# 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:** 5
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/81 "2018-11-05T16:59:45Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 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. IMO, the only way we’re going to get back to reasonable norms is for the Republican Party to go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs and for a new two-party alignment to emerge from the “Third Way” and “Progressive” Democratic factions (who disagree on many fundamental issues but have enough personal and political history of cooperation to rebuild the burned bridges). ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/82 "2018-11-05T17:14:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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. You do realize we’re not talking about a video game, right? Hell, even in a fighting game tournament, if someone discovered that there was technically no rule against unplugging the opponent’s controller, that would still make for a really shitty grand finals. Sirlin’s rules exist first and foremost to make a maximally competitive environment. As it turns out, these aren’t even really necessarily good rules for fighting games (Super Smash Bros Brawl, for example, is a _much better_ game when Metaknight is banned, even though Metaknight isn’t actually “broken” in any meaningful sense), let alone society as a whole. I don’t want a maximally competitive society. I want a fair society. So what method would _you_ propose to replace all existing norms with rules? Remember, currently one party has a strong incentive _not_ to fix these norms, because it’s the one getting the more out of breaking them (this would be true regardless of which party did more of it), and its breaking them leads them to more power, which they use to make it harder for the other party to do anything. This is actually what one might predict in a “maximally competitive democracy” - that the “winning move” involves making the game as hard as possible for the other player to play. Or, to put it more bluntly, y’know who’s “playing to win” at democracy? Orban, Duterte, and all the rest of the fucksticks responsible for the resurgence of populist authoritarianism. ---
**Author:** ![SuperDopaminergic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@SuperDopaminergic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuperDopaminergic)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/83 "2018-11-05T18:43:07Z")
Several Dopers have suggested that Democrats should hold hearings only to ultimately vote down whatever Republican is nominated. I agree with the goal but that approach is wrong for both strategic and moral reasons. Strategically, those hearings would become a major media focal point and increase pressure on Joe Manchin-type Democrats to waver. If Democrats flatly refuse to hold the hearings instead, the issue is more abstract and the media will move on to the next concrete issue of the day. I suspect this was part of McConnell’s calculus for Garland. Furthermore, Republicans aren’t stupid. If there are hearings but the fix is in, they will be able to tell and Dems will get zero credit for going through the motions. It’s the worst of both worlds. More importantly, Democrats need to stand up for the principle that members of hate groups, such as the GOP, are automatically disqualified from serving as judges. Allowing hearings will signal to minorities and women that Democrats are willing to put their rights on the chopping block to gain a false sense of comity with people who are going to hate them no matter what they do. ---
**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, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/84 "2018-11-05T18:57:53Z")
Here’s the thing. Us Democrats are unlikely to win the Senate this time. Saying that when & IF we do, we will become obnoxious and refuseniks makes it unlikely we will win the Senate. Our chance of winning the Senate is to show the voters that a return to sanity can be had. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/85 "2018-11-05T19:19:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Our chance of winning the Senate is to show the voters that a return to sanity can be had. I have my doubts about the persuasiveness of “the sane choice” to the American voter. Case in point, well… President Trump. You might be better off with a message of “_Fuck_ those Nazi assholes!” to fire up the passions of otherwise indifferent voters. ---
**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, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/86 "2018-11-05T21:07:18Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > You do realize we’re not talking about a video game, right? Yes. It’s not a perfect overlay, but it is analogous. You’re making the same argument - _to hell with norms, winning is more important_, right? As for a maximally competitive society vs. a fair society - I’m in favor of fairness only when I get to decide what is fair. Until then, I want competition. Perhaps not maximally competitive (no need to slaughter everyone), but I think ultimately more competitiveness leads to more fairness. > [@](#): > > So what method would _you_ propose to replace all existing norms with rules? I think trying to address all existing norms and rules is a bit ambitious. But here we are talking about SCOTUS nominees and confirmations. So for that, require a predetermined amount of time for investigations, hearings, etc. and then require a vote. I’m fine with a majority vote being the threshold, and I’m also fine with a supermajority being the threshold. Of course this would require a constitutional amendment. But if the people wanted it, it will be done. Until then I would expect folks to maximize. At least until the political calculus turns and it’s no longer beneficial to do so. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/87 "2018-11-05T22:11:46Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yes. It’s not a perfect overlay, but it is analogous. You’re making the same argument - _to hell with norms, winning is more important_, right? Uh… Not really? I think it’s important to recognize when you’re up against an opponent that has zero respect for norms and will ignore norms whenever it suits them, because a unilaterally enforced norm isn’t a norm - it’s just a handicap for the scrupulous. > [@](#): > > As for a maximally competitive society vs. a fair society - I’m in favor of fairness only when I get to decide what is fair. Until then, I want competition. Perhaps not maximally competitive (no need to slaughter everyone), but I think ultimately more competitiveness leads to more fairness. I honestly have no idea how you reached this conclusion, as it flies completely in the face of virtually everything we know about politics (particularly democratic backsliding) and capitalism (particularly unregulated capitalism). > [@](#): > > I think trying to address all existing norms and rules is a bit ambitious. But here we are talking about SCOTUS nominees and confirmations. So for that, require a predetermined amount of time for investigations, hearings, etc. and then require a vote. Okay. Now how do you propose we make this happen when one side has a clear incentive to _not_ make this happen, and that side is using its various norm-breaking to enshrine its power more and more firmly in law? