Gorsuch warning Liberals to Senate Democrats: Reject Trump's Supreme Court pick or else

[ProudLib72]

Last edited Mon Mar 6, 2017, 10:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Eleven progressive groups came together Monday to harshly criticize Senate Democrats for not fighting hard enough against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch, and hinted at primary challenges for any Democrat who votes “yes.”

“Democrats have failed to demonstrated a strong, unified resistance to this to this nominee despite the fact that he is an ultra-conservative jurist who will undermine our basic freedoms and threaten the independence of the federal judiciary,” wrote the groups including NARAL Pro-Choice America, MoveOn.org, SEIU, Working Families Party, 350 Action, CREDO Action and others. “We need you to do better.”

Link:https://news.vice.com/story/liberals-warn-senate-democrats-reject-trumps-supreme-court-pick-or-else

Time to be proactive! You know Manchin is already set to say "yea".

[Chasstev365]

1. Do NOTHING unless Merrick Garland is put on the court!

Oh, yes McTurtle: It's on!

[Else You Are Mad]

2. Remember, under the McConnell rule...

No Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during a campaign and Trump has officially began his campaign for 2020. Thus, according to McConnell, we have to wait until 2020 for a new justice.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. You mean 2021

n/t

[Else You Are Mad]

4. Yes.

[Chasstev365]

6. Oh, I like that! Good angle!

[lisvard2]

27. McConnell!

Has anyone heard from turdle since the new scandals broke?

[TeamPooka]

5. I'm happy to primary any Dem who doesn't vote NO on this. We had a SCOTUS seat STOLEN!

There must be payback. And it starts here.

[Cosmocat]

9. That alone - but honestly, they should be republicans, except RIGHTFULLY say

that Putin has already installed the POTUS and his admin, do we really want him to pick one of our SCJs, too?

[FBaggins]

50. Ah... so this IS the new tea party.

The only Democrats who would vote "yes" are the ones in red states... which would be almost automatic losses for any Democrat other than a well-known incumbent. (I suppose a similarly-well-known former statewide candidate could win... but not of them would run a primary campaign against an incumbent Democrat).

Can't wait for our own "really... I'm not a witch" candidates.

[Hortensis]

7. We're not going to stop Gorsuch's appointment.

And I want to know exactly which Democrats are targeted for removal by each group and why. Some Democrats are conservatives representing traditionally conservative districts who are nevertheless prepared to work with the party they belong to on many things. Giving their seats to the GOP would not be an advance.

Others, though, are liberal party leaders whom some of the power groups behind these efforts have targeted for removal and replacement with newbie radicals.

These people, by attacking Democratic Party candidates and platform, usually by "multitasking" right-wing ammunition, helped elect 45 and the Republicans hold Congress and lose several state governments in 2016. We, in addition to fighting the Republicans' plan for restyling America as a corporatist fascist state, also have to fight the far left's efforts to further weaken us and avoid a continuation of this national tragedy in 2018 and 2020.

The right-wing media machine, extremely well funded, is already working hard to empower their efforts.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. This

[TeamPooka]

11. I see it the exact opposite way : The media and others want us to keep conservative Democrats

in the party to lessen our power to effect change and progress.
That's why we get the "Accept the bad ones because or else" mantra all the time
The right wing media machine is echoing what you said.

[Hortensis]

17. Many who feel your way are honest and sensible.

I'm a very strong liberal who wanted a candidate (not a leader!) who was committed to destroying the billionaire class and restoring a proper balance of power for the people. But I reluctantly concluded the one who promised that was not..the right stuff.

Those who felt differently really, really need to understand who and what kind of leaders would be the actual beneficiaries of a transfer of power from liberal leaders to farther left. And to understand that many on the far left are much more extreme than them. I do very seriously doubt the ability of the currently best known leader to keep control from being wrested away as a lot of very fickle and volatile followers excited by "revolution" and promise of taking over from the moderate-liberal Democratic Party are lured away by someone else.

I also know most supporters here on DU have not even considered that possibility, much less wondered what the ideology, goals and competence of those people might be and just what kind of person the shiny, charismatic new leader presented to them might be.

