# 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:** 4
**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, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/61 "2018-11-05T08:02:42Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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. > > 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? Perhaps. But at some point after the turn of the century, bipartisanship and compromise went out of the window, largely because of the work of McConnell and Ryan who refused to work with Obama on…anything. Just about all attempts at compromise on major legislation by the Democrats were rebuffed, and, of course, Garland was denied so much as a hearing, strictly on partisan grounds. This is not good - and not just for the Democrats, but for the nation as a whole. Something like half the country is _not conservative_. Too much power on the right side will leave the left feeling angry and disenfranchised.\* Anyway, it seems entirely meet and just to me for the left, in general, to smack the right upside the head a few times with “let’s see how you like it!” Who knows, they might even learn! And, incidentally, bring back some balance to the national government. Myself, I think the Supreme Court has too much importance, but that’s largely due to the extremely partisan nature of government in general. If we can return to the (relatively) bipartisan days of yore, I’d be delighted. \*obviously, the inverse is true; I’m just not aware of any attempt by the left to subvert the right’s participation in government. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/62 "2018-11-05T11:28:22Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > 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? It depends are you a Republican or a Democrat? Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/63 "2018-11-05T11:51:03Z")
Yes, it’s time to look for compromise. The first step in that is either for the next Republican president to face a vacancy to nominate Garland, or for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to resign under a Democrat. If neither of those happens, then the Republicans are unwilling to compromise, and when one side won’t compromise, compromise can’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/64 "2018-11-05T12:04:43Z")
**Saint Cad** , it’s bad when the Republicans upend long-standing norms of democracy. It would also be bad if Democrats upended long-standing norms of democracy. Can you point to anyone in this thread who is suggesting that they should? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/65 "2018-11-05T12:28:37Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > Of course they should. The Republicans have made it crystal clear they have no integrity. The only reason not to, other than for the good of the country, is to be able to say the Republicans did it first. Which they kind of have but definitely will to the next Democrat president. They may as well fire first because the Republicans are just goinf to lie about them anyway. > > Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk What Republicans did to Merrick Garland was wrong. But it should not be normalized. Democrats should make a point with one SCOTUS appointment. Give Trump an ultimatum: either nominate a justice acceptable to us(like Merrick Garland), or you get to see the seat remain empty for the rest of your Presidency. But if another comes up, the Democrats should treat that second nominee the way they want their nominees treated. We need to go back to the days of 97-3 confirmations for qualified judges. In terms of pure politics, Democrats would not benefit from a “one party must have the White House and the Senate” to appoint justices rule. Republicans have a natural advantage in the Senate and the end result would likely be 9 conservative justices in 2033 or something. I have doubts that Democrats will win the Senate anytime in the next 20 years while holding the Presidency. And 2020 doesn’t look nearly as good as many Democrats think it does for the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/66 "2018-11-05T12:30:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Saint Cad** , it’s bad when the Republicans upend long-standing norms of democracy. It would also be bad if Democrats upended long-standing norms of democracy. Can you point to anyone in this thread who is suggesting that they should? **Chronos** , does this not qualify, in your view, as someone in this thread “suggesting that they should” “upend long-standing norms of democracy”? > [@SuperDopaminergic](#): > > Yes they should make it clear that no Republican is acceptable. Unless Trump appoints a Democrat with a liberal track record it would better to leave the seat empty. And if the Democrats have the opportunity down for the road they should go ahead and pack not only the Supreme Court but lower level courts with Democrats. … ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/67 "2018-11-05T13:19:10Z")
A signal that the country is returning to some semblance of sanity would be Donald Trump getting tossed out of office in 2020. Until then, the Democrats should just play hardball in the manner that the Republicans have established. And if Trump gets reelected in 2020, I daresay that will call for a serious recalibration of what America is and what it wants to be. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/68 "2018-11-05T13:56:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I guess it’s not if they don’t mind being liars and hypocrites. If the choice is between my being a hypocrite and the American people being roadkill, I’ll gladly sacrifice that smidgen of my integrity. 🙂 ---
