It wasn’t conservatives that claimed he was well-qualified, it was the very ABA that you quoted above. Do you realize how silly you look right now?
It’s also a strawman since no one is making that argument.
No he has not shown himself to be prone to ruling with bias. The only qualifications that are seen as inadequate is that he is not a liberal, or is not Garland.
The ABA give their imprimatur to Gorsuch as well as to Merrick Garland:
Similar language was used in another recent Statement (as they call them, and from which I quoted) on the nomination of a US Court of Appeals candidate:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/scfedjud/statements/wallace2.authcheckdam.pdf
Interestingly, while the ABA did include some unsourced quotations to the effect that Gorsuch is “courteous and unbiased,” none of them went beyond that degree of generality on the topic of ideological bias. The Garland document, in contrast, included remarks such as these:
op. cit. page 11
op. cit. page 12
There’s an entire section on “Evenhandedness” in the Garland statement that’s missing from the Gorsuch one.
This is not to say that the ABA is trying to signal any opinion that Gorsuch is biased; I’m sure they were not. But there’s no doubt it’s easier to make the case that he tends to rule in a biased manner, than would be possible with other judges for whom the ABA has issued Statements.
I know that, Dopers love to remind everyone of that constantly! 
But we’re talking about the best tactics to campaign on regardless of the playing field, and you don’t say “we can’t win, so we’re not going to play hard.” In fact, playing hardball becomes even more important if winning is further away, because when you’re in for the long haul, you need to demonstrate ideological commitment (not immediate “we can all work together” compromise results) to your base, to build the deep groundwork.
Why, isn’t that what you’re complaining of now? Senate Republicans VOTING to end the filibuster, so they can VOTE to confirm Gorsuch, for reasons you don’t approve of?
Am I? Where am I doing that?
It’s difficult to read “ram through their appointee” as approbation.
I believe you should have pounded the table instead of providing this weak sauce, if my understanding of lawyerly arguments is correct.
I believe you complained about the process at hand, by characterizing it as “ram[ming] their appointee through.”
Not quite “no one”–just from the past few pages we have several expressions of the view that Democrats should try to influence the future behavior of their GOP colleagues (and/or President) by playing nice now. I guess if you want to characterize posters DSYoungEsq and Sam Stone as “no one” you’d be close to being correct as they are most prominent in the posts of recent hours, but even if that’s your intention, they are scarcely the only conservatives making the argument.
^These all contain the concept of advising Democrats to make nice now in order to reap rewards in the future, and that’s the concept to which I referred, and to which you appended the unjustified label ‘straw man’. You, yourself, came close to this idea in your post suggesting that future rewards (the help of “Republican party defectors”) might await Democrats who’d “go along with” Gorsuch:
Each of us has a right to an opinion on this very subjective matter.
You believe incorrectly, which we both already know. But yay to you for still arguing the position. But boo to you for doing it badly.
And congratulations for sidestepping the fundamental issue of how the Democrats forced the Republicans to toss out the voting process ll because of that one time thirty years ago they voted in a way you didn’t like for one of your candidates. Kinda like how I didn’t like the reasons people voted for Trump so the only appropriate response is stop holding elections for presidents. Logic is a twisty mistress I guess.
DSYoung - you’re a conservative! Who knew?
Well, it was a conservative position (expressed in that post). If that’s the only post in which this occurs I obviously owe DSY an apology for classification as “a conservative,” and I do so apologize in advance. (In case that IS the only post in which such sentiments are expressed.)
Let me try and clarify because I think my point was not clearly communicated.
The strawman I was identifying is that you characterized the argument that if Gorsuch were to be confirmed while preserving the filibuster, this would encourage **TRUMP **to nominate a more moderate justice. That’s how I interpreted your paraphrase. I think that is a strawman because the prevailing argument isn’t that Trump would nominate a moderate (Sam did mention this). The arguments that have been advanced hinge on persuading Republican defectors to not go along with party lines when Trump nominates someone like Ann Coulter to the court with the filibuster still intact. The moderates in the Senate may regain their scruples and balk at the idea of torpedoing the filibuster for a candidate like Coulter, but would have no problem doing so for a candidate like Gorsuch.
