Very highly unlikely. Your comment shows that you know very little about the history of the filibuster, or where ti came from.
If you look at the history of the filibuster, you will see that it never was created as a filibuster, it was never intended to be used to hold up legislation or nominations. It was accidentally created in 1806, and first used in 1837.
It was simply that a senator was allowed to speak as long as one wished. And at some point, they realized that they could keep talking and talking, and prevent legislation from being done.
There never was a rule that was intended to create the filibuster.
This seems like a pretty strong hint that any potential Supreme Court Justice nominated by Trump (or Pence) would get every single GOP vote–whether it be Ann Coulter, Roy Moore, or Shia LaBeouf. None would dare demur for fear of being adjudged a RINO in their next primary.
Your scenario seems quite reasonable; a constitutional amendment to take effect yea many years in the future would be the one and only way the filibuster could return.
I really don’t think it hints that. By most neutral accounts, Gorsuch is a reasonable conservative nominee and the Dems are still filibustering. So what the hell do you expect the Republicans to do? There’s only two choices: capitulate completely and vote in Garland or force Gorsuch through.
There are several factors working in the Republicans favor right now that may not be true for the next nominee.
Time until next election - Right now, we’re almost as far as we can be from the next election. If an opening had occurred in late summer 2018 or 2020, some of the Republicans might have been a bit more hesitant to do something controversial right before the election.
Perception of the nominee - Gorsuch is thought of as a mild-mannered, well-qualified nominee without much of a history as a firebrand and without much personal controversy. That’s not as true, for example, of someone like William Pryor. Graham and McCain might have balked at going nuclear over Pryor but been more willing to for Gorsuch.
But maybe you’re right, maybe Collins and Murkowski would be willing to go nuclear to nominate Pryor too. I hope so, but I don’t think that the fact that they were willing to do so for Gorsuch necessarily demonstrates that they are for any and all other potential nominees.
ETA: nominating Ann Coulter to replace RBG would sure make for some entertaining hearings.
And this non-existent rule existed from 1837 until Hairy Reid, and the Democrats, decided to get rid of it. Except when the non-existent rule was changed to allow a procedural filibuster, instead of actually having to stand and speak?
It appears that this rule-that-never-was was acceptable to both sides for a very long time.
I can’t wait until we have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President and an open SCOTUS position. Democrats can say, ‘Hey, we have the majority. We get to choose the new justice.’
The Republicans will say, ‘By golly, you’re right! Well played, sir!’
Given that the Dems nuked the filibuster for other judges back when nobody was filibustering a Supreme Court pick, why the heck wouldn’t they have finished the job if the situation ever presented itself years down the road?
Tru dat, but you were going to get one anyway, just maybe not this one, if y’all had let the filibuster stand. AND the filibuster would still have been there to bedevil the Dems in 2021.
I really hadn’t thought, until **HurricaneDitka **proposed the question, about what would have happened if the GOP had let the Dems’ filibuster stand, since it seemed clear from the get-go that they’d nuke it.
But knowing the Dems as I do, my call is that they might’ve filibustered the next guy. Or might not have. But almost surely that would have been the end of it, because enough red-state Dems would have peeled off, and at some point Schumer would have been left with 50 or fewer votes to maintain the filibuster. You’d have gotten your SCOTUS seat, and not had to give up anything for it.
So I think the GOP played itself here. Pardon me if I gloat.
Ill say it again. The Reps didnt filibuster Kagan or Sotomayor so your point is moot. The Dems played themselves by giving Trump a victory and some momentum.
That’s true. There are also cases where the law gets it wrong and incorrectly excludes evidence based on an incorrect assumption that the police violated someone’s rights when in reality they didn’t. No system is perfect. But the law is not based on that premise.
I don’t want to get technical. Again, the point of the exclusion rule is that we exclude evidence that would suffice to convict the guy under the law. It also excludes evidence that wouldn’t suffice to convict him, but that’s not where that rule has an impact.
Right. But there is something misleading about saying that people who favor the exclusionary rule are in favor of criminals going free. And there is similarly something misleading about saying that people who oppose it are in favor of lawless behavior by police.
Again, the point of the exclusion rule is that we exclude evidence that would suffice to convict the guy under the law. It also excludes evidence that wouldn’t suffice to convict him, but that’s not where that rule has an impact.