# Trump SCOTUS nominees facing a Democratic Senate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2018, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963 "2018-11-04T07:04:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/41 "2018-11-05T00:29:51Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Agreed, but the OP even considers the democrats voting down a SCOTUS to be stonewalling, and presumably therefore hypocritical or something. Well, if you give a nominee the courtesy of a Senate hearing but deep down fully intend all along to vote him or her down no matter what, then that is essentially the same practical effect as not giving him or her a hearing in the first place. It is just a more civil form of stonewalling; going through the motions. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/42 "2018-11-05T00:47:21Z")
At this point in time, maintaining proper civil form would be an improvement. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/43 "2018-11-05T00:49:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m curious: after their judicial confirmation hearings, which recent Republican-nominated justices did you think were “fair and reasonable”? Roberts? Alito? Gorsuch? Kavanaugh? You are aware that Roberts was confirmed with 78 votes, right? Democrats have had no difficulty voting for Republican-appointed justices in the past. And obviously Merrick Garland deserved exactly the same consideration. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/44 "2018-11-05T00:50:55Z")
They should absolutely give a nominee named Merrick Garland and born November 13, 1952 a fair hearing. In fact, I think it’s overdue. If for some reason Trump were to choose to nominate anyone else, no. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/45 "2018-11-05T01:16:48Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > You are aware that Roberts was confirmed with 78 votes, right? Democrats have had no difficulty voting for Republican-appointed justices in the past. > > And obviously Merrick Garland deserved exactly the same consideration. Roberts really isnt that bad. [John Roberts - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts) I’ll take Roberts over Kavanaugh any day. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/46 "2018-11-05T01:56:58Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > You are aware that Roberts was confirmed with 78 votes, right? Democrats have had no difficulty voting for Republican-appointed justices in the past. > > And obviously Merrick Garland deserved exactly the same consideration. With the OPs hypothetical in mind, I would expect that the Democrats would treat the process and their duty with much more respect than the Republicans do. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/47 "2018-11-05T02:45:41Z")
While we’re on "should"s, this would all be cleared up by requiring a 90% yes vote to confirm supreme court judges. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/48 "2018-11-05T03:10:12Z")
If Trump nominates Merrick Garland, yeah, go ahead and confirm him. If not, then the Democrats would have absolutely every right - and Hell, their base would be furious if they _didn’t_ do this - to stone wall ANY Trump judicial nominees until he’s out of office. The fact that we are still debating this post-Garland is interesting. Did nobody get the memo from that fiasco? From here on out, no president will get judicial nominees confirmed unless his party also controls the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/49 "2018-11-05T03:49:25Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > While we’re on "should"s, this would all be cleared up by requiring a 90% yes vote to confirm supreme court judges. Then this guarantees no Democratic president could ever get a judge into SCOTUS as long as Republicans hold 11 seats in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/50 "2018-11-05T05:03:12Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > If Trump nominates Merrick Garland, yeah, go ahead and confirm him. If not, then the Democrats would have absolutely every right - and Hell, their base would be furious if they _didn’t_ do this - to stone wall ANY Trump judicial nominees until he’s out of office. > > The fact that we are still debating this post-Garland is interesting. Did nobody get the memo from that fiasco? From here on out, no president will get judicial nominees confirmed unless his party also controls the Senate. Garland is done, over, finito. It is time to look for compromise. Confirm if they are great jurists without a big time right wing agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/51 "2018-11-05T05:50:14Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > If Trump nominates Merrick Garland, yeah, go ahead and confirm him. If not, then the Democrats would have absolutely every right - and Hell, their base would be furious if they _didn’t_ do this - to stone wall ANY Trump judicial nominees until he’s out of office. > > The fact that we are still debating this post-Garland is interesting. Did nobody get the memo from that fiasco? From here on out, no president will get judicial nominees confirmed unless his party also controls the Senate. Let’s not forget that Garland was the compromise candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/52 "2018-11-05T05:50:50Z")
I hope they do. It’ll be yet another example of the Democrat hypocrisy viz. it’s evil when the Pubs do it but when we do it it’s doing the best for America. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/53 "2018-11-05T06:58:41Z")
So you’re saying it’s evil? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/54 "2018-11-05T07:03:14Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I hope they do. It’ll be yet another example of the Democrat hypocrisy viz. it’s evil when the Pubs do it but when we do it it’s doing the best for America. Have you been reading the thread? Because it’s been explained several times why this isn’t actually hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/55 "2018-11-05T07:14:52Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Have you been reading the thread? Because it’s been explained several times why this isn’t actually hypocrisy. No it hasn’t other than the standard Straight Dope Democrat explanation of “It’s not hypocrisy when we do it because the Republicans do it too.” conveniently leaving out how the Dems piss themselves bitching about how wrong it is when the Pubs did it. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/56 "2018-11-05T07:31:49Z")