But feel free to examine the history of far-left movements that did succeed in gaining national power and what they did with it. You really should. Google left-wing "authoritarianism" while you're at it.

Btw, the ultraconservative Koch brothers, and others like them, are actively working to assist the far left's efforts in this regard. One guess why.

[TeamPooka]

19. Hmm. Why do Liberals and progressives automatically have to be lumped in w/ "Far-left" movements?

false equivalence is cute.

[Hortensis]

30. I'm a liberal and progressive by both personality and politics

and I am not far left by personality or current politics by any means, though as Pew notes is actually very common, I do support a number of measures that are generally considered well outside the mainstream.

TeamPooka, while educating yourself on the record and behaviors of successful far-left movements, I suggest also searching on populism, stability, western democracies. In this country, as in many others, we have both left and right-wing populist movements, and their undirected resentment and hostility toward and undifferentiated "the establishment" are both threats to national stability.

One's response to that, willingness to destroy what we have with the hope/expectation (but no guarantees!) of rebuilding better, is probably as good an indicator as any of orientation along the moderate-extremism spectrum.

(Bannon is a great illustration of an extreme. That our cities don't have more than a week or so of food and that most people have even less that of drinking water are potentially useful. That horrible reality is a tool people like him could use to "deconstruct" if it came to it. A nice big terrorist attack would advance his agenda nicely about now.)

Most people, though, want their children and grandchildren to be able to live their lives as free and safe as they did in the same kind of stable and prosperous nation they did. They want improvements of what is already proven good--giant national experiments requiring destruction of what we have and leaps into the void not acceptable.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. Nothing wrong with primary fights, get the most liberal candidate possible to run against

the moderates.

But when one is chosen, that is who we vote for no matter what.

Now if it is a conservative state and the one settled on is not likely to win the conservative state, that is a problem.

Think it all the way through.

[pangaia]

23. I can argue either side of this question and do not really know, "politically,' which is best.

I would by nature fall on the side of get rid of the center right demos.

But, that said.. What exactly is the 'far left?" Who?

[Eyeball_Kid]

33. It seems to me that the "far left" have two basic things to offer:

higher taxes on the rich and single payer health insurance for all. Everything else falls into place from there. If that sounds like a middle America proposal, that's because it is. And that's where the US public's opinions are.

[LisaM]

42. I don't think that's far left at all. I think that's just regular left.

Far left (to me) is when you start wading in the murky waters of collectivism.

[Hortensis]

36. Really? Go read. There's a broad and deep

spectrum over there. None of the "groups" would thank anyone for lumping them all together. They all have, in various degrees, resentment, contempt and antagonism toward liberals and the Democratic Party in common, though, and conviction that our nation requires radical change (of their types of course) if it is to survive.

They also have a very interesting inability to cooperate with others long enough to form a sustainable coalition that could replace the liberal-dominated Democratic Party as the nation's dominant left-wing party.

They hate and despise that liberals believe in cooperating with cooperative conservatives to arrive at answers they all can accept, but that's a huge part of our success: democratic republics require cooperation among factions to function.

Which begs the answer, if any of the far-lefters took over, what form would our government take?

Again, go read. A bunch of examples are available, all ultimately failures and some involving incredible tragedy before they did.

[lagomorph777]

35. Exactly. Who needs "Dems" that vote with Pukes?

Worse than worthless and we need to weed them out before we can ever expect to regain power.

[JCanete]

47. Why aren't we going to stop the appointment? we certainly won't if we don't insist that we as a

party fight it. If the Republicans want to do it, make them wear the badge of going nuclear on the Supreme Court appointment. There's no reason to let this thing happen. There is no long-term political gain from doing so, and it makes me less trusting of my Democratic Senators if some of them let this happen without using everything in their arsenal first.

You've got to give me a good reason why any Dem ceding ground on this is acceptable to you.

[murielm99]

53. Thank you for this post. n/t

[FSogol]

59. +1, Exactly. n/t

[still_one]

61. If the republicans do not have 2/3 the Democrats can filibuster Gorsuch, and any republican

republican nominee to the Supreme Court, but the fact is, if that occurred the republicans would just change the rules, "The Nuclear option" so to speak, and they would push either Gorsuch or any other deplorable nominee so what would it accomplish?

