CNN - Democrats consider backing off big battle over Trump's Supreme Court pick (WOW)

[Jimbo101]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/democrats-supreme-court-battle/index.html

Senate Democrats are weighing whether to avoid an all-out war to block President Donald Trump's upcoming Supreme Court pick, instead considering delaying that battle for a future nomination that could shift the ideological balance of the court, sources say.

The reason for the tactic: Republicans are considering gutting the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats stay largely united and block Trump's first pick. By employing the so-called "nuclear option," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could move to reduce the threshold for clearing a filibuster from 60 votes to 51 votes.

That would mean Democrats could lose leverage in the next Supreme Court fight if Trump were to replace a more liberal justice, since the GOP now has 52 seats in the Senate.

(You've Got to be kidding -

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Oh Boy!

[CincyDem]

2. Sure. Why actually fight this fight when we can talk about fighting the next fight. n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. Which we have been doing since Pelosi took impeachment off the table for Bush.

THAT long ago...all those years of the Bush reign, when so many people died, after Pelosi said she would not fight Bush
and it was more important to win the next election, and the one after that, etc.
meaning....keep paying her salary and perks.

[CincyDem]

18. Great point. Hadn't put it into that larger perspective but you're right. n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. She pissed me off so much then I have not been able to forget it.

But now, I have not been THIS pissed since Nixon was elected.

[Phoenix61]

3. And....

So we give them this one and they take the next one or they take this one and they next the one. Either way, they get both but we show we are capable of resistance.

[TrekLuver]

11. But the next pick I feel we are really really really going to need it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. Lucy...football...wash...rinse....repeat. n/t

[backscatter712]

4. Which Democrats are going to be the designated quislings this time?

The Rotating Villain game is as old as politics - gotta keep the plebes suckered by the kabuki dance...

[elehhhhna]

5. dafuq?

[nikibatts]

6. Rachel did a great job tonight.

Rachel Maddow is by far the best journalist out there. Investigates thorougly, reports facts, corrects mistakes, digs, digs, digs.

Trump does not deserve to name this SCOTUS vacancy and neither does the GOP. He has a lot in his background that is worrisome. Plus, Democrats need to send a unified message to their base that they are unified and will fight. If they don't fight for their base, their base will not fight for them.

[Amishman]

7. The only thing I can think of is perhaps Ginsburg's health is worse than we know

If loss of a progressive seat is near certain before 2018, then I can see it. Otherwise... WTF?

[Crunchy Frog]

13. She's in her 80s, and has had pancreatic cancer.

Why she didn't resign in a sufficiently timely fashion for Obama to replace her, I will never understand. I don't personally see how she could last another 4 years.

It shouldn't have come to this in any event.

[yuiyoshida]

8. FIGHT YOU BASTARDS!!!

QUITTING IS NOT WHAT WE DO..STOP ACTING LIKE ...CHILDREN AND PUT ON YOUR GROWN UP PANTS AND GET OUT THERE AND FIGHT FOR US!!

[frogmarch]

9. I'm not surprised.

I've all but given up on anything but useless chit-chat from most of our Senate Dems.

[yallerdawg]

10. If McConnell wants his legacy to be...

destroying the tempering reason of the Senate and let mob rule majority have its way in every branch of government, have at it!

History will identify him as merely a cowardly grubbing partisan hack.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

12. I heard earlier that they are only going to be able to really effectively fight for one nominee

And that they may save it in case a more liberal judge needs to be replaced.

[Amaryllis]

15. Have they learned NOTHING? Why would they think Repubs are gonna do anything diferent the next time

if they give them this one????? Definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results.
ANd why would they possibly think Trump would pick someone more liberal next time? Besides, Pence may be pres by then and he sure isn't gonna pick someone more liberal.

[tblue37]

16. You mean they still want to keep their powder dry? The Dems must have the driest

powder in the world by now.

On Edit: It does look like at least some Dem senators will stand against Gorsuch. But they ALL need to fight this nomination.

[LittleBlue]

17. I don't know wtf is happening with reports like this

Where is the leadership?

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. Primary any coward who votes to confirm n/t

[geomon666]

22. I will not support ANY Democrat who votes to confirm this pig.

I don't care if it gets me banned. There's a line in the sand that I will cross if I fucking have to. This is that line. If they want to exercise the nuclear option, then let them fucking do it. Eventually you're going to get your turn to fuck em right back.

[tritsofme]

23. Forcing a nuclear showdown over this nomination would be strategically unwise.

As has been pointed out, this nomination will not alter the ideological balance of the Court.

Democrats only get one shot at a Supreme Court filibuster. If Republicans successfully deploy the nuclear option, then it is gone forever.

Future Supreme Court confirmation fights, at least over the next two years, won't even have the pretense of Democrats being relevant to the conversation. It would be established that they could fill a Ginsberg/Kennedy/Breyer seat on the strength of Republican votes alone.

There is a real possibility that we could sustain a filibuster of a Ginsberg/Kennedy/Breyer vacancy, and even if they successfully went nuclear, we would exact a much higher cost politically.

I'm afraid the base is going force Senate Democrats down a futile and damaging path.