Democrats consider backing off big battle over Trump's Supreme Court pick

[dcbl]

The preservation of the filibuster - is it worth it to you?

Some dems & libs, one might actually argue the "reasonable ones"; are arguing to save political capital for the next SCOTUS nominee from Trump

Since replacing Scalia does not alter the makeup of the court. Harry Reid already went nuclear option with the cabinet and lower court appointees; can dems afford to risk losing the filibuster altogether?

Dems may back off big battle over Supreme Court pick - CNNPolitics.com

Senate Democrats are weighing whether to avoid an all-out war to block President Donald Trump's upcoming Supreme Court pick, instead considering delaying that battle for a future nomination that could shift the ideological balance of the court, sources say.

Democrats privately discussed their tactics during a closed-door retreat in West Virginia last week. And a number of Democrats are trying to persuade liberal firebrands to essentially let Republicans confirm Trump's pick after a vigorous confirmation process -- since Trump is likely to name a conservative to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

The reason for the tactic: Republicans are considering gutting the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats stay largely united and block Trump's first pick. By employing the so-called "nuclear option," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could move to reduce the threshold for clearing a filibuster from 60 votes to 51 votes.

 

[HenryBHough]

The Democrats really ought stick to the guns.

The Republicans should then go ahead and go full nuclear. True a future congress cold un-do their work but it's going to be at least 150 years before there'll be another Democrat majority to even try it.

Get it on and get it done!

America hates pussyfooters - as November forcibly demonstrated.

 

[Blackrook]

The Democrats have already lost their pants and shirt, so if the Republicans use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees, they will lose their underpants too. They should really back off, because this fight isn't worth losing what little power they have left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Blackrook clearly reveals he does not understand Senate voting rules and the 'nuclear option.' He should read up on them.

The OP makes a good point, but I doubt Schumer and the other far out libs are going to listen to good counsel.

 

[Blackrook]

Blackrook clearly reveals he does not understand Senate voting rules and the 'nuclear option.' He should read up on them.

The OP makes a good point, but I doubt Schumer and the other far out libs are going to listen to good counsel.

I understand plenty, dumbass. If Harry Reid can use the "nuclear option" to take away the filibuster, so can Senate Republicans.

 

[OldLady]

I wish they'd get on with it just to have a full Supreme Court and SOMEBODY DOWN THERE START DOING THEIR JOB!! I was pissed as hell at the Republicans for refusing to consider Garland. I will be equally pissed as hell if the Democrats won't consider whoever Trump appoints. And not fiddle around and play games about it, either. Old Lady has spoken. Get the goddamned seat filled. Roe v. Wade was a decision made by a conservative court. The justices are professionals who know their personal opinions are not to influence them. The constitution and the case law does. They're human, but who is conservative and who liberal will not make as much difference as these politicians are making it out to be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree with you completely, OldLady.

What I don't like is folks like Blackrook talking about what they don't know.

'rook does not understand the question of constitution procedure.

 

[Blackrook]

I wish they'd get on with it just to have a full Supreme Court and SOMEBODY DOWN THERE START DOING THEIR JOB!! I was pissed as hell at the Republicans for refusing to consider Garland. I will be equally pissed as hell if the Democrats won't consider whoever Trump appoints. And not fiddle around and play games about it, either. Old Lady has spoken. Get the goddamned seat filled. Roe v. Wade was a decision made by a conservative court. The justices are professionals who know their personal opinions are not to influence them. The constitution and the case law does. They're human, but who is conservative and who liberal will not make as much difference as these politicians are making it out to be.

Roe v. Wade was made by a Republican court, but NOT a conservative court. The word Republican and conservative are NOT synonymous.

 

[Blackrook]

I agree with you completely, OldLady.

What I don't like is folks like Blackrook talking about what they don't know.

'rook does not understand the question of constitution procedure.

You're a fucking retard if you don't understand what I've said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree with you completely, OldLady.

What I don't like is folks like Blackrook talking about what they don't know.

'rook does not understand the question of constitution procedure.

You're a fucking retard if you don't understand what I've said.

I clearly understood what you said: that's the point.

 

[Blackrook]

I agree with you completely, OldLady.

