Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Virginiá]

That's what liberals get for creating the over regulatory state . Regulations used against them when they aren't in power .

That is a bad excuse. This has nothing to do with the "regulatory state." If this was the 1920s and abortion was legal, conservatives will still be using phony regulations to regulate abortion out of existence. Tactics like this have been done for all sorts of issues.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And we now have nine again.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

A great day!

[ApatheticAustrian]

is there an usual average time between the confirmation of a republican SC justice and the time he is called a RINO sellout?

i think 2 years would be a good period of time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

is there an usual average time between the confirmation of a republican SC justice and the time he is called a RINO sellout?

i think 2 years would be a good period of time.

Anthony Kennedy
1992-1987 = 5 years

David Souter
1992-1990 = 2 years

John Roberts
2012 - 2005 = 7 years

It varies based on when the "big case" comes up that makes them a sellout.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

is there an usual average time between the confirmation of a republican SC justice and the time he is called a RINO sellout?

i think 2 years would be a good period of time.

Anthony Kennedy
1992-1987 = 5 years

David Souter
1992-1990 = 2 years

John Roberts
2012 - 2005 = 7 years

It varies based on when the "big case" comes up that makes them a sellout.

Souter was more easily readable, for sure.

[Shadows]

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.

The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control.  

And it would've gone down identically...

Yes, agreed. The Filibuster had to end eventually for the Republic to continue to function. It had outlived its usefulness and its intended purpose, and when it got to where any controversial legislation was being filibustered, it was contributing to the gridlock and paralysis which has afflicted congress for the past 20 years, the result being an increasingly - dangerously - powerful executive branch. And in the long run, this gridlock benefits Republicans for ideological reasons: by making government look broken and ineffective, low-information swing voters will gravitate towards the party that claims all government is inherently broken and ineffective. Just think what the Democratic trifecta could have accomplished in 2009-2010 without the filibuster: we could have gotten a public option, comprehensive immigration reform, gun safety legislation, more robust regulation of Wall Street, and possibly much else besides.

And yes, I know we technically have the filibuster for legislation, though I don't expect that to be the case a year or two from now. In any case, long run it has to end, and it's better for Republicans to take the heat for ending it. At the rate things are going, I don't think we'll have to wait long for the next Democratic Trifecta.

Dems had 60 votes in the Senate & the filibuster was not an issue in 2009, they still couldn't get anything done. Other than that, you are right, the filibuster has to go. A resounding Senate, House majority & Presidency should be enough. Especially for Dems, given GOP holds many more smaller states, getting 60 Senate seats looks very tough & with that a house in a gerrymandered situation & the Presidency. I don't see Dems getting that kind of a majority in a while.

Hope GOP abolishes the filibuster & Dems win the house in 2018 !

[emailking]

Correct. Other than base pressure, I am still wondering just what animated the Dem strategy here.

I think it was to get Republicans to kill the filibuster for SCOTUS.

In 2013, they left cloture for SCOTUS alone because they were afraid that Republicans could stack the court with conservatives at some point. But when it became clear that they're going to block everybody anyway going forward as best they can, the filibuster would hinder Democrats' ability to appoint a liberal judge. So they would have to nuke themselves anyway at some point. Better to have the Republicans do it so as to avoid the political cost.

McConell was already telegraphing that Gorsuch would get through one way or another, so the filibuster had lost its effectiveness anyway. It might have been more effective politically if they waited until a liberal judge needed replacement to press the issue, but then again, we don't know if that will happen under Trump.

[Illiniwek]

I hope for the best with Gorsuch. I think he might end up better than Scalia. But now I am praying the 4 line can hold out a few more years.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.

The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control.  

And it would've gone down identically...

Yes, agreed. The Filibuster had to end eventually for the Republic to continue to function. It had outlived its usefulness and its intended purpose, and when it got to where any controversial legislation was being filibustered, it was contributing to the gridlock and paralysis which has afflicted congress for the past 20 years, the result being an increasingly - dangerously - powerful executive branch. And in the long run, this gridlock benefits Republicans for ideological reasons: by making government look broken and ineffective, low-information swing voters will gravitate towards the party that claims all government is inherently broken and ineffective. Just think what the Democratic trifecta could have accomplished in 2009-2010 without the filibuster: we could have gotten a public option, comprehensive immigration reform, gun safety legislation, more robust regulation of Wall Street, and possibly much else besides.

And yes, I know we technically have the filibuster for legislation, though I don't expect that to be the case a year or two from now. In any case, long run it has to end, and it's better for Republicans to take the heat for ending it. At the rate things are going, I don't think we'll have to wait long for the next Democratic Trifecta.

Dems had 60 votes in the Senate & the filibuster was not an issue in 2009, they still couldn't get anything done. Other than that, you are right, the filibuster has to go. A resounding Senate, House majority & Presidency should be enough. Especially for Dems, given GOP holds many more smaller states, getting 60 Senate seats looks very tough & with that a house in a gerrymandered situation & the Presidency. I don't see Dems getting that kind of a majority in a while.

Hope GOP abolishes the filibuster & Dems win the house in 2018 !

Republicans kept Al Franken tied up in court until May or June of 2009. Specter didn't switch until April 2009, meaning that they had 58 Senates seats for the first few months. Then got to 60, but only for 8 months until Scott Brown was elected.
 
During that eight month period, they had a Democratic caucus that included Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Lieberman, not to mention Evan Bayh. Bayh forced them to remove some taxes on the wealthiest 1% to maintain his support for Obamacare. Lieberman forced the removal of the public option. Nelson and Landrieu required Medicaid carveouts that the Republicans dubbed the cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana Purchase.

[Classic Conservative]

I hope for the best with Gorsuch. I think he might end up better than Scalia. But now I am praying the 4 line can hold out a few more years.

Dont count on it. Gorsuch is basically Rush Limbaugh with a more refined vocabulary

I hope so!

[mencken]

I hope for the best with Gorsuch. I think he might end up better than Scalia. But now I am praying the 4 line can hold out a few more years.

Dont count on it. Gorsuch is basically Rush Limbaugh with a more refined vocabulary

That gives me an idea for Ginsberg's eventual replacement.