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

[SCNCmod]

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?)

[Blackacre]

Probably. They have 48 to work with, meaning they can survive 7 defections and still succeed. So even if Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Tester, and McCaskill, the five romney state dems, defect, they should be alright.

[pbrower2a]

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.

[Cashew]

Yes. I am sure that McCaskill will be part of the filibuster, and Coons will fall back in line if he is the deciding vote. Manchin obviously not. Not sure about the other three Romney state Dems though.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Probably. They have 48 to work with, meaning they can survive 7 defections and still succeed. So even if Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Tester, and McCaskill, the five romney state dems, defect, they should be alright.

The Democrats also need to worry about people like Mark Warner and Bob Casey in this vote.

[ApatheticAustrian]

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.

gorsuch is bad for dems but he wouldn't chance the power structure.....if, like rumors go, kennedy retires, that's a totally different animal and no one in fact could hold it against democrats to fight such a power grab with teeth and claws, if republicans try to push through a ted-cruzian-candidate. (this comparison was better when ted cruz was thought of to be in posession of a spine.)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably. They have 48 to work with, meaning they can survive 7 defections and still succeed. So even if Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Tester, and McCaskill, the five romney state dems, defect, they should be alright.

The Democrats also need to worry about people like Mark Warner and Bob Casey in this vote.

Maybe Warner will oppose it, but I'm pretty sure Casey will be a reliable vote for a filibuster.  I also strongly suspect McCaskill will end up supporting a filibuster (certainly if she's the deciding vote).  Coons will tow the line too if we need him.

[Confused Democrat]

We can afford 7 defectors, so yes.

I'm expecting McConnell to go nuclear, but he seems to be wavering when he gets questioned about getting rid of the filibuster.

[Cashew]

Probably. They have 48 to work with, meaning they can survive 7 defections and still succeed. So even if Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Tester, and McCaskill, the five romney state dems, defect, they should be alright.

The Democrats also need to worry about people like Mark Warner and Bob Casey in this vote.

Like the republicans needed to worry about Murkowski and Collins blocking Devos in the committee?

They will hold the party line when it really matters and be allowed to vote for Gorsuch after the filibuster is nuked.

[ApatheticAustrian]

truth:

no one effing cares about SC picks and voting patterns, especially not midterm voters.

as if democrats would lose any votes, if they (meaningless) obstruct a SC pick. much too tribalized country for that.

[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.

[SCNCmod]

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.

[ApatheticAustrian]

You can thank Dirty Harry for that.

nothing at all to rue.

i hope mcconnell is killing the rest of the filibuster so that we are finally liberated from that anachronism.

it was soon clear that the only option for democrats to ever again achieve anything against such a tribalized GOP was either an absolutely majority in both houses and the WH (not very likely) or to do away with the filibuster and let the GOP do their thing...and THEN also force the republicans take the back seat next time.

[The_Doctor]

The end result is the filibuster is going to be killed for legislation and judicial nomination, obviously. At some point, the senate is going to become a far more majoritarian institution.

The filibuster, by the way, is probably the only thing stopping the next Democratic President from passing a quite progressive agenda, so the Democrats should kill the filibuster. 51 Democrats and an increasingly liberal House Democratic majority can pass quite a lot in 2025.

(And liberal legislation, people, is far harder to kill than conservative legislation).

[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?
 

[The_Doctor]

I don't think the Court is going to remain conservative if the country doesn't remain conservative. Precisely because the country has been fairly center-right, the Court has felt the liberty to go towards the conservative direction. So, waving Justice Ted Cruz at the liberals isn't going to scare them, if the country continues moving towards the left. Your premise that the Court remains conservative is predicated on the premise that the nation remains conservative as a whole.

Examples abound. Gay marriage becoming popular forced the Court to renounce Bowers v. Hardwick and earlier rulings upholding a gay marriage ban. Roberts avoided embroiling the Court over ObamaCare by finding a unique legal doctrine to uphold the law. Famously, the archconservative Court in the 1930s swung to the New Deal to avoid losing legitimacy.

