Judge Gorsuch - should the Dems oppose him?

drummerboy said:
Of course they should. We should have an 8 member court for the next 4 years.

On what basis, other than partisan politics, and with what resources?

On what basis does it make sense to let the Republicans get away with their refusal to consider Garland? What is possibly in it for the Democrats?

The resources are the filibuster - as long as the Republicans allow it to remain.

drummerboy said:

On what basis does it make sense to let the Republicans get away with their refusal to consider Garland? What is possibly in it for the Democrats?


The resources are the filibuster - as long as the Republicans allow it to remain.

In other words, there are no resources because the Senate can remove the filibuster option.

well, be that as it may. Fine - force a nuclear confrontation over rules.The Dems can't stand cowering in the corner anymore.

They should not and must not give any support to the Trump presidency. It's a risk that could very well pay off electorally in 2018.

What is the upside to supporting him? I see none.

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

On what basis does it make sense to let the Republicans get away with their refusal to consider Garland? What is possibly in it for the Democrats?


The resources are the filibuster - as long as the Republicans allow it to remain.

In other words, there are no resources because the Senate can remove the filibuster option.

The Republicans know that they aren't likely to be in the majority forever, so I don't expect them to eliminate the Filibuster. They might change the filibuster rules to make it harder though. I would like to see it be more the way it used to be actually - where the member had to actually keep talking, etc.

One hesitation I have about filibustering Gorsuch is that the next Democratic president could very well be a Senator now.

Is it Warren? Booker? Sanders? Gillibrand?

The next president is unknown, but who would be surprised if it turned out to be one of the above Senators?

Anyway, assume we have President Booker in 2021.

If the filibuster still exists in 2021, the Republicans will have even less reluctance to filibuster his nominees if Booker had filibustered Gorsuch.

drummerboy said:

well, be that as it may. Fine - force a nuclear confrontation over rules.The Dems can't stand cowering in the corner anymore.

They should not and must not give any support to the Trump presidency. It's a risk that could very well pay off electorally in 2018.

What is the upside to supporting him? I see none.

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

On what basis does it make sense to let the Republicans get away with their refusal to consider Garland? What is possibly in it for the Democrats?


The resources are the filibuster - as long as the Republicans allow it to remain.

In other words, there are no resources because the Senate can remove the filibuster option.

I get the tit for tat. But you are likely not going to have an 8 seat court for the next 4 years. With Ginsburg 83, Kennedy 80 and Breyer 78 you could well have a 5 Justice court in 4 years is every thing gets blocked. And what after that if no party has 60 Senators? How long before we have Supreme Court with no Justices.

I don't see a good argument for supporting him. I read that the democrats were worried about the filibuster rule change, and how it would affect their efforts to block the next justice after this one, but I can't see the logic. If the rule isn't changed now it will surely be then.

I agree with the idea of opposing him. Opposition to everything worked for them. Let's try it.

the filibuster will disappear long before that.

ska said:

I get the tit for tat. But you are likely not going to have an 8 seat court for the next 4 years. With Ginsburg 83, Kennedy 80 and Breyer 78 you could well have a 5 Justice court in 4 years is every thing gets blocked. And what after that if no party has 60 Senators? How long before we have Supreme Court with no Justices.

I would love to see the filibuster disappear. But despite frequent reports that it is on its death bed, it has prevailed a long time. Because the party in power knows that it will always eventually be back in the minority.

FilmCarp said:

I don't see a good argument for supporting him. I read that the democrats were worried about the filibuster rule change, and how it would affect their efforts to block the next justice after this one, but I can't see the logic. If the rule isn't changed now it will surely be then.

I agree with the idea of opposing him. Opposition to everything worked for them. Let's try it.

Read this. Noah Feldman says Gorsuch is no ideologue and could become more liberal like Kennedy has.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-01/neil-gorsuch-elite-conservative-for-supreme-court

Gorsuch's qualifications or leanings have nothing to do with it. The real nominee should be Garland.

And anyone who thinks corporations have religious rights has a long way to go to become "more liberal".

Runner_Guy said:

FilmCarp said:

I don't see a good argument for supporting him. I read that the democrats were worried about the filibuster rule change, and how it would affect their efforts to block the next justice after this one, but I can't see the logic. If the rule isn't changed now it will surely be then.

I agree with the idea of opposing him. Opposition to everything worked for them. Let's try it.

