McConnell says Americans won't tolerate Democrats blocking SCOTUS nominations

[Bojack Horseman]

I say filibuster everybody and make them nuke the filibuster. I have a feeling they might not even get 51 votes, as they're not going to have the presidency/Senate forever.

Besides, the next two years are going to be such a disaster for Donald Trump and the Republicans that 2018 is going to make 2006 look mild in comparison.

[Torie]

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.

By "gut" do you mean rounding up 60 votes, or pressing the nuke button with 50 votes (I assume Pence can vote to break a tie here, but I am not sure on something that pertains solely to the internal Senate rules)?

[DrScholl]

He must not be too smart. You can't have a double standard on these things; They can't expect to block a court nomination under a Democratic President and then expect Democrats to play fair once a Republican is elected. It's either a consensus pick or no one at all. The court can survive with 8 or fewer justices until 2021 or later.

[pbrower2a]

Mainstream is the best that Democrats can hope for for the next four years.

It has always been the duty of the minority Party to obstruct the inappropriate nominees for the Supreme Court -- the cronies of the President, the grossly-incompetent, the corrupt, and the inexperienced.

But let's remember this -- the Republicans can get away with practically anything for the next four years.

[Tintrlvr]

I think the Garland episode showed that the public really doesn't have the attention span or wherewithal to care about Supreme Court battles at all.

[Virginiá]

By "gut" do you mean rounding up 60 votes, or pressing the nuke button with 50 votes (I assume Pence can vote to break a tie here, but I am not sure on something that pertains solely to the internal Senate rules)?

The nuclear option. When combined with Democrats, there are technically enough votes in the GOP Senate caucus in regards to upholding traditions like this, but this is a situation where it pits Senate tradition vs the ideological direction of the Supreme Court, which conservatives have been using to achieve their goals for years now. I'm not convinced that they will choose tradition over the USSC.

That being said, personally I wish Schumer would try and squeeze some circuit court picks Mitch blockaded under Obama out of Trump in return for no opposition to his SCOTUS pick. That seems like a wiser choice given the issue of the filibuster, but I guess politically it might not fly well with the base, which expects something that Democrats likely can't deliver.

[Torie]

By "gut" do you mean rounding up 60 votes, or pressing the nuke button with 50 votes (I assume Pence can vote to break a tie here, but I am not sure on something that pertains solely to the internal Senate rules)?

The nuclear option. When combined with Democrats, there are technically enough votes in the GOP Senate caucus in regards to upholding traditions like this, but this is a situation where it pits Senate tradition vs the ideological direction of the Supreme Court, which conservatives have been using to achieve their goals for years now. I'm not convinced that they will choose tradition over the USSC.

That being said, personally I wish Schumer would try and squeeze some circuit court picks Mitch blockaded under Obama out of Trump in return for no opposition to his SCOTUS pick. That seems like a wiser choice given the issue of the filibuster, but I guess politically it might not fly well with the base, which expects something that Democrats likely can't deliver.

Yeah, the Dems have a very weak hand here, so I think this is more about posturing to their base. The best they can do, is try to "kookify" whomever is nominated, or unearth something that makes the dude seem unfit, in hopes that might strip away a handful of Pub moderates (are there any Pub moderates left, except Collins and Murkowski?), and the Manchin type red state Dems, and deny the guy the nomination by denying he or she a majority vote.

Myself, if I were in the Senate, my modus operandi would be to grill the nominee and demand enough of his or her cards to be shown, to be persuaded that the person was not a block vote type on controversial cases. The block voting that for the tough cases holds pretty steady these days (the same 4 on one side, and the same 4 on the other, with Kennedy erratically just bouncing off this wall or that), I think is toxic to the rule of law, and has politicized the court to the point where I don't hold much respect for it. If one hewed to the law no matter where it went, ideology and policy preferences, would be far more marginalized than obtains now. For example, if on the court, even though I passionately believe in SSM, I would not have deemed the lack of it un-Constitutional. The "case" for that just isn't there in my opinion.

[BoAtlantis]

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?

Sykes and Prior probably will be heavy favorites because he needs to appeal to evangelicals. I wouldn't call those two mainstream.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The 2014 and 2016 elections proved that voters don't punish obstruction, and that nobody outside of the DC Think Tank Bubble cares about or even likes "bipartisanship" anymore, so I say go for it and obstruct away. And let's remember that before the election, Republicans were talking about not confirming any Clinton nominee leaving the seat vacant until a Republican president could fill it, so why shouldn't we play by their rules too? And at this point, what do we have to lose by blocking another Thomas Clone?

