# The winds of change at the Supreme Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012 "2017-04-07T21:32:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/61 "2017-04-10T22:57:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Again, I thank you for your avuncular advice. Advice like yours will go a long way to keeping things as they are like they are. And I’m fairly sure God does not enter into this, there are fingerprints on that bowling ball, they match a group of people with (R) attached to their names. Alternatively, that advice keeps the entire country from sinking to the lowest common denominator. Your state can do anything it wishes to do wrt domestic policy. You want UHC? It’s within your grasp. Quit expecting the other 300M odd people to want the same thing you do. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/62 "2017-04-10T23:07:58Z")
Seriously, did the Democrats think the Republicans were bluffing? That somehow enough defectors would come forward to forestall the nuclear option? That could have happened in other circumstances, but Gorsuch was the least objectionable nominee a Republican administration could be expected to name. The spectacle of the Democrats opposing him simply because (1.) He’s not Merrick Garland, and (2.) The Evil One nominated him, made it abundantly clear that the Dems preferred martyrdom. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/63 "2017-04-11T00:14:56Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Seriously, did the Democrats think the Republicans were bluffing? That somehow enough defectors would come forward to forestall the nuclear option? That could have happened in other circumstances, but Gorsuch was the least objectionable nominee a Republican administration could be expected to name. The spectacle of the Democrats opposing him simply because (1.) He’s not Merrick Garland, and (2.) The Evil One nominated him, made it abundantly clear that the Dems preferred martyrdom. One assumes that they looked at the math. There’s a better than 50% chance that Ginsburg will survive for four years and, if Trump and the Republican party continue on as they are for that time, there’s a pretty good chance that the Democratic party will take back both branches of government, and now without the Republican party able to filibuster them. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/64 "2017-04-11T00:30:17Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > One assumes that they looked at the math. There’s a better than 50% chance that Ginsburg will survive for four years and, if Trump and the Republican party continue on as they are for that time, there’s a pretty good chance that the Democratic party will take back both branches of government, and now without the Republican party able to filibuster them. I wish Dems would quit deluding themselves that there was some tactical advantage to having the Repubs remove the filibuster now instead of removing it themselves when they regain the Senate. It’s completely laughable. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/65 "2017-04-11T04:08:05Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I wish Dems would quit deluding themselves that there was some tactical advantage to having the Repubs remove the filibuster now instead of removing it themselves when they regain the Senate. It’s completely laughable. What about “They codified it” do you not get? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/66 "2017-04-11T04:13:21Z")
If protest is ineffective and/or futile, does that absolve anyone of the duty to protest? What McConnell did there stunk on ice. Merrick Garland is not a war criminal. He has no reputation as a blackguard, scoundrel or despoiler of maidens. He did not merit the insult dealt him, it was unjust, it was wrong. Jesus Marimba, not even a hearing? A hypocritical _kabuki_ of empty procedures was the least they could do, and they couldn’t even do that.\* And the horse upon in which they rode. \*And the nickel in my pocket says its mostly because they knew that he was so damned vanilla, people would listen and think “What’s wrong with this guy? Seems OK…” ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/67 "2017-04-11T04:47:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If protest is ineffective and/or futile, does that absolve anyone of the duty to protest? Well, as long as protest remains legal. That could change. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/68 "2017-04-11T05:40:45Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Assuming Trump stays in office, she only has to last another 3 years. Presidents can no longer appoint Supreme Court justices in the last 12 months in office. I will state with all seriousness that, if the situation ever arises, Republicans will adamantly deny having ever espoused such a principle, in spite of any documentary evidence to the contrary. They will say that we’re taking their statements out of context, or misunderstanding what they said; without ever actually providing said missing context or understanding. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/69 "2017-04-11T06:21:26Z")
People here act like it’s a big surprise that a Senate controlled by the opposition wouldn’t let a lame duck President appoint someone to SCOTUS near the end of their term. It’s not. Democrats said essentially the same thing at the end of Bush’s term. ETA: [cite - from Harry Reid’s lips to God’s ears](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581302/reid-duty-give-nominees-vote) > [@](#): > > The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/70 "2017-04-11T07:03:46Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The census apportionment results are available but you would probably have to compile the data yourself and calculate per each representative one state at a time. > > [https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2010/dec/2010-apportionment-data.html](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2010/dec/2010-apportionment-data.html) Thanks, I’ll check that out. It’s even possible I can find that in some election data I downloaded earlier, now that I’m thinking of it. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/71 "2017-04-11T09:33:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > People here act like it’s a big surprise that a Senate controlled by the opposition wouldn’t let a lame duck President appoint someone to SCOTUS near the end of their term. It’s not. Democrats said essentially the same thing at the end of Bush’s term. > > ETA: [cite - from Harry Reid’s lips to God’s ears](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581302/reid-duty-give-nominees-vote) Is there anyone here who hasn’t heard this attempted justification for not even interviewing a nominee? Anyone? And I suppose the other 79 filibusters of Obama’s lesser nominations were business as usual. Sorry, you don’t get to whitewash it like that. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/72 "2017-04-11T12:47:03Z")
