Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Virginiá]

If the choices are between a small eternity of GOP vs. GOP-slightly lighter (at best), or years in the wilderness before the  Democrats can become a party worth supporting, I'll take the latter.

Manchin still votes with Democrats significantly more than a WV Republican would. Just compare Manchin's voting history vs Capito. There is a big difference, and I'm not just talking about confirmation votes. It's not just about that. Yes, Manchin is voting for more of these guys, but acting like he's basically a Republican is pretty disingenuous. It's simply not true.

As for the wilderness - refusing to support centrists like Manchin in places like West Virginia is exactly what would help put us in the wilderness. Liberals or 100% party-line Democrats can't reliably win in places like West Virginia. We have to take what we can get.

[Virginiá]

The best political strategy for Senate Democrats is to allow hearings, show up for them, and enable the Senate to vote on Gorsuch. Allow a few Democratic Senators from conservative states to defect and vote for him, but ensure that 41 Democrats filibuster his appointment. Send out a few Democrats to signal that they'd be willing to vote for an appointment of a more moderate SCOTUS nominee if Trump is willing to nominate one. Then, if he does, allow a few more defections from swing states allowing the appointment of a compromise candidate.

This sounds reasonable. Things like this kind of seem lost among some activists who demand total obstruction - in some situations it might be necessary to have vulnerable Senators vote a certain way with the understanding that the bill or nominee still won't pass/be confirmed. I suppose you can't blame them though, since they might not know if it was strategic or not.

Honestly, liberals/Democrats probably need to start accepting that we are now 99.999% unlikely to get that seat. It's almost guaranteed Republicans will kill the filibuster before 2020, especially after 2018 if they win more Senate seats. The best Democrats could possibly hope to do, imo, is somehow obstruct long enough to force a more moderate justice (or maybe an older Gorsuch-like justice, like 60+), but even that is a stretch. Republicans made a big gamble and they won. They hold almost all the cards now.

We'll see.

[Virginiá]

Useless tidbit:

Unanimous Supreme Court overturns a Gorsuch decision ... in the middle of his confirmation hearing

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/22/1646072/-Unanimous-Supreme-Court-overturns-a-Gorsuch-decision-in-the-middle-of-his-confirmation-hearing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

What I truly find absurd here is that so many people are worked up about Obamacare, etc., but there is ZERO outrage over the Supreme Court, which has long term ramifications (and can even invalidate certain laws), being stolen.

Personally, I came to terms with this last year. It still bothers me, but there is nothing we can do. In the end, they hold all the cards. Best we can do is try and get the Senate/WH back as soon as possible to avoid them stacking the courts with more Scalia clones.

[Virginiá]

Right but this is literally EVERYTHING.  Why?  Because the Supreme Court will uphold things that bias the system in their favor for a generation, such as unlimited contributions, redistricting, etc. etc., which allows them to get re-elected and appoint more justices to continue the cycle.  Honestly, I don't know why I care anymore though... both parties are terrible.  

Pretty much, and that is why it is so frustrating. Considering my 2 main issues - election + campaign finance reform are probably going to take more hits under a renewed conservative bench, it's particularly depressing to think about. Democrats can (and probably will) filibuster Gorsuch, but if it works for any amount of time it will only be because Republicans are allowing it to work. They could gut it any day now and just ram him through. No amount of protesting or other tactics will work on the GOP's SCOTUS confirmations. Republicans have spent years using the courts to push parts of their agenda (and to block Democrats'), and it is a top priority to keep as much of the judiciary in their hands for as long as possible, especially for reasons you stated - gerrymandering, campaign deregulation, etc. It is no doubt a big part of their long-term strategy to stay in power even once the public moves further against them.

[Virginiá]

     I wonder if Schumer is trolling there. Any nominee would get this kind of treatment.

I don't know - maybe. Liberals are foaming at the mouth right now, after all. I still think a more moderate, possibly older nominee could get the votes necessary as I'm sure there are enough Democrats in the Senate that understand that would be their best option. It's the liberal base that can't come to grips that they aren't getting the seat, and that long-term, once the anger over Trump is gone, it's better to have someone less conservative in that seat than more so.

But let's be real here - it's highly unlikely Republicans would ever offer up a "consensus" candidate. Senate Leadership threw integrity out the window with Garland, and Trump hit the ground running with a young Scalia-level conservative, which only serves to convey the message, "Yea, we stole this seat, go **** yourself." Given the thread I posted before about Trump looking for federal judge nominees in their late 30s, regardless of proper experience, the consensus among Republicans/Trump with the federal judiciary now is to stack it with far-right partisan conservatives who will stay on the bench for generations and provide the rulings Republicans want. While one might argue Democrats would behave similar, looking at Obama, I don't think that is so much the case.

[Virginiá]

That "Grow Up" comment doesn't make you a tough guy, boy.

Shadows, look at who you are talking to and the article he posted saying "totally true!" That is the kind of material this guy reads on a daily basis, probably nodding his head along while assuring himself it's all true solely because it's about those slimy Democrats, and was written by people who agree with him. You aren't going to reason with someone who is regularly digests that kind of hyper-partisan biased garbage.

[Virginiá]

Question: If the nuclear option does get enacted over this, will it be restricted to Supreme Court appointments or applied to legislation as well?

Probably not, no. There is a big difference between nuking the SCOTUS filibuster and the legislative filibuster. Many Senate Republicans aren't ignorant of the fact that eventually they will be in the minority again, and Democrats would have carte blanche. The thing about liberal policies - new entitlement programs like Medicare-for-all, or free college, those would all be very difficult to repeal even if they didn't need a filibuster. Once the public gets used to new social programs, it makes taking them away politically toxic.

