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

[Mac1958]

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?
.

I talked to a raving left winger yesterday who told me it is to make a stand about the stolen Garland nomination. If they just roll over and let the Republicans get away with that without making a stand, they are letting the bullies win without a fight. He realizes the bullies are going to win anyway and that it will not actually get them any benefit, but he pointed out that avoiding the "nuclear option" this time is not going to help, since the next nominee will only be more conservative and will be used then, if not now, so they might as well get it over with.
I don't agree with the thinking on this, but that is the posture.

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

I'm really hoping to get a serious non partisan answer to this, folks. It would be a hard question to Google.

I think the answer you got was pretty much it. This is just about political posturing and '18.

Look through this thread, there are no other real answers.
.

 

[OldLady]

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?
.

I talked to a raving left winger yesterday who told me it is to make a stand about the stolen Garland nomination. If they just roll over and let the Republicans get away with that without making a stand, they are letting the bullies win without a fight. He realizes the bullies are going to win anyway and that it will not actually get them any benefit, but he pointed out that avoiding the "nuclear option" this time is not going to help, since the next nominee will only be more conservative and will be used then, if not now, so they might as well get it over with.
I don't agree with the thinking on this, but that is the posture.

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

Y'know, seriously, hardcore partisan ideologues are just detached from reason and reality at this point.

And worse, they think that the rest of the country is, too.

Only political geeks care about this stuff.
.

It's true. My ultra left friend believes that this brave, doomed stand will cause voters to blame the Republicans.
That ain't gonna happen.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Gorsuch is going to be a great judge!

As will be the one Trump nominates later this year.

 

[NightFox]

You're trying to argue that if the Democrats refrain from the filibuster on Gorsuch that the GOP is going to take the nuclear option off the table for all vacancies that might occur under Trump?

Are you that stupid?

No dumb fuck YOU'RE the one that is THAT STUPID; Gorsuch isn't an ideologue and anybody that's paying attention already knows that but after the Democrats force the GOP to nuke their filibuster of his confirmation you can bet your idiotic partisan lemming ass that the next ones that Trump picks WILL BE because you and the rest of the idiots in the Democrat base forced your Senate Creatures to fire their only remaining ammunition at a target that isn't even there. Just what the fuck you morons think a filibuster of Gorsuch is going to accomplish is a complete mystery to anybody with even a sliver of objectivity, heck even Schumer doesn't want to do it.

It's going to be interesting to see what you yapping little hyper-partisan mutts have to say when a Justice Cruz or a Justice Lee sail through confirmation replacing Ginsburg and/or Breyer with little fanfare and SCOTUS ends 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of strict constructionist right wingers.

 

[dannyboys]

There is no doubt President Trump will get to put at least two SCJ on the bench during his Presidency. Maybe three.
Going 'nuclear' is only going to get easier to do for the REP Senate.
It's like when you do something you never ever even considered doing. Once you do it once it only becomes easier.

Aside:
There were many young men who were drafted and sent to VN who when asked when they showed up for service: "Do you believe you will be able to take an enemy combatant's life during combat?".
Very few said definitely yes they could. (These were the ones who in many cases were placed in non-combat positions) Most said they didn't know.
The vast majority went from very reluctant to kill to wanting to kill every fucking enemy they saw after they had killed for the first time.
If all President Trump does is put Conservative SCJs on the bench during his term he can play golf the rest of the time and let his VP and the Cabinet run the country.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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?
.

/---- it's the Dems playing to their fringe lunatic base that donates $$$$ to the party. Nothing more.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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?
.

I doubt this will influence the 2018 midterms much.

The 2018 midterms will all depend on whether Trump can deliver on any of his promises.

But getting rid of the filibuster on all judge ratifications including SCOTUS is a GOOD idea.

Thomas was a squeaker in the face of Anita Hill's defamation of him back in 1991. He did not receive 60 votes as Schumer claims is the "traditional" benchmark.

I don't know why Schumer and the DEM's are opposing Gorsuch.

Opposing him is pure ignorance.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and RB Ginsberg have become disasters each one, legislating from the bench and opposing the 2nd Amendment.

So the DEM's have no room to complain. Their track record of nominations is abysmal.

I don't know how this works out well. Whichever party is in charge has complete control, and I'm not fond of that idea.

All the more reason to avoid having one party with this much power in the future.
.

/---- unless it's the Democrats with this much power, right?