What I don't like is folks like Blackrook talking about what they don't know.

'rook does not understand the question of constitution procedure.

You're a fucking retard if you don't understand what I've said.

I clearly understood what you said: that's the point.

Fuck off you piece of overgrown turd.

 

[OldLady]

I don't understand what the nuclear option is. Can anyone explain it SIMPLY (Don't you try, TN--you use too many big words).

 

[Blackrook]

I don't understand what the nuclear option is. Can anyone explain it SIMPLY (Don't you try, TN--you use too many big words).

Nuclear option = eliminating the need for 60 senators to approve an appointee.

 

[Silhouette]

The Democrats have already lost their pants and shirt, so if the Republicans use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees, they will lose their underpants too. They should really back off, because this fight isn't worth losing what little power they have left.

Totally agree. Plus, opposing a replacement like Scalia would mean they really want the Court stacked in their favor, which, after Obergefell's deep scorpion sting to working class dem values, would stink to high heaven (again) of the shit of fascism currently crusted onto the democrat logo.

I think the dems bitch-slapping their defecting constituents in the Rust Belt with opposing the actual reason they voted for Trump (SCOTUS pick) would be very detrimental to the party. It might even be the last coffin nail for them.

 

[OldLady]

I don't understand what the nuclear option is. Can anyone explain it SIMPLY (Don't you try, TN--you use too many big words).

Nuclear option = eliminating the need for 60 senators to approve an appointee.

So, if 8 Dems won't approve the pick, the Republicans can change the rules so it only takes 51 votes? So that's what you meant by Dems "taking" the nuclear option would mean disagreeing with the pick?

 

[bendog]

I don't understand what the nuclear option is. Can anyone explain it SIMPLY (Don't you try, TN--you use too many big words).

Remove filibuster entirely and make everything a 51 vote with the VP breaking a 50-50 tie.

I don't think the dems should filibuster this pick. What the gop did with Garland was basically say each potus gets two appointments that won't be blocked, and the 5-4 conservative not-conservative split will remain, pending some party getting three consecutive terms, like Reagan-HW. Since the 5-4 split would be retained, I think any further Trump nominees would get the filibuster .... unless there's a compromise candidate like Garland who supported Roe, but also supported Citizens United and was pretty strong on the 2nd Amend too. Even then, if there's an election pending in a year, I'd expect the dems to go full out to block it.

 

[Blackrook]

What will happen is the Democrats will cave on this appointment, and every other appointment, because Democratic Senators in red states want to be re-elected in 2018.

 

[william the wie]

I wish they'd get on with it just to have a full Supreme Court and SOMEBODY DOWN THERE START DOING THEIR JOB!! I was pissed as hell at the Republicans for refusing to consider Garland. I will be equally pissed as hell if the Democrats won't consider whoever Trump appoints. And not fiddle around and play games about it, either. Old Lady has spoken. Get the goddamned seat filled. Roe v. Wade was a decision made by a conservative court. The justices are professionals who know their personal opinions are not to influence them. The constitution and the case law does. They're human, but who is conservative and who liberal will not make as much difference as these politicians are making it out to be.

In the last 80 years zero senate SC confirmations in the final year of a term.

 

[OldLady]

I don't understand what the nuclear option is. Can anyone explain it SIMPLY (Don't you try, TN--you use too many big words).

Remove filibuster entirely and make everything a 51 vote with the VP breaking a 50-50 tie.

I don't think the dems should filibuster this pick. What the gop did with Garland was basically say each potus gets two appointments that won't be blocked, and the 5-4 conservative not-conservative split will remain, pending some party getting three consecutive terms, like Reagan-HW. Since the 5-4 split would be retained, I think any further Trump nominees would get the filibuster .... unless there's a compromise candidate like Garland who supported Roe, but also supported Citizens United and was pretty strong on the 2nd Amend too. Even then, if there's an election pending in a year, I'd expect the dems to go full out to block it.

I agree they shouldn't filibuster, but I don't agree everything should be a 51 vote. Nothing, in my opinion should be a 51 vote. Make those slobs work together to get things accomplished. Probably too radical, huh?

 

[saveliberty]

Just line up three choices and make each one progressively more conservative.