Dems announce plans to filibuster Gorsuch

[Jorge Luis Borges]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/23/schumer-says-dems-will-filibuster-gorsuch/

1. What do you think will happen? Anyone want to make predictions how this will play out? Anyone thinks the Republicans go nuclear here and change the Senate rules to suspend the filibuster?

2. What do you think should happen? How do you want Supreme Court battles to play out over the next four to eight years? There will likely be some seats coming open soon, including the one held by the Notorious RBG.

Spoiler

3. Any dream picks for a possible second Trump nominee or for an alternate if the Dems succeed in axing the Gorsuch nomination? Libertarians make good justices imo, so I wouldn't mind seeing Randy Barnett. Hell, I wouldn't even mind seeing Glenn Reynolds.

 

[oldshadow]

They need of look "good" for their side. Which is their right.

The Republicans control and will do what needs doing to get it done as long as it's legal.

The Supreme Court is one of the reasons people voted Republican.

 

[Teppodama]

Rain "nuclear" destruction down on the political process and start spamming RBG with Trump speedo pics till she pops a vein then replace her chair too.

Actually, I think the speedo pics would be more extreme than the nuclear option so maybe that should be held back as an option of last resort. Somethings you can't recover from and some things can't be unseen.

 

[HomerThompson]

Good. The modern Republican Party is as dishonest and disgusting as it gets. Garland should have been sitting on the bench for 6-8 months already. They stole this pick and would be keeping Clinton's nominee from a vote if she had won.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If the Dems think this will get Garland appointed then that's pretty dumb. So what are they looking to accomplish? Keep the position vacant for over four years and hope they win the Presidency? Have they suggested a 3rd candidate who would be agreeable?

 

[Mr Holmes]

Didnt Democrats change something with filibustering to get Obama's nominees across? I'm not sure if I remember correctly.

 

[ShoelessRye]

I think there is enough Dem votes there actually - Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, King, Tester is five Dems and there is a few good government types like Bennet (who is also from Colorado so extra pressure there), Coons, Warner.

But if they do filibuster, McConnell will nuke the filibuster which is what I think the Dems want here - have him be the one that does it. Dems absolutely shouldn't reward McConnell and the GOP for stealing the seat. They want it - they can nuke the filibuster. And they need 50 senators to do it. That could be tougher to get than one might think because there would be no going back and a number of GOP senators have been in the minority before and know it's the only power they have. Not to mention enough will see Trump as a huge trainwreck and could see a real possibility he loses in 2020. If there wasn't a filibuster for Obama Presidency you'd have Justice Goodwin Liu and Justice Pam Karlan right now - and the older school GOP Senators understand that.

More than likely there will be a gang of x created whereby the Dems will provide 6 votes now, but the six GOP involved (who would need to have at least 4 years remaining on their current term) would have to pledge not to vote to nuke filibuster so that Dems could block a RBG replacement.

Also Ruth Bader Ginsberg is so bloody selfish. She has personal benchmarks she wanted to pass for longevity and now poses a real risk that she is replaced by Trump. She could have retired in 2014 and been replaced by a 50 yr old Obama nominee. I loath the woman. 2-3x cancer survivor, and one time I think it was the dreaded Pancreatic - and she selfishly stays on.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Didnt Democrats change something with filibustering to get Obama's nominees across? I'm not sure if I remember correctly.

I believe that was just cabinet appointments, but could be lower court judges as well, however never did it for SCOTUS.

 

[Rod1]

Hardiman looked decent enough.

Why pick a religious judge to please the evangelical base? evangelicals are not going to leave Trump if he supports a non-religious republican judge.

 

[Jim Cozad Jr.]

#Sad...

It has looked like the GOP would have to go nuclear from the beginning...dems aren't going to be ok with any Trump nominee, so it's pointless to try to compromise with another nominee...

 

[Sir Galahad]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/23/schumer-says-dems-will-filibuster-gorsuch/

1. What do you think will happen? Anyone want to make predictions how this will play out? Anyone thinks the Republicans go nuclear here and change the Senate rules to suspend the filibuster?

