Wow. NYT: Why Democrats Should Oppose Neil Gorsuch (and not volunteer to be bullied)
It’s important to remember just how radical — and, yes, unprecedented — the Senate’s approach to the previous Supreme Court nominee was.
Republican leaders announced last March that they would not consider any nominee. They did so even though Barack Obama still had 10 months left in his term and even though other justices (including Anthony Kennedy) had been confirmed in a president’s final year.
The refusal was a raw power grab. Coupled with Republican hints that no Hillary Clinton nominee would be confirmed either, it was a fundamental changing of the rules: Only a party that controlled both the White House and the Senate would now be able to assume it could fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
The change is terribly damaging for the country’s political system. It impedes the smooth functioning of the court and makes it a much more partisan institution.
Of course, the strategy also worked, and the flip from an Obama justice to a Trump justice will likely be the deciding factor in many of the most important cases in coming years.
So what can Democrats do?
(snip)
I understand that all of these options sound aggressive and partisan. But Democrats simply cannot play by the old set of rules now that the Republicans are playing by a new one. The only thing worse than the system that the Republicans have created is a system in which one political party volunteers to be bullied.
More:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/neil-gorsuch-how-democrats-should-respond.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
A call is much harder to ignore than an e-mail. Check this out:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/10/91524/-
and this:
constantly full. But, CALL I WILL!
