Then the GOP will instantly remove the filibuster.
Then so be it. The GOP won’t have complete control forever.
I think that’s a big political loser for the Democrats – they should welcome the chance to kill the filibuster. At some point, the Democrats will get power back. They want to push big things that are hard to repeal – things like universal health care, or increased minimum wage… awfully hard, politically speaking, to repeal those once they’re in place. Without a filibuster, those things will be much, much easier to pass whenever the Democrats happen to be in power again.
I don’t recommend they announce their intention to filibuster any Trump nominee in advance. Rather, I suggest they use the same language Schumer has used so far – something like “we intend to fully review and investigate any potential nominee, and vote for or against on their merits”… but then they should happen to find something unacceptable for each and every Trump nominee that they can use for justification for a filibuster, and do so until the Republicans kill it (or Trump nominates Garland).
That’s the WaPo editorial page for you, editorializing that Dems should play nicely with the Republicans, no matter how much the GOP has broken all the norms lately.
Excuse me, but fuck that Fred Hiatt shit.
According to CNN, Trump is bringing both Gorsuch and Hardiman to DC ahead of his announcement today.
If this means that Trump hasn’t made up his mind yet, then he may need to delay his announcement and consider it some more? Or maybe he’s going to have a live event with both contenders and pin a rose on one of them like an episode of “The Bachelor”. I’m not ideologically aligned with either of these judges but I have respect for the judiciary and don’t want them to have to stand there and be props.
I’m sure somebody will be along to ask you to point to the section of the Constitution or US Code that gives POTUS the right to have a nominee voted on/confirmed, quibbles with “stolen,” or whatever.
Or talk about how Democrats complained all the time about the filibuster under Obama.
Or both. Plus some other weaselly arguments I haven’t thought of yet.
EDIT: yup, they came while I was typing. 
But I think think it’s a good tactical choice for the Dems to filibuster. They have plausible arguments for this action, and that’s all they need. McConnell will probably choose to nuke the SC filibuster, but long-run the filibuster, like the Senate itself, benefits the GOP more than the Democrats.
And cooperating with Trump is a losing game for the Democrats, I’m convinced. Could you trust this guy and his lackeys to keep their promises on any deal made with them? Do the Democrats want to tie themselves to this shitshow?
I mean, even if I’m wrong and Trump turns out to be a total success, it’s not like there will be a role for the Democrats to play at the federal level anyway - so fight him with fire, I say. The Dem base wants it.
Yup. If Ditka doesn’t find much to like in the Post, that’s a sure sign he’s not reading its op-eds enough. Take a trip back to their 2016 op-eds, Ditka - all kinds of stuff about how shitty Clinton was to be savored.
huh. I always thought you like to call yourself a centrist but you would prefer a guy like Scalia who is one of the more polarizing members of recent years.
Judge Gorsuch, will you accept this rose? 
…But first, we are flying both contestants to beautiful Puerto Vayarta for some fun in the sun!
Why’d does spellcheck want to change his name to “Grouch”?
Huffington Post is totally playing up the Bachelor angle.
The legislative filibuster wouldn’t necessarily be a part of it. See the Reid led use of the nuclear option to remove it for other appointments but not SCOTUS or legislation. It’s not an all or nothing; it depends on what rule they go nuclear to implement in place of current rules.
As closely divided as the Senate is I doubt I’d be surprised if enough Republicans don’t defect on changing a rule that in the long run would let both parties confirm clearly partisan hacks. I’d certainly be actively and vociferously opposing it. If nothing else it’s a violation of my Ted Cruz rule; when he supports something I go into an immediate questioning of it being good policy.
You example is also why I strongly support the filibuster in fact. Partly I am a centrist that prefers one of the last impediments to both party’s less centrist wings running roughshod when they get power. What really troubles me is every election cycle becoming one where we are discussing wild policy swings back and forth with the associated costs. Think about what happens to the economy and individuals when every couple of years we swing between ACA being in effect and repealing it. That loss of predictability and associated extreme policy swings is the worst of all worlds IMO.
I know the Rogue POTUS staff twitter account is suspicious and impossible to verify, but they are saying Gorsuch is the pick. We’ll see.
Given that all of his leverage over the Republican party vanishes the second a Supreme Court Justice is accepted, and he still doesn’t know what he’s doing, I’ll vote that no matter what this is pretty big evidence of his stupidity if he actually nominates someone.
He will choose whoever will get him the biggest headlines, just like all of his other picks.
Specifically the “usual” objection that this Supreme Court pick isn’t Trump’s to make. It’s Obama’s. It was literally stolen, and the Democrats should refuse to even vote on him, and the Supreme Court should refuse to seat him if confirmed.
We have to stop rewarding sociopathic behavior.
Maybe he thinks he can fire one of the current members and have both his picks assume their new jobs tomorrow.
Is it possible that Kennedy is going to announce his retirement - pending appointment of a successor - and he’ll nominate both? He is 80, after all.
Has that ever happened? It seems like the Justices usually announce their retirement at a time and place of their own choosing, without bothering to coordinate with anybody.
There were a LOT of Democrats who wanted Ginsberg to retire while Obama was still in office. But she said, in effect, “Buzz off.”
I picture it more like he will break a pool cue in half and have them try out.
A lot of things are possible. However, there are usually signs when a Justice is going to retire (they don’t hire law clerks, etc.) and we haven’t seen those. And even if Kennedy wanted to retire right now - and I have no idea what his feelings on the subject are - the members of the Court typically try to stagger vacancies where possible. The Justices are as aware of the news as everybody else, and probably interested in keeping things as calm and regular as possible at the moment.