Senate, and seven in the House, in the last election. If Trump keeps “winning” the way he has, expect a lot more in 2018, filibuster or not.
The Dem pickup in the Senate was expected as they had more opportunity last November.
In 2016 Dems had to defend 10 seats and the Republicans 24 seats.
In 2018 it will flip. Dems have to defend 23 seats to Repubs 9 with 2 independent
The 2018 election is several political lifetimes away. Anyone’s guess what shall happen but to gain seats in 2018 for the Dems will be difficult.
Hardly. As Blalron said, a filibuster that exists only at McConnell’s whim doesn’t really exist. So attempting to use it can’t really backfire, since it couldn’t be used later anyway.
Except in the unlikely event that McConnell doesn’t go nuclear, the filibuster’s value is to send the message to the Dem base that Congressional Dems aren’t just lying down and rolling over. To not filibuster would send the message that they are lying down and rolling over. Do they want to dissipate the energy that’s coming from the grassroots these days? They’d have to be nuts.
Even with the rather radical swing in terms of who’s energized and who’s not, the 2018 Senate map is an uphill climb for the Dems. Here are the Senators in the 2018 class. Look at the states the few remaining Republicans are in. Heller (R-NV) is the most obvious target, since Nevada’s been purple with a blue lean lately. Next best is Flake (R-AZ) which has been getting somewhat friendlier to Dems lately, but is still on the red side of purple.
After that, everybody’s in states like Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, Utah, and Wyoming. Damned if I know where the Dems would pick up a third seat, and they need to pick up three to control the Senate.
Correct. You have no evidence for what you claimed.
Another claim. Please produce a cite from Obama saying as much - that he nominated Garland in order to get the GOP to reject him.
Regards,
Shodan