McConnell says Americans won't tolerate Democrats blocking SCOTUS nominations

[JA]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_586d6720e4b0c4be0af2bd3a

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I find it rather rich that the man who, upon the same day as the death of Antonin Scalia, developed the plan to obstruct any Supreme Court nominee of President Obama, arguing that the elected President did not have the right to represent the American people by appointing a Supreme Court nominee, and then proceded to threaten continued obstruction of any Clinton nominee for up to 8 years, is now arguing that the American people won't tolerate Democratic obstruction to a Republican nominee. This man is completely ridiculous and takes partisanship to an all new level, like when he argued his main priority would be preventing Obama from obtaining a second term as President, rather than working for the interests of Americans.

Personally, I want Democrats to obstruct. It may not be the smartest politics, but what's fair is fair. The Republicans can do it constantly with no punishments, either legally or politically, so why can't Democrats? Perhaps we should wait until 2018 to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court, this way Americans can have a say on what they think of the Trump Administration first. I say it's time to filibuster and see what the hypocrite Mitch McConnell thinks of that.

[dead0man]

Obviously it depends on who it is and who wins the PR battle over that person.

[JA]

Obviously it depends on who it is and who wins the PR battle over that person.

I know it will sound partisan and petty, but did that stop Republicans from obstructing Obama's SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland? Garland was a very moderate nominee, yet they didn't care one bit.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes. Confirm no one. The liar McConnell had the audacity to say that it was impossible to get more liberal than Garland (lol), so Democrats should have no problem portraying anyone nominated by Trump as a far right lunatic. Of course, this would only happen in a universe where Democrats were actual opposition, instead of being led by sociopathic corporate scum like Trump's friend Schumer.

[dead0man]

Obviously it depends on who it is and who wins the PR battle over that person.

I know it will sound partisan and petty, but did that stop Republicans from obstructing Obama's SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland? Garland was a very moderate nominee, yet they didn't care one bit.

Well, if it's a good pick and the American people aren't sold by PR pushing against the pick then you guys would be stupid to die on that hill.  Lucky for you it will probably be a sh**tty pick.

[Sir Mohamed]

LOL at Mitch, the old turtle. Democrats should only support a moderate. Since the Trumpster won’t nominate one, yes. The court should be as non-partisan as possible.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unless a nutjob is nominated, McConnell is exactly right.

[Torie]

Unless a nutjob is nominated, McConnell is exactly right.

The Dem team had better be sure that they have the votes (as in a least 3 Pub Senators, plus however more they need to make up for Dem defections (e.g. perhaps Manchin, and perhaps other red state Dem Senators up for re-election in 2018)), to get 51 votes to thwart the nuclear option, killing off the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. If they don't, then their tactics will just take them out of the game entirely, on a more permanent basis.

Myself, I think this is mostly Dem bluster to please the base and for fund raising purposes, because they know what the end game is likely to be if the Pubs have a majority vote for the nominee, but not 60 votes.

[MT Treasurer]

If you want to obstruct and make 2018 a referendum on Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees, be my guest. This should help the GOP in ND, WV, MT, IN, MO, etc. and could make 2002 look like a Democratic wave year.

[BoAtlantis]

Dems should yield and let the GOP work their way out because it will only give GOP more arsenal to portray Dems as the party of obstruction. It will only hurt us more in 2018 when we are already going to lose a lot of seats.

[Deblano]

Democrats shouldn't obstruct for the sake of obstructing if the choice is mainstream (two wrongs don't make a right), but Senator Yurtle the Turtle is a flipping hypocrite and I truly wish that he would retire.

[Cashew]

Yes, do it, hopefully this will be enough to make Mccain, Graham, support the nuclear option.

[OneJ]

I guess the GOP didn't block Obama's picks. /s

[Heisenberg]

Yes, but not if they're mainstream (sane).

Trump can pick a good conservative judge to replace Scalia, it won't alter the balance too much. I am strongly opposed to a Cruz or Mike Lee nomination, they would clearly be partisan activists.

This is different, now that the people have spoken and gave Trump an EC majority. Democrat's can't use the election year as an excuse like McConnell. Also, extreme obstructionism as a minority in both Houses likely won't play well.

[krazen1211]

He is correct.


If and when Chuckie gets nuked into oblivion with nominee 1, what are they gonna do with nominees 2, 3, and 4, and more? Hehehehe.

[Fusionmunster]

If you want to obstruct and make 2018 a referendum on Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees, be my guest. This should help the GOP in ND, WV, MT, IN, MO, etc. and could make 2002 look like a Democratic wave year.

If it didn't hurt Republicans, I'm not sure it would hurt Democrats all that much. They should just get on with it though.

Still weird though seeing you go from one of the more objective members of this forum to full R-tilt in 2 short months.

