# Trump's First Supreme Court Nominee **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665 "2017-01-31T15:33:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/81 "2017-02-01T11:23:34Z")
I think it was the best choice out of all the short list candidates, so I’m quite happy. But I won’t blame the Democrats one bit if they filibuster. Not anything against him, of course, but Republicans stole this seat. Unless Democrats lose their spine, Republicans will have to go nuclear to get him through. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/82 "2017-02-01T11:24:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > He did write a strong defense of fourth amendment rights in [United States vs. Carloss](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=United+States+v.+Carloss&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&case=4429129744961041669&scilh=0). Yeah, he’s actually clerked for Kennedy and Bryon White, neither a hardcore conservative. His heart seems to be with Scalia but his mind seems closer to Kennedy, with the probable exception of abortion. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/83 "2017-02-01T12:12:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I think it was the best choice out of all the short list candidates, so I’m quite happy. But I won’t blame the Democrats one bit if they filibuster. Not anything against him, of course, but Republicans stole this seat. Unless Democrats lose their spine, Republicans will have to go nuclear to get him through. Dems will try to get some mileage out of attacking him but they won’t fillibuster this one. They need to save it for the next one along with the argument that they played nice the first time but this time it’s really important. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/84 "2017-02-01T12:49:24Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Dems will try to get some mileage out of attacking him but they won’t fillibuster this one. They need to save it for the next one along with the argument that they played nice the first time but this time it’s really important. I think that would be pointless. The Republicans lost nothing, politically speaking, by refusing to consider Garland for a year – and they invigorated their base. The Democrats could invigorate their base, and similarly lose nothing, IMO, by going all out against Trump’s nominees. Plus it would have the added benefit of possibly forcing the elimination of the filibuster, which means higher minimum wage, universal health care, and other Democratic priorities get passed very easily next time they’re in power. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/85 "2017-02-01T13:12:52Z")
Well, let’s be clear about one thing: the political interests of the parties are not symmetrical. Blocking a good Republican nominee can carry a price that blocking a good Democratic nominee does not. Part of the asymmetry is due to the differences in the bases. Sure, the Democrtic base will be energized by a fight, but more than the Republican base? What happens with red state Senators in 2018? Will this invigorated base help them all the way from California? And the nuclear option wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster, since Democrats managed to invoke it without getting rid of it entirely. They just left it there for SCOTUS nominees, which makes it a fairly small step for McConnell to invoke it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/86 "2017-02-01T13:15:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, let’s be clear about one thing: the political interests of the parties are not symmetrical. Blocking a good Republican nominee can carry a price that blocking a good Democratic nominee does not. Part of the asymmetry is due to the differences in the bases. Sure, the Democrtic base will be energized by a fight, but more than the Republican base? What happens with red state Senators in 2018? Will this invigorated base help them all the way from California? And the nuclear option wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster, since Democrats managed to invoke it without getting rid of it entirely. They just left it there for SCOTUS nominees, which makes it a fairly small step for McConnell to invoke it. It moves a lot closer to eliminating the filibuster altogether… next is filibustering ACA repeal, and any other Republican legislation that doesn’t very closely match Democratic priorities. Eventually, they’ll get the message and kill the filibuster. Or they won’t get anything done. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/87 "2017-02-01T13:20:40Z")
Better to not get anything done. That’s another case of asymmetry. To a conservative, not getting anything done is an “oh darn!” problem. To a liberal it’s a “Why did I bother to vote?” problem. I’d be very surprised if Republicans got rid of the filibuster for bills. Appointments are a different matter. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/88 "2017-02-01T13:23:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Better to not get anything done. That’s another case of asymmetry. To a conservative, not getting anything done is an “oh darn!” problem. To a liberal it’s a “Why did I bother to vote?” problem. I’d be very surprised if Republicans got rid of the filibuster for bills. Appointments are a different matter. I think it’s different for Trump. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/89 "2017-02-01T13:27:12Z")
This isn’t about Trump though. I’m sure all Presidents wish they could get things done, but the Senate is very jealous of its prerogatives when it comes to procedural matters and McConnell especially likes the traditions of the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/90 "2017-02-01T13:31:41Z")
N/M ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/91 "2017-02-01T13:34:55Z")
I say fight the nomination to the last drop of blood, force the Republicans to nuke the filibuster, and in 2021 win back the majority in both houses and President Booker can erase the sorry legacy of these next four years. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/92 "2017-02-01T13:41:11Z")