 

[jc456]

The SC has become politicized. So naturally appointments to it are politicized, by the scumbag politicians.

Yep. I'm assuming that's all this is.

These people are far more worried about keeping their jobs than anything else.
.

well there is no concern for american citizens.

 

[Mac1958]

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?
.

I doubt this will influence the 2018 midterms much.

The 2018 midterms will all depend on whether Trump can deliver on any of his promises.

But getting rid of the filibuster on all judge ratifications including SCOTUS is a GOOD idea.

Thomas was a squeaker in the face of Anita Hill's defamation of him back in 1991. He did not receive 60 votes as Schumer claims is the "traditional" benchmark.

I don't know why Schumer and the DEM's are opposing Gorsuch.

Opposing him is pure ignorance.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and RB Ginsberg have become disasters each one, legislating from the bench and opposing the 2nd Amendment.

So the DEM's have no room to complain. Their track record of nominations is abysmal.

I don't know how this works out well. Whichever party is in charge has complete control, and I'm not fond of that idea.

All the more reason to avoid having one party with this much power in the future.
.

/---- unless it's the Democrats with this much power, right?

Not fond of either end, as I clearly point out in my sig.
.

 

[NightFox]

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

IMHO It doesn't further "the cause" however it *might* save some Democrat Senators that are up for re-election in 2018 from being primaried from their left, that and the hope that SCOTUS picks as an issue might drive turn out just like it did for the Republicans in 2016.

The Democrat "base" is bullying their Senators into another suicide mission and nothing good (for the Democrats) will come of it, seems they'd be far better off holding their fire until they have a situation that is politically advantageous instead of one that just makes the left happy because they're falling on their swords.

 

[AntonToo]

You are right, Republicans get to do whatever they want, but Democrats need to tuck their knees in and roll over.

LOL, nice attempt at a dodge but again what does what happened with Garland have to do with the Democrats filibustering the Gorsuch confirmation ?

Are you attempting to argue that the Democrats should engage in an "Eye for an Eye" move here even when the Eye that they're about to pluck out is there own? Do you realize the Republicans are probably going to nuke the filibuster and basically give Trump a free hand in any future SCOTUS picks IN ADDITION TO the free hand that Harry Reid already provided him for lower court and executive branch nominees? The Senate Democrats are engaged in cutting their own throats for NO GAIN.

The Democrats are voting against a rightwing judge. That is what they were elected to do.

Ummm.. yeah, your ignorance of history surfaces once again, SCOTUS confirmations have traditionally been about judicial QUALIFICATION not IDEOLOGY, which explains for example why neither Kagan nor Sotomayor were filibustered by the Republicans and received significant numbers of Republican votes even though both are clearly left wing judicial activists.

Your dumb ass Party is turning SCOTUS confirmation into an ideological litmus test and it's going to bite them right in the ass.

Knock knock!

Who is there?

FUCKING GARLAND, who was a fully qualified moderate.

AGAIN.... what does Garland have to do with Gorsuch?

 

[Polishprince]

It's worse than filibustering and I told you, while you keep arguing irrelevancies without any dispute.

Good job. I guess you'll take whatever little crumbs are left of your argument to soothe your ego.

There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history, until the disgrace that Chuck U. Schumer et al pulled this week against Judge Gorsuch. That's a real disgrace. Gorsuch is eminently qualified, a real decent family guy, young enough to serve for 40 years, there is no reasonable reason to deny him an up or down vote. But he'll get it, as the Democrats forced a rule change.

 

[Redfish]

its funny to watch the dems self destruct on the Gorsuch vote. The only people who support this foolishness are their far left lunatic base which is shrinking every day.

Kennedy and Truman are turning over in their graves at what the Clintons and Obama have done to their party.

Keep it up dems,

 

[OldLady]

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

IMHO It doesn't further "the cause" however it *might* save some Democrat Senators that are up for re-election in 2018 from being primaried from their left, that and the hope that SCOTUS picks as an issue might drive turn out just like it did for the Republicans in 2016.

The Democrat "base" is bullying their Senators into another suicide mission and nothing good (for the Democrats) will come of it, seems they'd be far better off holding their fire until they have a situation that is politically advantageous instead of one that just makes the left happy because they're falling on their swords.

Thank you. So is the filibuster truly just for dramatic optics? I am so disappointed in the senate for behaving in this manner--both sides, actually, and turning it into a winner takes all camp that will destructively seesaw back and forth from now until the end of time. Unfortunately, I can't vote to "teach 'em" because my senators are in the reasonable minority.