[Virginiá]

If you want to obstruct and make 2018 a referendum on Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees, be my guest. This should help the GOP in ND, WV, MT, IN, MO, etc. and could make 2002 look like a Democratic wave year.

You are so liberal with your incumbent GOP president midterm wave year prospects. Most people don't care about it that much, and the ones that do on the GOP side are already voting for them regardless. If they pass a botched "repeal and replace" plan that results in millions losing their health insurance, anger from the fallout is going to override things like the USSC.

But, either way, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Mitch finds the votes to gut the scotus filibuster if Democrats try this - even if just by a hair.

[Person Man]

If you want to obstruct and make 2018 a referendum on Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees, be my guest. This should help the GOP in ND, WV, MT, IN, MO, etc. and could make 2002 look like a Democratic wave year.

If it didn't hurt Republicans, I'm not sure it would hurt Democrats all that much. They should just get on with it though.

Still weird though seeing you go from one of the more objective members of this forum to full R-tilt in 2 short months.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can't make this sh*t up.

[Confused Democrat]

If you want to obstruct and make 2018 a referendum on Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees, be my guest. This should help the GOP in ND, WV, MT, IN, MO, etc. and could make 2002 look like a Democratic wave year.

You are so liberal with your incumbent GOP president midterm wave year prospects. Most people don't care about it that much, and the ones that do on the GOP side are already voting for them regardless. If they pass a botched "repeal and replace" plan that results in millions losing their health insurance, anger from the fallout is going to override things like the USSC.

But, either way, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Mitch finds the votes to gut the scotus filibuster if Democrats try this - even if just by a hair.

Do you believe that gutting the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees will be an overall positive change for the Senate in the longterm?

[EnglishPete]

Obviously it depends on who it is and who wins the PR battle over that person.

I know it will sound partisan and petty, but did that stop Republicans from obstructing Obama's SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland? Garland was a very moderate nominee, yet they didn't care one bit.

Both of Obama's Supreme Court appointments were made in the years the Democrats had a majority in the Senate. Both of Bush's within the four years the Republicans controlled the Senate. Both of Bill Clinton's in the first two years when the Dems controlled the Senate.

The last time a Supreme Court justice was appointed when one party had a majority in the Senate and the other had the Presidency was Clarence Thomas a quarter of a century ago and that was extremely contentious. Given that ideological division between the two parties has increased since then and given some of the things said over not just the last year but the last 10 years it seems likely that such an appointment will never happen again.

[Nym90]

Well yeah, as we all know, any party that attempts to block the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice suffers bigly at the ballot box. That was clearly in evidence in 2016.

[Virginiá]

Given that ideological division between the two parties has increased since then and given some of the things said over not just the last year but the last 10 years it seems likely that such an appointment will never happen again.

Maybe you are right. The constant evolution of tactics into a "do whatever it takes as long as I get what I want" strategy is basically ensuring such a situation.

It's a shame, really. Judicial nominations didn't used to be such a contentious issue. It was more or less understood that the president, whoever he was, had wide latitude to staff the judiciary. This worked out even with a generations-long Democratic Senate under numerous Republican presidents. Now it's just become another branch of govt for the parties to battle for control over. The last thing this country needs is for the courts to be politicized to this level in the eyes of Americans. Both parties would do well to respect the fact that if they lose the White House, the winner gets some discretion to fill the judiciary without petty blockades. With that, the president should also respect that if their party doesn't control the Senate, they should avoid trying to install judges that tilt too far towards one side of the ideological spectrum and thus invite resistance. I do believe Obama fulfilled that this time, but we all know Mitch values power over anything else.

[Shadows]

2016 proved the obstructing SC is no big deal - And look @ when GOP brought the government to a shutdown, didn't seem to affect them in the mid-term.

I think Dems should continue to oppose unless they are sure the SC nominee will support abortion, gay marriage, etc - I don't think GOP will ever nominate someone who will overturn CU, for that we have to wait for a Dem president.

The SC should be one of the least important thing  - Hold Trump accountable to not cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Infra Investment, NAFTA re-negotiation. Trump will fail in each of his campaign promises.

The chances of Trump failing his campaign promises is very VERY high & Dems should try to get the spotlight on that - We know what happens when Trump is under the spotlight, he will give some stupid reaction which will only help.

[EnglishPete]

Politico is saying that a source told them that the shortlist for Trump's nominee at the moment is

Diane Sykes (7th Circuit)
William Prior (11th Circuit)
Thomas Harriman (3rd Circuit)
Raymond Kethledge (6th Circuit)
Steve Colloton (8th Circuit)
Neil Gorsuch (10th Circuit)
Raymond Gruender (8th Circuit)
Joan Larson (Michigan Supreme Court)

What are people's views on how 'mainstream' these people are?