And you don’t get to dodge the question. Reid and McConnell said the same thing under the same circumstances. Were they both right, both wrong, or IOKIADDI? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/73 "2017-04-11T14:13:25Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I wish Dems would quit deluding themselves that there was some tactical advantage to having the Repubs remove the filibuster now instead of removing it themselves when they regain the Senate. It’s completely laughable. Tactically, you get elected by being popular and you’re more likely to be popular when you aren’t the bad guy. The team that nuked the filibuster looks like the bad guy. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/74 "2017-04-11T14:15:57Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > What about “They codified it” do you not get? Obviously the part I don’t get is why you think it’s some tactical victory. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Tactically, you get elected by being popular and you’re more likely to be popular when you aren’t the bad guy. The team that nuked the filibuster looks like the bad guy. But it isn’t working. It’s procedural stuff that most people don’t really care about. And almost every story on it includes a blurb on how the Dems did it first for lower court judges. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/75 "2017-04-11T14:16:14Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Tactically, you get elected by being popular and you’re more likely to be popular when you aren’t the bad guy. The team that nuked the filibuster looks like the bad guy. I have to wonder how much of an “inside the beltway” issue this is. Does Joe SixPack really keep up on whether or not the filibuster is in place for SCOTUS nominees as opposed to legislation? And does he care? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/76 "2017-04-11T17:54:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And you don’t get to dodge the question. Reid and McConnell said the same thing under the same circumstances. Were they both right, both wrong, or IOKIADDI? > > Regards, > Shodan You’re one to talk about dodging questions. Maybe when you provide a single cite I asked for in our previous ‘discussion.’ (I use quotes because it was completely one-sided as far as cites were concerned; you spent your time making excuses for not providing any.) You don’t get to direct what I will say, especially after the above. The ‘jump off a bridge’ defense is bullshit, regardless. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/77 "2017-04-11T18:10:19Z")
Remind me again; maybe I’m just uninformed about this. Did Harry Reid and the Democrats pass a Senate rule that hamstrings filibustering of a SCOTUS nominee? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/78 "2017-04-11T18:20:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Does Joe SixPack really keep up on whether or not the filibuster is in place for SCOTUS nominees as opposed to legislation? And does he care? I’m sympathetic to this logic, but I don’t think it bears close scrutiny. You’re right about Joe SixPack, of course. Our friend Joe SixPack can’t tell you the Vice President’s name. He certainly doesn’t know anything about how a Supreme Court justice is confirmed, much less what changes there have been in that process. About half of his cohort cannot name the three branches of government and he believes the Earth circles the Sun. But while you need to persuade Joe Sixpack in order to win elections, it does not follow that only issues that affect Joe Sixpack’s vote matter to winning. Our elections are often close and are decided at the margins. And, at the margins, lots of people know these facts. Tens of percents! If a party comes to be known for dishonest dealings among the teeming tens, that matters. It might not cost a lot of votes. But it all adds up. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/79 "2017-04-11T18:29:46Z")
But even people above the Joe Sixpack level of engagement know this was done by the Dems first. Sure, some of them “know” that was all the Republicans’ fault but some don’t. We are looking at some seriously thin gains from this maneuver. And before the filibuster: [http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-health-care-poll-236620](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-health-care-poll-236620) > [@](#): > > But while there’s little support for changing Senate rules, Dropp said there’s also limited opposition to Gorsuch among Democratic voters. > > "As Senate Democrats are considering whether to dig-in their heels against Neil Gorsuch, many Democratic voters aren’t actively opposed to his nomination,” said Dropp. “While 39 percent of Democrats do think Gorsuch should be blocked, 25 percent think he should be confirmed, and 36 percent don’t know or don’t have an opinion. Which, iirc, is not dissimilar to how the general public and Republican voters felt about Garland. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/80 "2017-04-11T18:35:02Z")
So when Pryor replaces RBG, and the numbers of Democrats who are opposed is much higher, the filibuster will be gone already. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012.md?page=5)