The point you made regarding conservative districts is right on, and it is why Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was so successful because he recognized that

[JCanete]

67. no point in having the rules if we never use them. Might as well make them do it. nt

[Hekate]

63. What you said

[MineralMan]

10. Wonderful! Let's work to make sure the Republicans have

an even larger majority in Congress. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, morons!

Democrats cannot block Gorsuch's nomination. It's not going to happen. We need to fight the battles we can win, not flail blindly at ones we cannot.

What we should have done was win in November, 2016. We didn't. We don't need to make things even worse in 2018, for pity's sake.

[TeamPooka]

12. We never said we could block the nomination, just want to see our guys fight for a change

[MineralMan]

14. Who's "we?"

WTF? Is that the same "we" who refused to vote for Hillary last November. If so, no fucking thank you very much. Remember who's sitting in the White House, OK?

Both Senators from my state will vote against Gorsuch? How about yours?

[TeamPooka]

20. I'm in CA so yes I hope they do. Also why do you need to name call people "morons"?

I voted for Hillary twice last year so that's a cute false equivalence attack.
meant to divide us again and re-litigate the primary?

[MineralMan]

24. So, you didn't define "we?"

You are the one who used that word, so I was curious who you included with yourself. Perhaps you meant "I" instead. The word "we" is fraught with danger when used too loosely.

So, I asked, but didn't get an answer.

As for my Senators, I know how they will vote. I asked. They answered. Again, how about yours? Apparently our Senators are going to vote against confirmation, so we don't really have much of a beef with them. Again, that raises the "we" question.

[TeamPooka]

25. I meant to say I. I jumped through all your hoops, now answer my question

have about why you feel the need to insult others by calling them names during a debate.

[NewJeffCT]

34. I thought they kept the filibuster for SCotUS nominees?

and maybe a few other positions?

[MineralMan]

38. Well, I'm guessing we won't have enough votes to block cloture.

There will be a couple of Democrats who will vote with the Republicans, I think. That's sad, but that's what I expect.

Gorsuch is sort of an unknown quantity in some areas. I imagine we're going to get a chance to find out how he votes on things.

I think this is a battle we won't win, so I'm looking at other issues.

[NewJeffCT]

39. as long as 41 Democrats stick together

they should be able to block Gorusch, if I'm not mistaken. I think some of the more senior members of the GOP are not wanting to get rid of the filibuster (Hatch, McCain, etc)

While I can see Manchin defecting, how many others will? There are 46 Democrats and 2 independents, and I'm pretty sure Bernie would support a filibuster. Not sure about King in Maine?

[MineralMan]

41. I really don't know, frankly, how the Gorsuch thing will go.

I expect he will end up being confirmed, though, at some point. He's not my choice, by any means. I just wish we had turned out in enough numbers to have won the White House and a majority in the Senate. We could have, but we didn't. More's the pity. I'm looking forward to 2018, when we will have another chance at the Senate and maybe even the House, if Trump hangs around and the Republicans screw up badly enough.

That's where my sights are aimed at.

[FBaggins]

54. So?

"They" (Reid/Schumer/etc.) also made clear at the time (and just last year) that they would kill it for SCOTUS nominees too if they were filibustered in the future.

It only took a majority to "go nuclear"... and Republicans have that. Do you really think that they won't do it?

Ironically, the current thought is that Democrats may let Gorsuch go through without a filibuster so that the "except SCOTUS" line isn't crossed. That way the NEXT nominee (replacing Kennedy later this year?) can be blocked. This is because replacing Scalia with anyone on the current list doesn't really move the court... but replacing Kennedy (or, heaven help us, Ginsburg or Breyer) would (potentially in a massive way).

[NewJeffCT]

57. I think the rules for each senate session

are set for the entirety of that session at the beginning - save any changes due to death/special elections/etc.?

I could be wrong, however. But, I think if they wanted to kill the filibuster, they would have had to have done in back in January at the start of the senate sessions. If they want to kill it now, they'd need to wait until January of 2019?