Not so much hypocrisy but retaliation. I’m personally good with it morally, but I think it would be a mistake strategically to Merrick any of Trump’s picks. On the other hand, having hearings and then voting on party lines…how is that stonewalling? (Presuming Trump picks another hard-right candidate like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.) The Democrats are (largely) center and center-left. They’re elected to enact center and center-left policies. If they _didn’t_ vote against a conservative judge, they’d be failing in their duty, I would think. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/57 "2018-11-05T07:39:29Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > No it hasn’t other than the standard Straight Dope Democrat explanation of “It’s not hypocrisy when we do it because the Republicans do it too.” conveniently leaving out how the Dems piss themselves bitching about how wrong it is when the Pubs did it. Really? Because the “it’s hypocritical” argument only works if you assume that the democrats are following the most basic, shallow, _stupid_ moral philosophy. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The thing is, though, it’s a _bad_ argument. How does this argument work, exactly? We’re hypocrites because, in the past, we favored an up-or-down vote and now we don’t. Except… no, it doesn’t work like that. Our support of an up-or-down vote, our claim to its sanctity and importance? That was based on democratic norms; an understanding that “this is how we do things”. The same norms that led democrats to not block Samuel Alito (even though they technically could have). Norms which have been _thoroughly destroyed_. The “sanctity” is gone. It’s not just gone, it’s gone because your side killed it, because Mitch McConnell thought winning was more important. > > […] > > If you start punching me in the face, and I tell you to stop, this does not mean that when I hit back, I’m suddenly a hypocrite, because the principle I was appealing to is either one you do not share, in which case I see no reason to be equally bound by it, or it’s constructed in such a way as to not be stupid (i.e. “You’re not allowed to hit people unless it’s in self-defense”). Being the aggressor in such a situation _changes the context_. If your moral system is “violence is always wrong”, it’s a lousy moral system. Why? Because sometimes, you have violence thrust upon you, and if self-defense is morally wrong, you’re just gonna get beat up a lot. Politics is a bit like this - if you appeal to democratic norms, _this doesn’t mean your opposition can be allowed to hold you hostage over those norms_. The reality is that, if the democrats turn around and apply the new norms, the ones Mitch McConnell created, they are being entirely consistent. If they instead appeal to norms which their opposition unilaterally destroyed, they are being _idiots_, but more importantly, they’re not even being consistent. If you see that as hypocritical, then I’m going to have to ask you why you think hypocrisy is _wrong_, or why it matters at all. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/58 "2018-11-05T07:40:49Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > On the other hand, having hearings and then voting on party lines…how is that stonewalling? (Presuming Trump picks another hard-right candidate like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.) If Senate Democrats decide in advance that they’re going to reject the nominee no matter what, then it’s stonewalling akin to a jury having already decided in advance that the defendant is guilty before the evidence and arguments have even be presented in trial. If they listen during the hearings and **then** decide, based off of the merits or demerits of the nominee, that he/she is unsuitable, then that would be different. But here in this thread we have Dopers suggesting that Democrats should give a hearing while _secretly planning inwardly all along to vote unanimously against the Trump-nominated judge come confirmation time_, which makes the process nothing more than… a fancy form of stonewalling. It would be just a case of going through the motions. > [@galen\_ubal](#): > > The Democrats are (largely) center and center-left. They’re elected to enact center and center-left policies. If they _didn’t_ vote against a conservative judge, they’d be failing in their duty, I would think. Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0 in his day. He was as conservative as they come. Did the Democrats who voted for him unanimously fail in their duty? What about the Republicans, when Ginsburg was approved 96-0? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/59 "2018-11-05T07:46:50Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0 in his day. He was as conservative as they come. Did the Democrats who voted for him unanimously fail in their duty? > > What about the Republicans, when Ginsburg was approved 96-0? Well, no, because the norm at the time was clearly very different. This norm was fraying back in the aughts, but still held (barely) for Roberts and Alito. At this point, the norm is _completely_ dead. It’s become completely clear through the Roberts court that the supreme court is _grossly_ partisan. The Kavanaugh fight should, hopefully, have put the nail in that coffin. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/60 "2018-11-05T07:51:04Z")
OK, say you and I are playing Monopoly, and we get into an argument about whether or not one should take all the money from Chance and Community Chest when one lands on Free Parking. It’s an argument Monopoly players have been having for almost a century. So you roll your dice, land on Free Parking and without asking for my permission, reach out and grab all the money. I get angry, but you just smirk and say, “New rule!” A few round pass, money builds up again, and them, BAM! I roll an 8 and land on Free Parking myself. I grin, and take the cash. Now tell me… am I a hypocrite? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963.md?page=4)