Senate Democrats should boycott any confirmation proceedings,and even the final vote

[markpkessinger]

If McConnell insists on going forward with confirmation hearings and a vote on Trump's nominee, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee should boycott the proceedings, and all Senate Democrats should boycott the final vote. It won't actually accomplish anything (neither would their presence), and their presence would only serve to lend to the whole business an air of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. And it would nonetheless make an important historical statement.

Actually, this is what they SHOULD have done with the Gorsuch nomination!

Democrats should not be willing participants in their own de legitimization.

[Historic NY]

1. They could just say present....

[markpkessinger]

4. Yes,but an outright boycott would make a stronger statement n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

5. I agree. They know this is being stolen.

They should let the history books show that it was purely partisan.

[jimfields33]

9. Republicans would love that

Double time to ask questions like so how’s the weather where you live?

[sandensea]

2. +1

This is how it's routinely done in other countries: the minority party in whatever chamber happens to be poised to push forward something for which there's no bipartisan consensus, will often vacate the chamber in protest.

And while the vote proceeds, they (the minority party/coalition) often assemble in front of their congress to hold a press conference explaining why, exactly, they're boycotting.

Those press conferences are key, as they often get more media attention that the congressional vote itself.

[crickets]

6. I like this. nt

[sandensea]

11. And congressional Democrats SHOULD know: Gingrich used to pull that stunt often in the early 90s

Whenever anything Rethugs didn't like came up, he'd get most of the media coverage as a result - and by the end of '94, he was the Speaker.

A fat, whiny-voiced womanizing bribester such as he was - but he knew how to use the media.

[Johnny2X2X]

3. Only let Kamala Harris speak for our side

Defer all time to her and let her give a several hour campaign speech out of highlighting how extreme Trump and his nominee are.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. I would like to see Harris question the nominee

But I support boycotting the final vote.

[markpkessinger]

10. But to what end?

Neither a boycott of the hearings, nor a boycott of only the final vote, accomplishes anything in and of itself, notwithstanding any emotional satisfaction we might derive from watching Kamala Harris question the nominee. I think, from a historical perspective, boycotting both would make for a much more powerful statement.

And by participating in any of it, Democrats would confer to the proceedings a legitimacy they don't deserve.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. To the end of shining a bright light on how radically extreme the nominee is

The media won’t do it, and without a Dem to provide some contrast, the nominee will be portrayed as a nice Christian lady who happens to be a brilliant legal scholar with no set political agenda.

Harris will provide the sound bites that will be looped on Twitter and the news.

[SharonClark]

8. Another thread on this was posted a few minutes before yours.

Interesting comments there...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214116301

[Jose Garcia]

12. "It won't actually accomplish anything"

Your words not mine.

[GoCubsGo]

14. No, quite the opposite.

At least one Dem needs to be present at all times to oppose the advancement of any proceedings. They need to gum things up via the unanimous consent decree.