2. What do you think should happen? How do you want Supreme Court battles to play out over the next four to eight years? There will likely be some seats coming open soon, including the one held by the Notorious RBG.

Spoiler

3. Any dream picks for a possible second Trump nominee or for an alternate if the Dems succeed in axing the Gorsuch nomination? Libertarians make good justices imo, so I wouldn't mind seeing Randy Barnett. Hell, I wouldn't even mind seeing Glenn Reynolds.

 

[Dr J]

Good. The modern Republican Party is as dishonest and disgusting as it gets. Garland should have been sitting on the bench for 6-8 months already. They stole this pick and would be keeping Clinton's nominee from a vote if she had won.

I think you're wrong on this one. Holding things up again with Hillary in office for 4 years would guarantee lost seats. They'd more than likely vote "no" on anyone they felt was too extreme in order to get through a moderate.

That, or roll over like they usually do.

 

[HomerThompson]

I think you're wrong on this one. Holding things up again with Hillary in office for 4 years would guarantee lost seats. They'd more than likely vote "no" on anyone they felt was too extreme in order to get through a moderate.

That, or roll over like they usually do.

I don't know anymore. I greatly underestimated the stupidity of the American voter, despite already having a low opinion of them.

 

[Rational Poster]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/23/schumer-says-dems-will-filibuster-gorsuch/

1. What do you think will happen? Anyone want to make predictions how this will play out? Anyone thinks the Republicans go nuclear here and change the Senate rules to suspend the filibuster?

2. What do you think should happen? How do you want Supreme Court battles to play out over the next four to eight years? There will likely be some seats coming open soon, including the one held by the Notorious RBG.

Spoiler

3. Any dream picks for a possible second Trump nominee or for an alternate if the Dems succeed in axing the Gorsuch nomination? Libertarians make good justices imo, so I wouldn't mind seeing Randy Barnett. Hell, I wouldn't even mind seeing Glenn Reynolds.

Whatever the Dems can do to make this a massive pain in the ass I fully support.

This appointment and many others have been stolen by the Republicans.

They've made a mockery of our system.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Didnt Democrats change something with filibustering to get Obama's nominees across? I'm not sure if I remember correctly.

Yes, Harry Reid, the then Senate majority leader exercised what is largely called the nuclear option. He changed the Senate rules so that several Obama judicial appointees needed only a majority vote rather than 60 votes. If the Republicans do the same her they can easily confirm Gorsuch without Dem interference.

So the Republicans doing the same would be justified in their own eyes. But between Reid and now this, it would strip Senate minority parties of a lot of leverage, which both parties will have the chance to regret.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I don't know anymore. I greatly underestimated the stupidity of the American voter, despite already having a low opinion of them.

I think the low opinion may have been in part a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of folks won't vote for those who look down on them.

 

[HomerThompson]

I think the low opinion may have been in part a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of folks won't vote for those who look down on them.

Trump clearly looks down on the common man though. His policies show that in spades. People vote against their own interests all the time because of highly effective narratives peddled from both sides of the aisle.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Trump clearly looks down on the common man though. His policies show that in spades. People vote against their own interests all the time because of highly effective narratives peddled from both sides of the aisle.

A lot of common men would seem to disagree. I can't argue with both sides peddling highly effective and self-serving narratives though. The first step in becoming politically active is realizing the other side is full of shit. The second step is realizing that your side is too.

 

[HomerThompson]

A lot of common men would seem to disagree. I can't argue with both sides peddling highly effective and self-serving narratives though. The first step in becoming politically active is realizing the other side is full of shit. The second step is realizing that your side is too.

I know they do, that's where the underestimating the stupidity comes in. His policies will be a disaster for anyone making less than $100K annually. Agreed on the second part.

 

[ripskater]

The Democrats want a Marxist leftist judge. Trump ain't gonna give them that.