I could see your interpretation however, which upon re-reading is also fair, so I will retract my accusation of a strawman.
No, no, I always suspected. His posts make so much sense, and are well-ordered, well-reasoned, and well-supported. When you think about it, it only makes sense.
If I recall correctly, most of those were blocked by the much more damaging “hold” that can be placed indefinitely upon nominees to the bench by senators from the same state as the nominee. I’ve always thought that practice should be abolished.
Precisely. The Democrats started the “modify the filibuster” nonsense in 2013 when it suited them politically. They did so despite the fact that everyone at the time told them that doing so would be a bad idea, because it meant that inevitably, Supreme Court nominees would not be able to be filibustered. Sen. Reid thought it was more important to put as many lower court nominees on the bench appointed by President Obama as he could than preserving the possibility of filibustering Supreme Court nominees. Maybe he was right, but the results of the 2014 mid-terms shouldn’t give the Democratic Party confidence that he was.
I am neither conservative, nor liberal (generally speaking). I am quite conservative about trying insects for food, however, and my application of peanut butter is generally extremely liberal. 
(For what it is worth, because Sherrerd may not have sufficient past experience with my posts, I tend to be a fiscally slightly conservative, but socially slightly liberal person politically. I often take on the opinions of the conservatives here, but I also take on the opinions of the strongly liberal posters as well. Indeed, my list of blocked people is equally distributed between them. 
)
Well, it would have been done by the Republicans in 2005 but for the “Gang of 14” arrangement. Only they were calling it the “Constitutional Option” back then.
Well, you’ve stumbled upon a good reason to filibuster now, but not for the reason you think. It’s more likely that the Republicans gain a filibuster-proof majority in 2018, rather than the Democrats regaining control of the Senate. The Democrats have to defend 23 seats in the next election, while the Republicans only have to defend 8, most of which are in safe districts.
According to this article in The Hill, of the 10 most likely seats to flip in 2018, only one is Republican.
Of course, there’s a lot of time before that election, and such elections are often referenda on the President’s performance. If Trump drives the economy into the ground and/or starts a pointless war or two, the political map could change dramatically. On the other hand, if his regulatory and tax changes cause the economy to boom, the Democrats could lose even more seats.
Since we don’t know the future, the smart money is to bet that the Republicans will probably gain at least a seat or two in the next election. That will make it harder for the Democrats to overcome a future cloture vote should they opt to retain the filibuster. But then, their chances of making a filibuster work this time are pretty much zero, so they’ve got nothing to lose.
Anyone who thinks a filibuster of Gorsuch will be a net political win for Democrats needs to get out of their bubble. Gorsuch is a popular pick, is not a right-wing firebrand, has excellent credentials, and is replacing perhaps the most conservative member of the court. Under those circumstances, a filibuster is going to look petty and obstructive. And a failed filibuster will make the Democrats look weak.
But in two years, with Trump sitting at some godawfully low approval rating and Republicans having screwed up the economy (something Democrats believe is likely to happen), your chance of sustaining a filibuster will be much higher than it is now. And you can use your assent with Gorsuch to derail accusations that it’s just plain obstructionism.
Either way, you’ve got a crappy hand to play. But as a poker player, I’m telling you that if you are facing a sure loss now, you are much better off holding onto your chips in the hope that the situation changes after the next round of cards are dealt. Go all in now, and you’re out of options.
While it would have been nice to replace Scalia with Garland, replacing him with Gorsuch might at least be tolerable, until America gets its head on straight.
Then I’m not looking very hard. :rolleyes:
The Dems, at that point, were in the minority, and the filibuster was of course the only tool they had for weeding out a handful of the worst and most inappropriate Bush nominees to the Federal courts. And that was how they were using it.
Should they have exercised no discretion whatsoever, and let all of Bush’s nominees, no matter how inappropriate or unqualified, to be Federal judges? That’s quite an argument.
They had one tool, and they used it with discretion, rather than in the wholesale manner used by the GOP during the Obama years.
The outrage of the GOP (which IMHO was “let’s be outraged for the cameras” anyway) was the outrage of a party that has gotten almost everything it asked for, but chooses to be upset about that last little bit. We disapprove of such conduct when children engage in it.