[The Other Castro]

Senate Democrats don't have the cojones to follow through on this.

[7,052,770]

Best case scenario: Ginsburg retires and Trump appoints Garland and a moderate Republican to fill the 2 seats.

Trump looks good, Dems look good, McConnell looks like an ass. Supreme Court balance doesn't change much.

[Shadows]

If I was Schumer I would demand Garland gets a hearing 1st because he was a legit nominee. There are many reasons to hold off - Painting as an extremist is one such thing.

Don't roll over - If you start rolling over you will forever be taken as granted, there is nothing left for hard bargaining - And that goes for life & relationship!

[Xing]

You mean like they didn't tolerate Republicans doing it? Oh wait...

I guess human stupidity isn't the only thing that's limitless. Add hypocrisy and inconsistency to the list.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Can Obama re-nominate Garland now that there's still a vacancy and the new Senate term has begun?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Democrats owe absolutely nothing to Trump or whoever his likely insane nominees will be.  Problem is there are enough cowards in the caucus to prevent any real obstruction, which the Republicans surely deserve.

I think the Garland episode showed that the public really doesn't have the attention span or wherewithal to care about Supreme Court battles at all.

Quite so.  Problem is that congressional Democrats are politically retarded.

[SATW]

I hope they are dumb enough to try. They'll cave.

[MT Treasurer]

Make no mistake, Trump's Supreme Court justice will be confirmed, either in 2017 or in 2019 (Republicans will eventually use the nuclear option). Democrats can try to delay the inevitable, but IMO it's a waste of time and will only hurt them even more in the coming years. if I were Chuck Schumer, I wouldn't want to make the Supreme Court an issue in 2018. Many people fail to realize what a crucial role the Supreme Court played in Trump's victory. If Scalia hadn't died last year, it is very possible and somewhat likely that Trump would have lost the election. I'm not saying that Trump should try to get someone like Mike Lee confirmed, a conservative, pro-life 'mainstream' candidate (whatever that means) would be just fine. (Then again, is there really such a thing as a "moderate" Supreme Court justice?)

I'm also not overconfident about Republican prospects in 2018 - I acknowledge that it won't be easy for the GOP to make significant gains in a midterm year with a Republican president in the White House. However, there would be nothing better for them than linking Joe Tester, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp to the obstructionist Chuck Schumer who is keeping the Supreme Court vacant. Democrats would be better off focusing on issues like healthcare, the economy, education and maybe foreign policy (only if Trump does something insane; just yelling 'Putin lover!' isn't going to do the job) in 2018 instead of giving Republicans ammunition by keeping the Supreme Court seat vacant.  

If Trump isn't able to get his justice confirmed within the next four years, I don't think the vacancy will ever be filled. The obstruction will just continue in the next Democratic presidency.  

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.

I think the Senate would have confirmed Garland this year had Clinton won, though.

And yeah, I have become more conservative/Republican over the course of the last years. There are basically three reasons why I wanted to see Rs win the election: I despise the Clintons (Honestly, I would have been fine with President Sanders, even though I don't agree with him on much), the Supreme Court is quite important to me (Unfortunately, it has way too much power) and foreign policy (I do believe that Trump is less hawkish than Clinton). If he does something insane like implementing a Bush-style foreign policy, I could easily see myself voting Green or Constitution in 2020, LOL.

I really believe that things would be much worse right now had a Republican like Jeb or Graham won. As crazy as it may sound, Trump was one of the better Republicans that ran in the primary.

[Shadows]

Merrick Garland was the legit nominee who deserved a hearing. The pick was Obama's not Trump's to make - You can't reward theft. When you become spineless you lost all respect & you are done. Besides swing states don't care about SC pick as much as they care about jobs, healthcare, etc.

Dems should demand Trump nominate Garland & have a hearing & for GOP to reject him 1st & then move on. And if Trump gets a ultra radical guy, there is no reason to dignify him. If Abortion & Gay marriage were an issue, the Dems would win on a referendum 9 out of 10 times.

Blocking the SC pick has nothing to do with not focusing on main issues - For one as I said, Dems will be focusing on more issues, why should they make SC a central issues - It is the GOP prerogative to get a pick, let them do it.