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/88 "2018-11-05T22:27:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > 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. If the Republicans would use their next pick to nominate Garland, I would happily support Democrats going back to business as usual and would be disappointed if they didn’t. But I think the likelihood of that is about equal to Trump personally marching with the next caravan all the way from Honduras to El Paso on his own set of bone spurs. ---
**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 6, 2018, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/89 "2018-11-06T00:16:48Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Uh… Not really? I think it’s important to recognize when you’re up against an opponent that has zero respect for norms and will ignore norms whenever it suits them, because a unilaterally enforced norm isn’t a norm - it’s just a handicap for the scrupulous. Wait, then you’re not saying to hell with norms, rather this is like a PSA to recognize that Republicans have done so? I took your meaning to be that you think the Democrats should act similarly. > [@](#): > > I honestly have no idea how you reached this conclusion, as it flies completely in the face of virtually everything we know about politics (particularly democratic backsliding) and capitalism (particularly unregulated capitalism). How I reached the conclusion that more competition leads to more fairness? It probably depends on how we each understand the meanings of those terms. > [@](#): > > Okay. Now how do you propose we make this happen when one side has a clear incentive to _not_ make this happen, and that side is using its various norm-breaking to enshrine its power more and more firmly in law? I’m not so convinced there is enough enshrining of power via unscrupulous means as you are. Sure there are things like vote suppression and gerrymandering, but it’s not to the point where I think it can’t be overcome with a good candidate. Win at the polls, then persuade people to change the rules to be more egalitarian. Of course, I have no expectation that would happen because Democrats are likely to attempt to accrete power as Republicans have tried to do. ---
**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 6, 2018, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/90 "2018-11-06T04:38:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Of course, I have no expectation that would happen because Democrats are likely to attempt to accrete power as Republicans have tried to do. Sure, but at least the Democrats are less beholden to the aggressively irrational members of their base, i.e. they have fewer supporters analogous to, say, apocalyptic evangelicals. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/91 "2018-11-08T14:00:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, but at least the Democrats are less beholden to the aggressively irrational members of their base, i.e. they have fewer supporters analogous to, say, apocalyptic evangelicals. Both sides have their wingnuts. Republicans have been listening to their wingnuts for a long time because all they had were single issue voters. Tax and Abortion chief amongst them. There is no natural link between the two but they keep beating those drums because the “principled” elements of their party needs those single issue voters to have any chance at a majority. Democrats have started chasing their single issue voters as well. Republicans do not have a monopoly on irrationality. They just have a larger market share. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/92 "2018-11-08T14:13:05Z")
The only way the Democrats regain the Senate in my lifetime is if the party unifies behind the goal of dismantling the institutionalized gerrymandering installed by the GOP across dozens of states. Democrats winning back control of state legislators and governorships is a big step in the right direction. Although given the current make-up of SCOTUS, I doubt it will make much difference, any gerrymandering-related case that makes it to the Supreme Court is going to be batted down. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/93 "2018-11-08T14:59:29Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > The only way the Democrats regain the Senate in my lifetime is if the party unifies behind the goal of dismantling the institutionalized gerrymandering installed by the GOP across dozens of states. Democrats winning back control of state legislators and governorships is a big step in the right direction. > > Although given the current make-up of SCOTUS, I doubt it will make much difference, any gerrymandering-related case that makes it to the Supreme Court is going to be batted down. How does gerrymandering affect the race for Senators? ---
**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 8, 2018, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/94 "2018-11-08T18:04:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Both sides have their wingnuts. Yes, but when Donald Trump ran for President as a Democrat, he was ignored by Democratic primary voters. When he ran as a Republican, he was embraced by Republican primary voters. The Democrats marginalize the wingnuts and let the sane people run the party. The Republicans marginalize the sane people and let the wingnuts run the party. ---
**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 8, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/95 "2018-11-08T18:07:04Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > How does gerrymandering affect the race for Senators? With a system that says 600,000 people in Wyoming gets the same amount of Senators as 40,000,000 in California. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/96 "2018-11-08T18:10:09Z")
Hold on. You are so incensed with the election that you are now blaming the way the country was initially founded? Or you are using a strange definition of “gerrymandering” ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/97 "2018-11-08T18:22:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes, but when Donald Trump ran for President as a Democrat, he was ignored by Democratic primary voters. When he ran as a Republican, he was embraced by Republican primary voters. > > The Democrats marginalize the wingnuts and let the sane people run the party. The Republicans marginalize the sane people and let the wingnuts run the party. Trump never ran as a democrat. He ran under the Reform Party in 2000. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/98 "2018-11-08T18:40:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > With a system that says 600,000 people in Wyoming gets the same amount of Senators as 40,000,000 in California. You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/99 "2018-11-08T19:14:53Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means. I count 16 unique words and 2 numbers. Which word does he use and not understand? I’m betting it’s the word a. That’s a tricky one to use properly. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2018, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963/100 "2018-11-08T19:15:23Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > If the Republicans would use their next pick to nominate Garland, I would happily support Democrats going back to business as usual and would be disappointed if they didn’t. But I think the likelihood of that is about equal to Trump personally marching with the next caravan all the way from Honduras to El Paso on his own set of bone spurs. I wouldn’t expect Republicans to behave out of the goodness of their hearts. I’d expect them to behave because of a show of force by Democrats. But that’s not going to happen in the next two years and probably not the next four. 2022 looks pretty decent though if Democrats can gain a couple in 2020. Meanwhile, RBG, Clarence Thomas, and Breyer are getting awfully old. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-scotus-nominees-facing-a-democratic-senate/823963.md?page=6)