Democrats: What would the politics be behind a Gorsuch filibuster?

[AntonToo]

Agreed, sadly.

Y'know, there are a lot of Americans out there who just wish these people and their enablers would stop playing politics, stop putting party ahead of country.

We're not represented on the national stage for the most part, but we are out there.
.

In the age of liberalism, all things are political.

lol, you think Trump picked Gorsuch without regard to where Gorsuch falls on the political spectrum? Seriously?

Ds are politicizing the pick not Trump. Dummy.

Are you nuts? Are you claiming Trump did NOT pick a conservative judge, as opposed to a centrist or liberal judge?

By all accounts he is well qualified. He received many D votes for lower court appointments. D pols must politize to keep the dupes like you in line.

Well qualified is not good enough - just ask Republicans when they were refusing to give Garland even a hearing.

 

[Polishprince]

just ask Republicans when they were refusing to give Garland even a hearing.

Garland wasn't a serious nominee, Obama knew that a pro-abort gun control freak wasn't going to get confirmed during an election year, and Garland knew it too

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Well qualified is not good enough - just ask Republicans when they were refusing to give Garland even a hearing.

Robert Bork

 

[AntonToo]

just ask Republicans when they were refusing to give Garland even a hearing.

Garland wasn't a serious nominee, Obama knew that a pro-abort gun control freak wasn't going to get confirmed during an election year, and Garland knew it too

Well then Gorsuch is not a serious nominee, surely he would know Democrats would not vote for him after Republicans refused to even give a hearing to Obama's nominee.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Scalia was confirmed 98-0.

Think about that. Dimocrats knew who they were getting when voting for Scalia, yet they all voted for confirmation because they knew he was qualified.

Look at how the partisanship of today has created a very toxic and poisonous atmosphere.

 

[AntonToo]

Well qualified is not good enough - just ask Republicans when they were refusing to give Garland even a hearing.

Robert Bork

Not even close. Robert Bork was given a hearing and a vote last I checked.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Not even close. Robert Bork was given a hearing and a vote last I checked.

He got a proverbial "high tech lynching" not a hearing.

There is even a term for it "borking".

I do think Republicans should have given him a "hearing" where they just "borked" him to get back at Democrats.

 

[imawhosure]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Mac, didn't read the whole thread, so if someone answered this already, I apologize.

They need to stop Gorsuch by any means possible, or delay the installation as far down the road as they can.

Why?

Because as we know, if the Supreme court deadlocks on a ruling, then it falls back to the lower court, and their ruling stands. With the Democrats controlling the 9th circuit, anything Trump does that the left challenges will be stopped, and a tie on the Supreme Court would make the lower courts decision stay in force. Unless you are not paying attention, they are using outlandish reasons to prevent everything.

Now personally, besides Ginsburg; I believe that the SC would uphold Trumps stay of immigration, but then, one never knows. I believe that is the reason more executive orders are not forthcoming, not that I want them, lol.

I am not sure if their is some sort of emergency clause forcing them to make a ruling quickly, but if there is, the Democrats would use it to force the decision back down to the 9th if they feel they could get a deadlock. Sometime after Friday, with any kind of luck, that will be off the table!

 

[Mac1958]

Scalia was confirmed 98-0.

Man, it really is hard to imagine those days ever existed.
.

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Mac, didn't read the whole thread, so if someone answered this already, I apologize.

They need to stop Gorsuch by any means possible, or delay the installation as far down the road as they can.

Why?

Because as we know, if the Supreme court deadlocks on a ruling, then it falls back to the lower court, and their ruling stands. With the Democrats controlling the 9th circuit, anything Trump does that the left challenges will be stopped, and a tie on the Supreme Court would make the lower courts decision stay in force. Unless you are not paying attention, they are using outlandish reasons to prevent everything.

Now personally, besides Ginsburg; I believe that the SC would uphold Trumps stay of immigration, but then, one never knows. I believe that is the reason more executive orders are not forthcoming, not that I want them, lol.

I am not sure if their is some sort of emergency clause forcing them to make a ruling quickly, but if there is, the Democrats would use it to force the decision back down to the 9th if they feel they could get a deadlock. Sometime after Friday, with any kind of luck, that will be off the table!