What makes you think the Court of 2025 will say, overturn gay rights? Or if there is a populist movement against Citizens United, embodied by say, a large Democratic victory in 2024, why wouldn't the Court emulate public opinion?

Both sides keep looking to replace justices...instead of courting public opinion, which is what a lot of the justices and the judiciary look to in order to inform their rulings. If the public shifts, so will the Court.

[ApatheticAustrian]

the court is not in synch with the general public...and to a lesser extent, the EC makes sure, the senate and the presidency also aren't.

[The_Doctor]

the court is not in synch with the general public...and to a lesser extent, the EC makes sure, the senate and the presidency also aren't.

This isn't necessarily true. For example, since 1980, generally, a conservative coalition has ruled the United States with periodic breaks or stymied the left (Clinton 1993-1994, Obama 2009-2011). As a consequence, our Courts have become more conservative, as they notice public opinion. Likewise, the Warren Court was more liberal, because that era saw more liberal majorities and dominance.

The Senate and electoral college can distort a bit ... but they don't overturn popular will. In fact, the Senate tends to closely track the party in the White House. If you look at every election since 2000, the Senate majority has usually gone with the White House. (2000 was a tie, 2004 Republican, 2008 Democratic, 2012 Democratic, 2016 Republican). The swings tend to emulate the country as a whole. 

I tend to believe our government goes in general sync with the way the country has gone. I believe certainly we're in a Reagan-conservative dominated coalition so our government represents that model.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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?
 

I trust the Republicans not to force through another far right-wing nutjob if Ginsberg dies (and it won't be Cruz, obviously) about as much as I'd trust Hitler not to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia after the Munich appeasement.  

Furthermore, Gorsuch is a right-wing extremist and if he is (as you put it) "a Scalia clone" then he's a shameless activist judge who will function as a political hack who likes to dress-up in black robes if confirmed.  And this all beside the point as anyone other than Garland is completely unacceptable.  I suspect there will be a leak of nine or ten spineless Democrats who are planning to oppose a filibuster at some point, but ultimately just enough will be forced due to constituent pressure to grow a pair and support a filibuster.

[Shadows]

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?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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?

Why?  What's to stop McConnell from simply using the nuclear option if Ginsberg dies regardless of what the Democrats do?  And what about the disgusting behavior by congressional Republicans could possibly make one think they wouldn't use it?  

[Person Man]

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?

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?

Why?  What's to stop McConnell from simply using the nuclear option if Ginsberg dies regardless of what the Democrats do?  And what about the disgusting behavior by congressional Republicans could possibly make one think they wouldn't use it? 

How long would go nuclear even take? I guess if we wait until 2020, we are basically putting EVERYTHING on the ballot and making 2020 our last stand.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Getting 41 to vote against Gorsuch should be easy. Getting 41 to vote against cloture is not as certain. For the filibuster to be more than a speed bump until the nuclear option is invoked will require Democratic opposition to be based on more than politics, and I don't see that at the moment.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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?

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?

Why?  What's to stop McConnell from simply using the nuclear option if Ginsberg dies regardless of what the Democrats do?  And what about the disgusting behavior by congressional Republicans could possibly make one think they wouldn't use it? 

How long would go nuclear even take? I guess if we wait until 2020, we are basically putting EVERYTHING on the ballot and making 2020 our last stand.

That's all well and good in 2020, but it's 2017 and we need fight this year's important battles right now, not unconditionally surrender because we hope maybe something good might - depending on how a bunch of known unknowns *and* unknown unknowns go - happen in a few years.

[ApatheticAustrian]

this whole thing btw reminds me that all of that would have never happened, if the consensus of the bush years would have continuted.

bush in fact made recess appointment for open seats...the republicans "solved" this problem through never officially going into recess.

republicans blamed democrats for "court packing"...when they in fact just stopped making compromises and stopped the filling of important position as a whole.

if one party is in power and the other one doesn't want to compromise because it can't anymore....either the party in power surrenders or something breaks.

if you are not able to "move" you are going to break and this brings us to this lovely new situation where the rest of the precious china must also be broken to adapt to the new reality.

#nothingstopsthistrain