I get to say “asymmetry” again! I’m having fun! The problem for Democrats is that they can’t actually undo much of what Republicans do, even if they nuke the filibuster. The Republican agenda is much easier to implement given the realities of our system. In this case, the aspect of our system being the fact that we trade power every few years. Let me tell you, when Donald Trump is through, I’ll be RELIEVED to have Democrats take over for a few years, because a) I know they’ll only control everything for two years, and b) in order to control everything they need red staters, which means they can only undo what’s pretty unpopular. See, the way I like things to work is that Republicans set the trends of our policymaking, and Democrats come in every few years to clean up the trash. ---
**Author:** ![arfurvirus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df705f/32.png) [@arfurvirus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/arfurvirus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/93 "2017-02-01T13:43:22Z")
It’s cute that the Radical Left spent 8 years weaponizing the Executive Branch, only to hand it over to Donald Trump. 🙂 In all honesty I expect him to de-weaponize it for good… once he finishes. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/94 "2017-02-01T13:48:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > See, the way I like things to work is that Republicans set the trends of our policymaking, and Democrats come in every few years to clean up the trash. The cycle is broken. Democratic voters will never stay home in droves again, electing a petulant five year old with ADHD is all the motivation needed to get Democratic turnout for the next generation. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/95 "2017-02-01T13:49:19Z")
Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch. [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?\_r=0&referer=http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/013117.html](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?_r=0&referer=http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/013117.html) Very well written opinion piece by Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration. I agree fairness and judicial independence are two key traits to look for in a Super Court Nominee. Katyal serves with Gorsuch on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee and knows him well. > [@](#): > > I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/96 "2017-02-01T13:51:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The cycle is broken. Democratic voters will never stay home in droves again, electing a petulant five year old with ADHD is all the motivation needed to get Democratic turnout for the next generation. I say you’re dreaming. But we’ll get the first test of your prediction in 2018, just as 2016 tested my prediction about whether Democrats turned out for Obama, or for general elections. If Democrats are energized now, we’ll see major improvement in their midterm turnout in 2018. I’m thinking they’ll stay home though. If Republicans are to have a bad 2018, it will be because independents are disgusted. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/97 "2017-02-01T13:53:31Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch. > [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?\_r=0&referer=http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/013117.html](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html?_r=0&referer=http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/013117.html) > > Very well written opinion piece by Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration. > > I agree fairness and judicial independence are two key traits to look for in a Super Court Nominee. Katyal served with Gorsuch and knows him well. That’s why he was my favorite. This is a good judge and I hope he gets confirmed. Merrick Garland was a good judge too, of course… And turnabout is fair play. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/98 "2017-02-01T15:49:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think that would be pointless. The Republicans lost nothing, politically speaking, by refusing to consider Garland for a year – and they invigorated their base. The Democrats could invigorate their base, and similarly lose nothing, IMO, by going all out against Trump’s nominees. Plus it would have the added benefit of possibly forcing the elimination of the filibuster, which means higher minimum wage, universal health care, and other Democratic priorities get passed very easily next time they’re in power. The point would be to at least pretend to play their part in the process and to save some of their ammo for a more important SC nominee fight. Good luck if you want them to run on sit-ins and boycotts and marching in the street. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/99 "2017-02-01T15:54:13Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > The point would be to at least pretend to play their part in the process and to save some of their ammo for a more important SC nominee fight. > > Good luck if you want them to run on sit-ins and boycotts and marching in the street. They can pretend to play their part in the process while still filibustering. I’m not advocating sit-ins and boycotts and marches over this nominee. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/100 "2017-02-01T15:56:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think that would be pointless. The Republicans lost nothing, politically speaking, by refusing to consider Garland for a year – and they invigorated their base. The Democrats could invigorate their base, and similarly lose nothing, IMO, by going all out against Trump’s nominees. Plus it would have the added benefit of possibly forcing the elimination of the filibuster, which means higher minimum wage, universal health care, and other Democratic priorities get passed very easily next time they’re in power. If they “eliminate the filibuster” to get Gorsuch thru, it will just be to expand the elimination to cover SCOTUS confirmations, no? Do they have to completely eliminate it, per your implication? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665.md?page=6)