[FBaggins]

58. Unfortunately... that's incorrect

When Reid "went nuclear" it was in the middle of a session (November 2013).

This is because it wasn't technically a rule change (though in reality it was)... it was an interpretation of an existing rule (which can be done by majority vote at any time).

[Ned Flanders]

43. Because your tactics worked so well last time (not!)

Rock dude. You seem to be rather bright. I really don't understand why you double down on failed strategies and call us morons for wanting to try a different approach. Oh well, keep playing 5th dimensional chess, keep trying the gradual approach, keep compromising with people who don't know the meaning of the word. You refuse to learn from, or even admit, any past mistakes, but we are the problem?

Don't bother replying, I won't be checking back for a couple days at least, got places to go.

[Scruffy1]

65. I disagree.

Part of the reason Democrats get no respect is because many of them are not willing to stand up for the principles of the Democratic Party. There's always room for compromise on many issues, but they must put a line in the sand somewhere or nobody is going to respect them. We all saw them fold on Thomas and know what a disaster that was. Even if you can't stop it at least we stood for something. Besides which I don't think we can win national elections without support from the "far left". Traditionally the Democratic Party has had some support from leftist parties. I know they are not huge in number, but they are very active. Hillary got zip from them this time around. I've watched them leave in droves. The assumption that non party members are in the middle is complete BS.When my friends ask me why I don't leave the party I tell the story of the miner who lost his paycheck in a poker game every Friday night. When one of his friends told him the game was crooked, his response was "I know that, but it's the only game in town." There just is no way for a third party to work except as a spoiler, so the only bargaining chip you have is to take a promise in turn for support. Other than that it's an ego trip.

[TheDebbieDee]

13. But even if all 41 Dem Senators vote NAY on Gorsuch

Would it prevent him from being seated? Just wondering...

[MineralMan]

15. No, it wouldn't. That's the sticking point, isn't it?

We might actually have won a majority in the Senate last November. We didn't though. That's for the same reason Trump is befouling the White House.

Sad!

[PoliticAverse]

45. There are 46 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents that vote with the Democrats.

The Democrats could delay the appointment by filibustering but the Republicans could "go nuclear"
and override the filibuster if they wanted to.

[Lifelong Protester]

16. What's wrong with all the Dems voting "nay"?

[FBaggins]

55. Not a thing

Apart from having no impact at all.

[ProudLib72]

18. Okay, I get it

You guys see radicalism as divisive because of what happened last November. The groups mentioned in the article see left wing radicalism as the only way to fight back against right wing radicals. It goes against liberal values.

However, I want to point something out. The groups in the article state, "Democrats have failed to demonstrated a strong, unified resistance to this to this nominee". The other side of that equation, what led to this situation, is a radicalized right. So the point that should be taken from this is that somehow the GOP managed to create a cohesive, radical majority. On the other hand, we fight among ourselves. I'm not saying that radicalization is the answer. I just think we need to be aware of the need for inclusivity and being amenable to ideas that we might otherwise reject or feel unimportant.

[TeamPooka]

21. Democrats need to start fighting Republicans the way Republicans fight Democrats.

[Ned Flanders]

44. What TeamPooka said.

If nothing else, Obama proved the bad guys will not compromise, and that many Americans like a fighter.

[OnDoutside]

62. Yes, Democrats HAVE to be seen to fight for Sane America.

[TeamPooka]

22. I don't want a lifeguard at the beach who is only going to save me 85% of the time either.

Democrats in Congress are America's lifeguards right now.

[yeoman6987]

51. Understand your point

So who is going to primary manchun and klientop and 8 other red state democratic senators?

[ffr]

26. +1

That's a cause I'd put money behind.

[clarkrd]

28. How do you counter when the otherside expects it?

Bannon's whole philosophy is to tear up up the status quo.

[FairWinds]

29. It is not possible to have a reasoned discussion about the left wing . .

if all you give us is innuendo . .

"Those people"? Really?

You'll need to be a whole lot more specific.

Who are they? What have they written? What do they stand for? What have they done (that is so awful)?