Not sure how that works. I haven't heard that the vote could be delayed, but yeah, they'd do it if they could.
.

 

[BluesLegend]

When liberals took over the Democratic party that was the beginning of the end. Today you see the fall out, asshole liberals control their party.

 

[Markle]

Democratic Senators weren't elected to facilitate the nomination of rightwing judges. Maybe they're finally waking up to that fact.

As you know, and know well, this is not a "right wing" judge. Unlike Democrats, Republicans have always abided by the tradition of confirming QUALIFIED judges appointed by Democrat presidents because they were the president and that was the president's privilege. Democrats have not had any such respect since the nomination of Robert Borke.

Progressives have a double standard. What Progressives want is for everyone else to abide by what THEY want when they're in power then they demand compromise with Progressives when they are NOT in power. Cute trick and it has worked in the past. Trouble for them today is that President Donald Trump is not their usual opponent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gorsuch is a stolen seat

Make Republicans change the rules if they want to confirm him

Gorsuch is a stolen seat

Who owned it?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just a few years ago, I was constantly hearing that the filibuster is outdated, undemocratic, and racist.

Just a year ago I heard Obama couldn't appoint judges in his last year in office.
Why does trump get to? This is certainly his last year in office.

Poor pussy.

 

[Polishprince]

Well then Gorsuch is not a serious nominee, surely he would know Democrats would not vote for him after Republicans refused to even give a hearing to Obama's nominee.

The fact that Judge Gorsuch is going to be confirmed by a clear bipartisan majority, would show that he is indeed a serious nominee. Its a conservative country, further the people expect balance in the Supreme Court and Garland would have made the court a liberal rubber stamp.

 

[MarcATL]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Republicans didn't want Obama nominee and acted on it, refusing to even give him a hearing. The cat is out of the bag and chivalry is out the window. Democrats have no choice but to take this road to the only place it could have led.

Lets say Democrats play nice here, what do they gain? Nothing.

Yep, the filibuster began when the Republicans filibustered the then President's perfectly good nomination.

 

[Aries]

The Republicans tried to block Obama at every turn, even if it would harm the public. Dems should hold no punches.

 

[Boss]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Knowing they are too stupid to do anything other than trying to mimic what has been successful for the right, I think they are attempting to set up the same "sense of urgency" among their base to get out the vote. We can't give Trump and Republicans another pick or we lose Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, Tranny Bathroom Rights... whatever.

Look.. this idea that the nuclear option wasn't going to get deployed is sort of lame establishment-speak to me. All these people on the right like John McCain want to "cut a deal" to get Gorsuch nominated without the nuke being deployed. It's just stupid because nothing prevents them from deploying it next time. So it's not something Democrats can bargain for or have any business bargaining for, to be honest. Maybe Schmucky Schumer realizes that and he's just setting up the "crisis" for the midterms?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

Republicans didn't want Obama nominee and acted on it, refusing to even give him a hearing. The cat is out of the bag and chivalry is out the window. Democrats have no choice but to take this road to the only place it could have led.

Lets say Democrats play nice here, what do they gain? Nothing.

Yep, the filibuster began when the Republicans filibustered the then President's perfectly good nomination.

They didn't filibuster Garland.

 

[JoeMoma]

gipper has the meat of it.

dems filibustering serve two items: (1) they play to the base, and (2) it gives them 'reason' to destroy filibuster in the when they hold the Senate and want to pass legislation without worrying about the need of a 60 vote cloture. In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

In other words, they will use it to pass single payer with a 51 vote majority embedded with a 2/3 vote requirement on any repeal.

It would only take 51 votes to change that rule to allow a 51 vote repeal. DERP!

They would not be able to get around the language of the original law that required 2/3d vote for repeal. Several of the state leges have used such language to make sure legislation would be very difficult to overturn. And the laws have stood up to appeals in the courts.

I don't think a 2/3 repeal clause would be constitonal on the federal level. However, it would not be needed anyway. Once an entitlement is established it is nearly impossible to take away.

 

[MarcATL]

What is called the 'Biden rule' is not a rule.

Well the Democrats strongly supported the rule when there was a Republican president.

But you know "the history of now"

And I'm guessing that most Republicans disagreed with Biden at the time.

They did. It's on tape.