**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, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/69 "2018-11-05T14:28:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What Republicans did to Merrick Garland was wrong. But it should not be normalized. I have some bad news. It’s the norm. Any claim that we should “go back” relies on that norm being rebuilt. But there’s just no reason to think it will or even can be. There’s absolutely _zero_ indication that the republican party has any intent to do anything _but_ play hardball. They had a chance during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation to turn down a candidate accused of sexual assault who went on an insane conspiratory-laden partisan rant… And they didn’t. They stuck to their guns, forcing the nominee through. Adding to this is the reality that throughout the Roberts court, it’s become increasingly clear that the supreme court [is very much a partisan instrument](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/john-roberts-history-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html), with countless critically important lawsuits, including lawsuits on how people vote, how people spend money on elections, and who can be struck from the voter rolls, decided on a 5-4 partisan split. > [@](#): > > Give Trump an ultimatum: either nominate a justice acceptable to us(like Merrick Garland), or you get to see the seat remain empty for the rest of your Presidency. But if another comes up, the Democrats should treat that second nominee the way they want their nominees treated. We need to go back to the days of 97-3 confirmations for qualified judges. Would you consider any judge on the Federalist Society shortlist “qualified”? Because I certainly wouldn’t like to see any of them seated on the supreme court under any circumstances, because there’s a certain pattern you find in the verdicts reached by those judges, and I see no reason to believe that they are impartial _or_ that they will vote in ways that benefit anyone but the rich, powerful, and republican. > [@](#): > > In terms of pure politics, Democrats would not benefit from a “one party must have the White House and the Senate” to appoint justices rule. Republicans have a natural advantage in the Senate and the end result would likely be 9 conservative justices in 2033 or something. I have doubts that Democrats will win the Senate anytime in the next 20 years while holding the Presidency. And 2020 doesn’t look nearly as good as many Democrats think it does for the Senate. It’s a shit rule. But we didn’t put it there, and we can’t unilaterally put it back. And if we _do_ try to unilaterally put it back, we’re just going to get fucked harder. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/70 "2018-11-05T14:43:05Z")
I see no reason a Dem-majority Senate should stonewall any Trump nominee. Just keep voting them down until he nominates Merrick Garland. ---
**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, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/71 "2018-11-05T15:02:26Z")
If, say, Ginsburg dies, Merrick Garland would be a nominee that would push the Court to the right. Not as much as a Gorsuch, but replacing the left-most justice on SCOTUS with a moderate moves the whole court to the…right. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/72 "2018-11-05T15:15:25Z")
He could always nominate someone even more progressive. The point, in my opinion, is to right the wrong that the Republicans did in 2016 with Scalia’s seat. Putting Garland on the court makes the court the way it would have been if Obama had gotten his pick. Trump got his picks, fine. That’s his prerogative as President. I would expect the court to move to the right under a conservative President. But Obama was cheated of his pick, and that wrong should be righted. I know this isn’t what will happen, but it is what should happen. We don’t need to resort to Republican levels of indecency in retaliation, just right the wrong that was done. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/73 "2018-11-05T15:19:39Z")
I believe we should emulate our “noble” Republican opponents and brazenly announce that we aren’t going to approve ANY nominee of the Republican president no matter who he is. ---
**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, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/74 "2018-11-05T15:53:00Z")
Ah, but I believe this is where one would fall into the Republican “hypocrisy” trap! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/75 "2018-11-05T16:00:37Z")
I kind of want to see what would happen in the OP’s hypothetical. As far as political theater goes, it would be pretty entertaining. I find the idea of political “norms” quaint. [It’s a scrub mentality.](http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win) If the rules create a broken system then we should change the rules, but until then it would be silly to artificially self handicap. Every time Garland is mentioned I continue to be amused. 20+ times in this thread alone - he’s not going to be on SCOTUS. There are just no circumstances where that will happen. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/76 "2018-11-05T16:05:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Because they’ll be hypocrites and liars after all those speeches and statements they made in 2016 about the sanctity of an up-or-down vote for nominees. Really? so they should just let Republicans steal a seat? No, the sanctity of an up or down vote means we take one seat back. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/77 "2018-11-05T16:29:54Z")
Even ignoring Garland, it is obvious the Republicans have no sense of shame ir integrity. Look at the things McConnell said during the work on the ACA, and then contrast with what they did on the AHCA. They are hypocrites and there is no point trying to play nice with them because they are just going to lie about Democrats anyway. Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/78 "2018-11-05T16:39:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Because they’ll be hypocrites and liars after all those speeches and statements they made in 2016 about the sanctity of an up-or-down vote for nominees. Yeah, just like the hypocrites and liars who stormed Omaha Beach after the Allied leaders deplored Nazi aggression. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/79 "2018-11-05T16:48:31Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It would not be hypocritical in the least for a Democratic senate to block all conservative nominees. We thought that that rule change was a bad idea, and we opposed it. But the Republicans went and changed the rules anyway. Given that the rules are now changed, of course we’re going to go by the new rules. More precisely, the Republicans declared that there were no rules. By doing so, they’re just asking to be [kicked in the balls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_q-aL4xQDI). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/80 "2018-11-05T16:53:10Z")
> [@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.” So, it’s the same explanation for why it was not hypocritical for the British to bomb Berlin after the Germans bombed London. Gotcha. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963.md?page=5)