Will Dems be able to get 41 Dem Senators to vote against Supreme Ct Nom?

[JJC]

If the Senate doesn't use the Nuclear Option... Do you think Dems be able to get 41 Dem Senators to vote against Gorsuch (by focusing on his comments regarding gay marriage, Hobby Lobby, Roe v Wade, etc?)

Easily -- but count on the nuclear option.

Democrats can expect to lose every vote  in this Congress. The fix is in and we effectively have a single-Party system.

You can thank Dirty Harry for that.

[JJC]

like someone.....i think matt k. lewis...argued, it would maybe be a stronger political move to wait for trump's second SC pick to let the GOP kill the filibuster.

I thought this at first...but the reality is...Republican will go nuclear on the next nominee regardless of what Dems do on this nominee.  And at that point- the big story will be what the American Public thinks about a nominee who would likely change the balance of power on things like Roe v Wade.

Politically, it's much easier to justify the nuclear option if dems have unwavering opposition to someone who doesn't change the balance of the courts at all. Especially when the GOP has control of the executive and legislative branch.

It would be very easy for McConnel to whip his party into supporting the nuclear option, since even strident constitutional/limited government conservative senators would jump on board against such blatant obstructionism. However, for something that is far more controversial, getting all GOP senators to support the nuclear option isn't guaranteed, especially with the intense pressure they'll be facing in blue states. In fact, it would be tremendously more difficult.

Gorsuch is almost a carbon copy of Scalia. He is imminently qualified, non-controversial, and doesn't change the balance of the court. More importantly, he's going to get confirmed with or without the filibuster anyway. Dems would be shooting themselves in the foot if they invoke the nuclear option over him. If there's another vacancy to fill, they have a strong case (and probability) of withholding the filibuster. But not this vacancy.

I would like to remind everyone that Justice Ginsburg is 83 years old and isn't in picture perfect health. She's had surgeries related to both colon and pancreatic cancer recently.

How does Justice Ted Cruz taking Ginsburg's seat sound to you?
 

[JJC]

It is win-win. Either McConnell nukes he filibuster, which is good for democracy, or he doesn't and Gorsuch is stopped.

The purpose of the filibuster is to slow things down. The founders wanted to make it difficult to pass laws - as to not have a single administration make drastic and wide sweeping changes because of one election, or have one party have absolute rule because they have 50+1% of the seats. It's the house (the 'people's legislature') that responds to sudden popular opinion. Things are only supposed to get through the senate when there is wide, geographical support across the country. It's a counteraction to mob rule.

This, along with our constitution that limits the government's ability to infringe on our rights, is why America not only hasn't fallen apart despite such a diversified makeup, but has thrived like no country before it.

Our Founders were brilliant in structuring a government that defends people against your kind of thinking, which inevitably leads to oligarchies.

It's so disgusting that Harry Reid changed 200 years of of senate procedure just so Obama could pack the courts with anti-american liberal activists. If Trump did this, every single one of you would be losing your s--t accusing him of being a fascist.

[JJC]

I would like to see Mitch take the Nuclear option so that this GOP pretense & hypocrisy is over. And when Dems get a majority with a POTUS, people like Cruz won't be block anything & everything.

Should they filibuster ? I dunno. The seat was stolen but maybe they should reserve the filibuster if something happens to Ginsburg who is 83 - I mean you need to buy time using any tactic in 2019 or 2020?

Yeah, because Republicans were totally going to replace the most conservative judge with a left leaning moderate even though they controlled congress. Okay. Sure.

If Ginsburg died in the last few months of Bush's term, and Bush nominated a moderate to replace her, would you support this - even though the dems controlled both chambers?

Get real. Why do you have to play dumb like that? The 'stolen seat' language is for low info voters, not politicos like us. Show some respect for yourself.

We can't have intelligent discussion if all we do is repeat PR drivel from our respective party's headquarters.