For Republicans and their agenda, having the filibuster is more useful in the long run. It gives them a lot of power to block things, and even something as basic as having Congress gridlocked is a win for them.

[Virginiá]

NEWS: MCCAIN tells @LauraLitvan he's giving up on idea of a deal to forestall nuclear option
https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/849006254743834625

That raises a question in my mind of whether he ever truly cared at all, or if partisan politics was always more important to him. Perhaps if he joined in supporting Garland and encouraged others, we could have avoided a situation where Democrats would almost surely obstruct the GOP's nominee if we got a GOP president and Senate, which we did. McCain's comments last year about indefinitely blocking Clinton from filling that seat also suggests he is just fine contributing to the kind of behavior that would cause the filibuster to eventually be gutted. So yes, this recent comment seems disingenuous.

I'd think that after blocking a Democrat president from filling a seat that comes up a year before he leaves office, that party's "institutionalists" might prefer to offer up an actual consensus nominee in hopes of avoiding a filibuster. No, instead they just want exactly what they want and for the other side to sit down and shut up. They care much more about winning reelection and getting exactly what they want than any sort of tradition.

[Virginiá]

Lol.

Joe Biden's Senate Judiciary Committee did exactly this to John Roberts in 1992.

The Senate, imo, isn't obligated to accept anyone the president nominates for a judicial position, but they are obligated to accept someone and not be unreasonable about it. If it is a Republican president, the Senate should accept it's going to be some sort of conservative nominee, and if it is a Democrat, they should accept it is going to be some sort of liberal.

But of course you'll disagree with that in some way, because you're basically a partisan troll-hack destined to haunt Atlas forever.

[Virginiá]

John Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit in January 1992. What do you think happened to his nomination, and who do you think filled it?

And when Francis Murnaghan of the 4th circuit died in August 2000, how did his seat remain vacant until 2009? Little trivia. One of the failed nominations to that seat is our soon to be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has major Democratic support. But they wouldn't let him fill the seat.

I simply stated my personal philosophy on the matter. The only period of time where I think it might be fair game to refuse to confirm a president's nominees is post-election if in a presidential election year.

As for Roberts, well, Republicans had no problem trading tit for tat with Obama, giving Trump over a hundred judicial vacancies to fill with conservatives. Point is, if one wants to escalate that to a Supreme Court seat in March of any year, then expect sh*t to hit the fan. It's ludicrous for either party to do that. Instead of inventing new rules or being partisan hacks, everyone on the losing side of that seat should accept that the timing was just unfavorable to them.

But, we're past that now. We're now entering an era (one you'd probably like a lot) where partisanship is all that matters, and whatever can be done to steal seats and save them for yourselves is not only ok, but expected.

[Virginiá]

You mean 2024😊

It's been a long time since we had a 1-termer, so I'd say we are overdue at this point. Not that it is ever sure to happen, but if Trump doesn't pull himself together and get back on the ride side of public opinion, he could be ousted in 2020, possibly in spectacular fashion.

[Virginiá]

Why do you hate your political opponents so much? It really doesn't seem healthy or normal in a country at peace, even one as polarized as America.

I'd love to hear an honest answer from him, but I think it is more likely that he is just trying to piss people on this forum off. The amount of time he has spent doing that here speaks volumes. What kind of person devotes, what, is it, years now? to just trolling people his disagrees with?

Shame, really. Krazen seems smart, but instead just acts like a vindictive dick who is obsessed with filling jars with liberal tears than having any sort of decent discussion (unless you're a conservative, in which he'll be respectful)

[Virginiá]

Of course, most of the ideological depolarization took place with the Great Depression, and most of the geographical depolarization took place in the aftermath of the New Deal.

As someone else said, it is probably the case that depolarization won't occur again until one party undeniably gains more support than the other long-term, rather than this split we have right now (ok, it's not an even split but still). Personally I think such an event is likely within the next decade or so, and it definitely won't be a continuation of the conservative era we've been living under for for generation(s) so far.

[Virginiá]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

[Virginiá]

However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified.The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

Ftr, a "consensus nominee" could also include a Gorsuch-type person who is about 10-15 years older. And I for one am not open to supporting a SC nominee who I pretty sure will sit on the bench for ~30 years ruling in favor of voter suppression and ripping up any attempts to regulate campaign financing.

But, for Garland, well, I don't pretend to be hide my feelings about that. I'm not supportive of the idea of letting Republicans freely block the rightful nomination of a Democratic president just so they can fill the seat with a young conservative like Gorsuch. This isn't purely about qualifications, and it hasn't been for a long time or they would have been just fine with Garland.

[Virginiá]

But "someone was mean to Bork decades ago" isn't a justification for refusing to govern responsibly in the present.

Not only that, but Bork isn't even a good excuse for this. Reagan still filled that seat, just not with his original pick. Obama cut to the chase and just put up his Kennedy (and older at that), knowing full well a younger, more liberal nominee was even more DOA than Garland. The Senate is not obligated to accept literally any nominee, or else it wouldn't even have a say, but for some to keep trotting out that excuse is kind of stupid in this regard. If Republicans wanted to be picky, so be it, just as long as they confirmed someone Obama puts up in the end. Obviously that didn't happen. They went too far.

[Virginiá]

There is no option for that here. But I loved how he said that he was "serious".

He could well be serious.. but just having the name "ExtremeRepublican" can give clues that it is a parody account. Not accusing him of anything though.

I would hope so. People who think their agenda is so important that it justifies all-out lying, cheating, stealing - whatever, to get it implemented, are a disease in Congress and state legislatures. You can't behave like that and expect a functional government.

[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.