"Those who felt differently really, really need to understand who and what kind of leaders would be the actual beneficiaries of a transfer of power from liberal leaders to farther left. And to understand that many on the far left are much more extreme than them. I do very seriously doubt the ability of the currently best known leader to keep control from being wrested away as a lot of very fickle and volatile followers excited by "revolution" and promise of taking over from the moderate-liberal Democratic Party are lured away by someone else.

I also know most supporters here on DU have not even considered that possibility, much less wondered what the ideology, goals and competence of those people might be and just what kind of person the shiny, charismatic new leader presented to them might be. "

[red dog 1]

56. "Those people"??

"Those who felt differently really, really need to understand who and what kind of leaders would be the actual beneficiaries of a transfer of power from liberal left to farther left. And to understand that many on the far left are much more extreme than them. I do very seriously doubt the ability of the currently best known leader to keep control from being wrestled away as a lot of very fickle and volatile followers excited by "revolution" and promise of taking over from the moderate-liberal Democratic Party are lured away by someone else.
I also know most supporters here on DU have not even considered that possibility, much less wondered what the ideology, goals and competence of THOSE PEOPLE might be and just what kind of person the shiny, charismatic new leader presented to them might be."

What is your source for this?

[ProudLib72]

66. That leader would look like...wait for it....

Obama!

I don't think anyone will deny that he was a shiny, charismatic young leader who was going to CHANGE everything. It just so happened that he was the right balance of populist (to include the radical left) and liberal. Think about how much more appealing "Hope and Change" sounds than "Stronger Together" to the far left. It is a radical rallying cry. I remember feeling radicalized and ready for an overthrow of the Bush regime.

[FairWinds]

69. Sorry that I was not clear . .

I was referring to the post No 7. above by Hoetense

with which I disagreed.

where he/she used the term "those people"

When they talk about "far left" I see FDR in their cross-hairs.

[BSdetect]

32. I think the McConnell move was only possible because he knew about the election theft

in advance.

That's why he did what he did.

[Scruffy1]

64. It seems obvious to me.

There was something really smug and fishy about his behavior.

[Hulk]

37. Will there ever be hope of having a decent Democrat from WV?

Manchin is pathetic...but he is owned by the reich wngers in West Virginia. Call him a repuKKKe-lite. He is a tool for the hypocrites on the dark side of the aisle.
But will there ever be anything better that we can expect from West Virginia?

[tritsofme]

40. Thank goodness level heads seem to have prevailed in the Democratic caucus

We only get one opportunity to use the Supreme Court filibuster, and Republicans would easily prevail in a nuclear fight over this vacancy.

The logical path is to force a nuclear confrontation on a potential Ginsberg/Kennedy/Breyer vacancy that would actually change the composition of the Court, and that is a fight where we could actually prevail.

[TDale313]

46. If Repugs are allowed to get away with this shit...

We'll never see a Dem President chose a Supreme Court Justice in our lifetimes. There was no real fight for Obama's pick- mostly cause it was basically assumed Hillary would be the next President and would fill that vacancy anyway. Turned out to be a bad bet. The Repugs can't be rewarded- again- for basically stealing (elections, Supreme Court Vacancies, you name it)

Dems in Washington: Fucking hold them accountable or become completely irrelevant. They'll keep doing this until they're forced to stop.

[TygrBright]

48. This is the least coherent headline/subject line I've seen on DU this year.

It sounds like Gorsuch is warning liberals to reject his own nomination.

I just hope the rationale for the implied threat of such a "warning" is more coherent.

wearily,
Bright

[BlueJac]

49. The problem is......

they let all the asshole get on the court. They are weak kneed and do not know how to fight it out!

[turbo_satan]

52. No more nominations until we figure out what the hell is going on!

That should be the Democrats' mantra until we have hearings about the Russia matter.

[ananda]

60. Go liberals!

Loud proud liberal lefty here!

[kentuck]

68. Why the rush?

We've been over a year without a ninth Justice. What would another year matter?

[trof]

70. Worst headline ever.

It sounds like Gorsuch is warning liberals about something 'to senate Democrats'?

How about "Liberals warn senate Democrats: Reject Gorsuch's nomination, or else.
jeeez

[red dog 1]

71. + 1