General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould the Dems Filibuster Gorsuch?
Desperate Times
Should the Dems Filibuster Gorsuch?
The filibuster is a dubious thing in general in that it gives a minority the power of a majority. If we had two responsible parties, Id say do away with it. But we dont.
Michael Tomasky
03.21.17 1:00 AM ET
The Democrats dilemma on what to do about Neil Gorsuch is pretty simple: to filibuster or not to filibuster?
To #teamspine progressives, its no dilemma at all. Filibuster all these people. Half of me agrees. But another half of me looks around the corner and sees some downsides. And this tension gets to the heart of what it means to try to be a member of a responsible political party in this polarized age.
The filibuster argument is as follows, but before I lay it out, here are the numbers and the procedural issues at hand. There are 52 Republican senators, and 48 Democrats. The filibuster rule requires that a super-majority of 60 senators vote affirmatively to bring a piece of legislation (or a Supreme Court nomination) to the floor, which means that eight Democrats would have to vote with the Republicans, who will presumably vote en bloc for Gorsuch. Those eight could agree to vote to cut off debate, but then vote against the nomination itself, which requires only a simple majority of 51 to pass.
So, its generally thought, it might well be that eight Democratic senators from red statesand there are 10 right now who face reelection in 2018might vote to end debate but still vote no on the final vote, meaning that they could say they voted against Gorsuch in the end even though they voted to permit his nomination to get to the Senate floor.
The inside thinking is that if the Democrats do filibuster, Mitch McConnell might simply change the rules and decide that a Supreme Court nominee is no longer subject to a filibuster. He could do this more or less unilaterally, because former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid did the same thing a few years ago with regard to lesser federal court nominees. Reid said at the time that he was reinterpreting Senate Rule 22 to exclude federal judicial nominations. McConnell could do the same with respect to High Court nomineesexcept that hed need to bring that to a vote, in which case a simple majority of 51 senators would be needed to change the rule. This would constitute voting to end the filibuster, in essence.
snip//
All that said, back to the case for filibustering: God knows, its what the Republicans would do. They already did it, and worse. What they did to Merrick Garland was execrable. Totally indefensible. These hearings shouldnt even be happening, because Associate Justice Garland should be on the bench. Theres no asterisk in the Constitution about a presidents eighth year. There was no discernible principle in what the GOP did last year. There was only a calculation about power: The executive and legislative branches see-saw back and forth between the two parties, but the judicial branch has been the Republicans since the mid-to-late 1980s, and its been crucial to establishing and maintaining conservatism in many aspects of American life, and Republicans are desperate to keep it that way.
So, the hell with them. If one teams fighting with a bazooka, the other shouldnt fight with a pop gun. And maybe, just maybe, if the Democrats hold the line on nominees like Gorsuch who are obviously, however presentable and pleasant-seeming, quite far right in their views, theyll force President Trump to nominate someone eventually who might be a little more centrist.
It all makes sense to me, some days. Yet other days I wake up and think: But what if McConnell has those 51 votes and can dump the filibuster, not only on Court nominations but on everything?
more...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/21/should-the-dems-filibuster-gorsuch.html
sunonmars
(8,656 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)CanonRay
(14,101 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)In life and politics there are times when you have to fight even when you know you are going to lose because something larger than winning or losing is at stake. Is this one of those moments?
We have the Crime Boss In Chief on the run with Chump Care and Russia Gate. I don't know if it's worth distracting the press and the public's gaze from that. Also Gorsuch comes off as normal. The more he is on tv the more he makes Trump look normal for choosing him.
My raison d'etre is to live to see my country reject Deplorabilism. I oppose anything that distracts from that.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)I HATE how they "stole" the seat as much as anyone else here.
BUT, it would not be good optic to use what they did to not even have a hearing for BHO's pick as the rationale to filibuster. It is going to be framed and WILL come across as "sore loser" like.
HOWEVER, I do think that the optically, they can take the position that they oppose a lifelong appointment to the SC made by a POTUS who is under investigation for colluding with the russians. Come out and say, such time as the investigation is dropped, they will allow and up and down vote.
To me, while Rs are going to throw a major fit, that is something the country will be more willing to accept.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)By right that is Merrick Garland's seat but the longer we keep him in the news it make Trump look normal for picking him because Gorsuch looks normal.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)Pouting about last summer will make us look as small as him to the public.
Rightfully aligning this with his being a Russian tool is a lot more understandable.
The hot take is "we already have Putin running our state department and foreign policy. Do we want him making our SCJ picks, too?"
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)1) Because it punishes the most vulnerable
2) It will set the GOP back on its heels and make it much more difficult to pass most of their agenda.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)1) It is the most horrible piece of legislative policy we have seen in our lives.
2) It is not going to pass, not because of that, but because it is not horrible enough for the "freedom caucus" loons.
3) It will be egg in 45 and Ryan's face, but they will QUICKLY put together a tax bill with some breadcrumbs to the peons, but heavy on the tithe to their masters, which they will pass easily and with big arrogance.
4) Once they get past that, their real priority, things MIGHT get to the point where they freeze up over all of 45s scandals, and the weight of his being a full on tool for Putin might be too much for them to try to ignore and provide cover for.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)republican nominee when they wouldn't confirm one of ours? We need to stop playing nice with the GOP. No wonder we are getting our asses kicked.
CincyDem
(6,355 posts)Rather, on which issue do the Democrats want it to be.
Any nomination or piece of legislation that is egregious enough to be worth filibustering will be important enough to McConnell for him to call the question. This fantasy that avoiding it now will somehow retain it as a future threat is insanity.
Filibuster Grouch and complete the historical precedent set by the theft of Merrick Garland's seat.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Filibuster, deny a quorum, walk out if these hearings - whatever it takes.
Do not complete the theft of that seat by the GOP.
Friend or Foe
(195 posts)You're only in the majority, until you're in the minority.
That maxim is strong today given the fact that even the WSJ is inferring that Dear Leader is a "Fake President".
So, if Turtle McMitchwitch wants to go nuclear, then he will need to deal with the ghost of Sam Rayburn.
Hitching the whole party to the Adjective King Trump, could result in a far more serious response to the overreach of this generation of oligarchs.
Opposing Gorsuch is the only play for Dems. It is the right play. It is the historical play.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)cannot be allowed to place a crony on the court.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)He must be filibustered to force the Republicans to change the rules to seat him. It's a stolen seat and we must do everything in our power to stop Trump's appointment.
If they change the rules, the next Democratic president & senate will just ram through every appointee on an up or down vote
randome
(34,845 posts)Will the outcome be affected? Will it solidify the base? This is politics, more like Battleship than chess.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 22, 2017, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)
That is the real question.
randome
(34,845 posts)Every day brings Dolt45 closer to his own personal Armageddon. After that, his name will be toxic and that should be enough to refuse and refute everything and everyone related to his failed Presidency.
In fact, after the AHCA attempt fails, he may reach toxicity level on his own incompetence.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)I think they can justify, legitimately, that the lifetime placement of a SCJ is too important to allow by a POTUS under investigation by the FBI for colluding with Russia. Make the stand based on that while saying if the investigation does not show that he OR his administration/campaign colluded with Russia, they will allow an up or down vote.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)By all rights, we should filibuster and play out the clock on that seat and leave it unfilled for all of Trump's Presidency, however long that proves to be. The fly in the ointment is, would a Pence or Ryan nomination be worse than Gorsuch?