The Dem has Sanders, Warren, Ellison in the ground to build a ground base & movement rallying people against stupid policies of Trump. That would be the strategy. There is a reason Schumer is the Senate Leader, it is his job to slimy stuff like Mitch behind the scenes.

And I think in the end if GOP presents a reasonably moderate pick who isn't Thomas or Scalia, I think Dems would support - You can't block it forever. But if you start rolling over, you become a dog to the Republicans - People don't respect weakness!

[Mr. Smith]

Make no mistake, Trump's Supreme Court justice will be confirmed, either in 2017 or in 2019 (Republicans will eventually use the nuclear option). Democrats can try to delay the inevitable, but IMO it's a waste of time and will only hurt them even more in the coming years. if I were Chuck Schumer, I wouldn't want to make the Supreme Court an issue in 2018. Many people fail to realize what a crucial role the Supreme Court played in Trump's victory. If Scalia hadn't died last year, it is very possible and somewhat likely that Trump would have lost the election. I'm not saying that Trump should try to get someone like Mike Lee confirmed, a conservative, pro-life 'mainstream' candidate (whatever that means) would be just fine. (Then again, is there really such a thing as a "moderate" Supreme Court justice?)

I'm also not overconfident about Republican prospects in 2018 - I acknowledge that it won't be easy for the GOP to make significant gains in a midterm year with a Republican president in the White House. However, there would be nothing better for them than linking Joe Tester, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp to the obstructionist Chuck Schumer who is keeping the Supreme Court vacant. Democrats would be better off focusing on issues like healthcare, the economy, education and maybe foreign policy (only if Trump does something insane; just yelling 'Putin lover!' isn't going to do the job) in 2018 instead of giving Republicans ammunition by keeping the Supreme Court seat vacant.  

If Trump isn't able to get his justice confirmed within the next four years, I don't think the vacancy will ever be filled. The obstruction will just continue in the next Democratic presidency.  

Really, I didn't see Reid managing to link Richard Burr, Lisa Murkowski, or those other "blue/purple state" Republicans to Mitch McConnell's obstructionism in 2010 at all. A good leftist Tea Party should be able to do exactly the same thing and overshadow such things.

This makes me skeptical that such a thing could happen, and with people preferring to blame to the person on top anyway. If there were spine, it could be weaponised as a means to flip Congress and stop Trump.

This is also precisely why McConnell vowed to keep going on the obstruction should Clinton win, because he would use it as a weapon to win 2018.


Pity Congressional D's lack spine.

[Ban my account ffs!]

By "gut" do you mean rounding up 60 votes, or pressing the nuke button with 50 votes (I assume Pence can vote to break a tie here, but I am not sure on something that pertains solely to the internal Senate rules)?

The nuclear option. When combined with Democrats, there are technically enough votes in the GOP Senate caucus in regards to upholding traditions like this, but this is a situation where it pits Senate tradition vs the ideological direction of the Supreme Court, which conservatives have been using to achieve their goals for years now. I'm not convinced that they will choose tradition over the USSC.

That being said, personally I wish Schumer would try and squeeze some circuit court picks Mitch blockaded under Obama out of Trump in return for no opposition to his SCOTUS pick. That seems like a wiser choice given the issue of the filibuster, but I guess politically it might not fly well with the base, which expects something that Democrats likely can't deliver.

I've noticed a deafening silence where there used to be con-servative incessant whining and moaning about "legislating from the bench".

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I've never been convinced that swing or low turnout voters really care or vote based on the Supreme Court.

[Mr. Reactionary]

"You can't do this thing we did to you! You said it was bad then. Because partisanship."

"It was bad when YOU did it. It's justified when we do it. Because partisanship."

[krazen1211]

The GOP is going to go in dry on the American government...they will not negotiate and ram through a total right wing nutter using the nuclear option. Even if Murkowski and Collins vote against someone who is against Roe V Wade...that's still a 50-50 tie that Pence will break

Link

“I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore. And, it’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told 'em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again," Reid told TPM in a wide-ranging interview about his time in the Senate and his legacy.

"They mess with the Supreme Court, it'll be changed just like that in my opinion," Reid said, snapping his fingers together. “So I’ve set that up. I feel very comfortable with that.”

[pbrower2a]

Americans have no desire to acquiesce in the appointment and seating of extremist, corrupt, incompetent, or crony judges.