Read this. Noah Feldman says Gorsuch is no ideologue and could become more liberal like Kennedy has.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-01/neil-gorsuch-elite-conservative-for-supreme-court

I read it. Sounds like he is a smart guy. I also read that he spoke highly of Garland, who is also a smart guy. But the right blocked him because of political ideology and pure resistance. The big question is can he be blocked. If in the end he cannot be blocked, then I would not stand in his way too much. But if he can be successfully stopped I might do it.

Runner_Guy said:

FilmCarp said:

I don't see a good argument for supporting him. I read that the democrats were worried about the filibuster rule change, and how it would affect their efforts to block the next justice after this one, but I can't see the logic. If the rule isn't changed now it will surely be then.

I agree with the idea of opposing him. Opposition to everything worked for them. Let's try it.

Read this. Noah Feldman says Gorsuch is no ideologue and could become more liberal like Kennedy has.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-01/neil-gorsuch-elite-conservative-for-supreme-court

I read it. Sounds like he is a smart guy. I also read that he spoke highly of Garland, who is also a smart guy. But the right blocked him because of political ideology and pure resistance. The big question is can he be blocked. If in the end he cannot be blocked, then I would not stand in his way too much. But if he can be successfully stopped I might do it.

THIS

Garland is stuck in limbo due to the Right's inability to put party second and country first. It's a damn shame.

drummerboy said:

Gorsuch's qualifications or leanings have nothing to do with it. The real nominee should be Garland.

And anyone who thinks corporations have religious rights has a long way to go to become "more liberal".

He has supported religious freedom. He is a hypocrite. He says that a private company does not have to provide contraception because of religious beliefs but then says that a person cannot end her own life, infringing on a person's most private domain - the choice to end her life. I bet his religious freedom would also infringe on a woman's right to control her own body. Where does this respecting religious freedom get him if it clashes with another comstitutional principle?

Michael Moore's view:

So, Michael Moore's strategy is to round up the survivors of a total defeat on send them on a banzai charge. He does understand that the Dem Senators can posture all they want but cannot affect the outcome, doesn't he?

paulsurovell said:

Michael Moore's view:

The Republicans did show today that they are willing to change rules to overcome obstacles.

db says: "Gorsuch's qualifications or leanings have nothing to do with it."

Really, we can't have even one party that considers the merits (and sets an example of considering the merits), then votes accordingly?

If the Democrats aren't willing to stand up to Republicans on their SCOTUS pick, what will they be willing to stand for? This decision alone will have decades' long implications. The Republicans would never stand for this, and they didn't.

my point is that Trump needs to be opposed ON EVERYTHING.

And the Gorsuch nomination, in the wake of the Garland fiasco, demands nothing but total obstruction.

I'm not sure what party you think is going to set an example. Are you saying the Dems should take the high road and pretend this is juts a normal nomination? And by taking the high road, the Republicans will somehow be impressed by our integrity?

I'm not sure what you expect to happen if the Dems cooperate. All I see if that happens is the Dems getting weaker and weaker.

mjc said:

db says: "Gorsuch's qualifications or leanings have nothing to do with it."

Really, we can't have even one party that considers the merits (and sets an example of considering the merits), then votes accordingly?

Can some of the Democratic hardliners explain to me the value of a banzai charge at this point. Ya'll do understand that the Democratic Party has 0 political power right now, don't you?

Ok. We'll cower in the corner and say thank you sir, may I have another.

tjohn said:

Can some of the Democratic hardliners explain to me the value of a banzai charge at this point. Ya'll do understand that the Democratic Party has 0 political power right now, don't you?

I seem to be missing something. Majority Leader McConnell said the Senate should not consider Obama's nomination of Garland so close to the election because "the people" should be given the opportunity to weigh in on the subject.

The people did. They voted for Hillary Clinton by a margin of 3 million votes. Why doesn't Hillary get to pick the next Justice?

http://www.ginandtacos.com/2017/02/01/charlie-brown-and-the-football/

CHARLIE BROWN AND THE FOOTBALL

Watching someone make the same mistake over and over again is
difficult. First, you're alarmed. Then you pity them. Then you get
angry. And finally, you grow to hate them. People proceed through these
stages at different speeds. Really compassionate people linger in the
first two stages for a long time. Most people get to the latter stages
pretty rapidly.

