To Bork or Not to Bork? The Old Fight That Shows Democrats Why, and How, to Stop Gorsuch

[DonViejo]

Trump, like Reagan, squandered his chance to offer a unifying pick to satisfy his most conservative supporters.

JULIAN ZELIZER

02.13.17 1:00 AM ET

Thirty years ago, Democrats gave the Supreme Court confirmation process a bad name. When they killed the nomination of President Ronald Reagan’s first nominee to fill a vacancy, a new term was invented: “To Bork.” The term meant to kill a nomination through character assassination, slander, and ideological attacks regardless of the competence of the person who was being considered.

Today Judge Neil Gorsuch’s supporters are warning that the Democrats should not “Bork” President Trump’s nominee. Given Gorsuch’s stellar professional record, his competence does not seem to be in question. At least from the leaked remarks about his meeting with Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, he appears to have a healthy unease with President Trump’s aggressive statements about the judiciary. But there are many reasons for Democrats to consider using their power to filibuster his nomination. After Republicans refused to confirm former President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland—leaving many Democrats to feel like this is a “stolen seat”—the president could have sent a consensus nominee. After having lost the popular election by large numbers and now stimulating fears that he won’t respect our system of checks and balances, this was the moment to demonstrate that he understands the tensions he’s helped create. Rather than a pick intended to please the right, he could have selected someone who Democrats could have felt good about supporting even if it came from this administration.

But he did not. With Gorsuch, Trump has put forward a nominee who comes from the most conservative part of the judicial spectrum. As an originalist who is a favorite of the Federalist Society, Gorsuch has a very conservative record on key issues like religious rights, reproductive rights, gay marriage, gun rights, criminal justice and more. There is good reason to believe that he would uphold the principles of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and pose a serious threat to a number of important public policies. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, writing in The New York Times, warned that Gorsuch refused in their closed-door interview to answer “rudimentary” questions about executive power, campaign finance, voting rights or the constitutionality of Trump’s refugee ban.

As Senate Democrats consider whether or not to filibuster this nominee, they should take another look at what went down when Senators were considering the case of Robert Bork. Rather than a model that they need to avoid, it in fact offers an important lesson about the legitimate reasons to to block a high court nominee.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/13/to-bork-or-not-to-bork-the-old-fight-that-shows-democrats-why-and-how-to-stop-gorsuch.html

[PoliticAverse]

1. Democrats had a Senate majority when Bork was nominated. n/t

[truebluegreen]

2. So they should just roll over now? Keep their powder dry?

Great plan.

The majority doesn't matter; we can filibuster a SC nominee. If the pukes choose to nuke the filibuster that's on them. We can only do what we can.

And maybe the one thing we can do is act like we care.

[PoliticAverse]

3. No it means, as you note, the Republicans can ultimately push through the nomination. n/t

[mr_liberal]

4. Right, and then Democrats wont have it for the next nomination that will change the balance

of the court. I think the filibuster may work for that one. It would be wasted on Gorsuch.

This is a dumb article.

[MurrayDelph]

5. There is no point in letting Gorsuch go through to "save" the filibuster

when the Republicans will kill the filibuster anytime they don't get what they want.

So holding on to a weapon they will never let you use is pointless.

[mr_liberal]

7. -next nomination could be after 2018 elections

-Trump will be even weaker
-could be end of his term, so they could use same reason as was used against Garland
-would change balance and overturn Roe v Wade
-Could be a liberal (Ginsburg), instead of just a conservative for a conservative (Scalia)
-voters much more likely to be on Dems side
-red state dems and moderate republicans will have already voted for one Trump nominee and therefore proved theyre reasonable.
-moderate pro choice republicans may help to at least not vote to nuke the filibuster
etc,etc,etc.........

Two situations are very different. Filibuster much more likely to work with second nomination. Theres no chance at all it'll work for the first.

[MosheFeingold]

6. 54, specifically.

And Bork was replacing a swing vote, not Scalia.

I just don't see it happening.