Who should the Dems obstruct "Merrick Garland" style? Wait for the SCOTUS nom, Cabinet posts?

[RiverStone]

At the least, given the Rethugs STOLE President Obama's SCOTUS nomination, unless it's actually Merrick Garland (highly unlikely), we should definitely obstruct on SCOTUS for as long as possible.

I'd love to block all of the fascist-elect's nominations, but realistically...

If we truly hold ground doing a Garland, then I think Dems have to be very selective (on who) and completely unwavering! Do to them as they in the Senate did to President Obama.



What do you rec as the best strategy on reverse obstruction?

[onecaliberal]

1. Yes, obstruct them ALL

Hold a meeting on Inauguration Day, have a press conference after announcing democratic intent to make trump fail. To do all they can to make him fail. Let's see if the press yawns like they did to president obama when republicans did this very thing.

[doc03]

2. Absolutly every damn one of them nt

[yeoman6987]

4. Don't you think they will go nuclear if we do that to everyone of them?

That'd mean only 50 votes needed for all judges. And if they go further with bills. Yieks!

[doc03]

5. Maybe so but goes around comes around nt

[RiverStone]

7. Yep. I hate it, but we did lose the EC - gotta give them some of what they want

Yet on SCOTUS for sure, and today's nom for EPA Head (as the Planet is being put in peril) - as say 100% OBSTRUCT.

[PJMcK]

8. Actually, 51 votes is the majority (wink and n/t)

[LeftInTX]

3. I read a Politico article about how all the obstruction helped the Rs

They obstructed like hell and blamed it all on Obama and the Dems.

[PJMcK]

6. How would that work?

The Republicans hold the majority in both Houses of Congress. What parliamentarian levers will the Democratic caucuses have to indefinitely obstruct President-elect Trump's nominations?

The Republicans could hold up Judge Garland's nomination because they held the majority in the Senate. In the expected new Senate, the Republicans will continue to be the majority party. Our only efforts will be to delay. In the absence of something profound, we will not be able to derail the nominees.

Our losses last month were devastating and the results will be long-lasting.

[RiverStone]

9. Here is a good article on your question

I'm not saying it would be easy, but this is being heavily thought about strategically

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/11/what_democrats_should_do_about_the_supreme_court.html

[PJMcK]

11. Good article that addresses a strategy

Thanks for posting the link, RiverStone. The column articulates some good ideas and passionate progressivism.

But, there's this quote (with my emphasis): "Less fatuously, it must be to obstruct the nomination and seating of any Trump nominee to fill Scalia’s seat. We will lose. But that’s not the point now."

My original question was- and still is- mostly rhetorical. This is because procedurally, the Democrats in the Senate and the House have very little strength going into the next year. The GOP and soon-to-be President Trump will get far too much of what they want.

[SaschaHM]

10. Unfortunately, all the repubs would have to do is...

Put the congress into Recess. It might be beneficial to let some of these cabinet posts go through. Get the republicans on record voting for these people after some very damaging hearings. Otherwise, Trump will just appoint them through recess appointments and Senate republicans get to avoid any of the blame for them. There is nothing that we can do for nominees while we have are a minority in both houses. Legislation, on the other hand, can be stalled.

[Warpy]

12. Given the cabinet appointment the man is making

we can brace ourselves for some truly insane USSC noms, men with absolutely no judicial experience and not even law degrees. A prerequisite seems to be a complete lack of knowledge of and experience in the office, so far.

[samir.g]

13. MATTIS

The man is a homicidal lunatic. Obama fired him for good reason.