The first time a family member comes to you and says, "I blew every
penny I have on (let's say, Beanie Babies, just to keep it from getting
too real)," it's natural to think, "Gosh, he really needs my help! How
awful!" So you lend him money. Then he comes back a second time and
think, hmm, that's odd. The third time, and the fourth time, and the
fifth time, it begins to sink in that no matter how much you try to
help, this problem will recur because the poor guy has a problem he
can't beat. "Poor guy" is what you're still calling him at this point,
anyway. So the next few times you give him the money, but without any
expectation that 1) he will repay it, or 2) he will not return shortly
asking again. This is pure pity. Eventually "poor guy" transitions to
"idiot" or worse. You've sympathized with the fact that he has a
problem, but what is he doing about it? Is he even trying to fix it or
does he plan to let Beanie Babies ruin his life forever? The
conversations get increasingly testy now; you still help him, but with
stern lectures that, honestly, this is the last. time. and you
better straighten up. When this runs its course, you stop taking his
calls. You hate him for being weak, even though you know that's cruel
and, on some level, wrong. You hate him for ruining his own life and
trying to pull you down with him. You hate him for lying – to you and to
himself – about trying to fix the problem. The part of you that feels
badly for him is subsumed by the part that can't believe what kind of
f'n moron would make the same mistake so many times.

Some of you read that and think, "No, my compassion is without
limits." You're wrong. You, like me, are just lucky enough not to have
experienced this first-hand to discover what that limit is.

At this point, I don't see how anyone is still in the shock or pity
phase with the 2000s-era Democratic Party in Congress. It is impossible –
or is possible for people who are of kinder heart than I – to do
anything but hate them for their weakness. The way they make the same
predictable mistakes over and over, the way the congressional
Republicans openly bully them, and then mock them for rolling over every
single time, was sad for a couple years. Maybe back during the W Bush
era. Maybe it was still kind of pitiable to watch them all bow to
hyperjingoism and decide to trust W on the Iraq War, even though anyone
with half a brain – which includes most of them – knew that was going to
go over like a lead balloon. But now it is long past being a sad sight.
At this point, they know better. They've been through this process of
getting boned dozens upon dozens of times. They "play nice" and act real
Bipartisan-y and the GOP smiles and laughs and can't believe its luck,
and then when the tables are turned the GOP response to literally
everything is a middle finger extended in the face. There is no reason
to expect it to turn out differently, ever. The sample size is large
enough after nearly 20 years of this to conclude with confidence that,
no, they have no interest in doing anything but using every last
available tactic – hook or crook – to prevent a Democratic president or
chamber majority from being able to get anything it wants.

They don't budge, ever. They are never going to. Had Hillary Clinton
won, they would have refused to vote on her Supreme Court nominee
indefinitely. For years, if necessary. Because that's how they operate,
and anyone who does not understand that by now is not sad or pitiable.
Anyone who does not get it by now is contemptible. Watch Lucy yank the
football away from Charlie Brown once and it might seem funny. Then it's
sad. Then you can't feel anything because you're too busy wondering why
in god's name he keeps doing it over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Trump and his cronies have picked a fight with everyone. They are employing scorched earth politics that will make the last eight years between Obama and the Republicans look like afternoon tea.

Democrats should oppose everything Trump does.

drummerboy said:

Ok. We'll cower in the corner and say thank you sir, may I have another.

tjohn said:

Can some of the Democratic hardliners explain to me the value of a banzai charge at this point. Ya'll do understand that the Democratic Party has 0 political power right now, don't you?

drummerboy said:

Ok. We'll cower in the corner and say thank you sir, may I have another.

tjohn said:

Can some of the Democratic hardliners explain to me the value of a banzai charge at this point. Ya'll do understand that the Democratic Party has 0 political power right now, don't you?

So, if the Dems engage in maximum resistance, then what. What is the strategy? Losing every fight is not a strategy.

tjohn said:

So, if the Dems engage in maximum resistance, then what. What is the strategy? Losing every fight is not a strategy.

They should fight. Especially for SCOTUS. It's the seat to end all seats. Go on the record as having opposed this nominee. Sure they don't have the numbers but people will remember how you voted when it comes down to it in 2018, 2020. Hillary has never lived down voting for the war in Iraq. Booker is still the guy who voted against importing cheaper drugs from Canada and bowing to WallStreet. When this judge manages to gets Roe v Wade and the ACA overturned on which side do you as a Senator want your name to be listed? I the voter sure as hell won't forget. If they're going to lose anyway go down swinging. Frankly, I think if Democrats were a fraction as ruthless as Republicans they would still be in control of all houses, but I digress. We can't roll over and wait for 2020 for lack of numbers. We have to try. My 2 cents.