 

[NightFox]

It's worse than filibustering and I told you, while you keep arguing irrelevancies without any dispute.

Good job. I guess you'll take whatever little crumbs are left of your argument to soothe your ego.

There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history, until the disgrace that Chuck U. Schumer et al pulled this week against Judge Gorsuch. That's a real disgrace. Gorsuch is eminently qualified, a real decent family guy, young enough to serve for 40 years, there is no reasonable reason to deny him an up or down vote. But he'll get it, as the Democrats forced a rule change.

Schumer and crew haven't done it yet; they still have 24 hours to come to their senses.

 

[Mac1958]

My question is, why not just vote no instead of filibustering? In what way does that further the cause?

IMHO It doesn't further "the cause" however it *might* save some Democrat Senators that are up for re-election in 2018 from being primaried from their left, that and the hope that SCOTUS picks as an issue might drive turn out just like it did for the Republicans in 2016.

The Democrat "base" is bullying their Senators into another suicide mission and nothing good (for the Democrats) will come of it, seems they'd be far better off holding their fire until they have a situation that is politically advantageous instead of one that just makes the left happy because they're falling on their swords.

Thank you. So is the filibuster truly just for dramatic optics? I am so disappointed in the senate for behaving in this manner--both sides, actually, and turning it into a winner takes all camp that will destructively seesaw back and forth from now until the end of time. Unfortunately, I can't vote to "teach 'em" because my senators are in the reasonable minority.

What we're seeing right now is the predictable manifestation of runaway hardcore partisan ideology.

It's essentially impossible to communicate with these people on any constructive level, and they seem to be proud of it.

What concerns me the most is that it's not only spreading, but it's seeping into our culture - and that's much tougher to fix.
.

 

[OldLady]

It's worse than filibustering and I told you, while you keep arguing irrelevancies without any dispute.

Good job. I guess you'll take whatever little crumbs are left of your argument to soothe your ego.

There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history, until the disgrace that Chuck U. Schumer et al pulled this week against Judge Gorsuch. That's a real disgrace. Gorsuch is eminently qualified, a real decent family guy, young enough to serve for 40 years, there is no reasonable reason to deny him an up or down vote. But he'll get it, as the Democrats forced a rule change.

Schumer and crew haven't done it yet; they still have 24 hours to come to their senses.

 

[AntonToo]

It's worse than filibustering and I told you, while you keep arguing irrelevancies without any dispute.

Good job. I guess you'll take whatever little crumbs are left of your argument to soothe your ego.

There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history

Has there ever been NOT EVEN A HEARING GIVEN to a clearly qualified nominee?

 

[OldLady]

It's worse than filibustering and I told you, while you keep arguing irrelevancies without any dispute.

Good job. I guess you'll take whatever little crumbs are left of your argument to soothe your ego.

There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history, until the disgrace that Chuck U. Schumer et al pulled this week against Judge Gorsuch. That's a real disgrace. Gorsuch is eminently qualified, a real decent family guy, young enough to serve for 40 years, there is no reasonable reason to deny him an up or down vote. But he'll get it, as the Democrats forced a rule change.

Schumer and crew haven't done it yet; they still have 24 hours to come to their senses.

There was a senator last night speaking on CSPAN--it seems he spoke all night--about why he does not support the Gorscuch nomination. I am not familiar with SC law and don't pretend to be a constitutional lawyer, but I think some of his objections to Gorsuch were questionable. The part I heard, he was saying Gorsuch put in a minority opinion (the sole objection) in a case which showed he had no EMPATHY for an autistic child. Like I said, I know nothing about case law, but I don't think empathy is what the judges are supposed to be reviewing when they make their decisions. Is it?

 

[NightFox]

Thank you. So is the filibuster truly just for dramatic optics? .

Of course, politics is mostly theater and case in point, the Democrats are staging a grand production without having the essential ingredient of a VILLAIN , there's nothing credible on Gorsuch, no scandal, no controversy, he falls somewhat on the strict constructionist side of the legal spectrum but nobody has made any credible case that he's an extremist. Most Americans have no idea regarding the mechanics of the arcane rules in the Senate but they do know when one party or the other is setting up the stage for high drama and in this one it's a case of "What the heck are they throwing a tantrum for?", it's not like Trump nominated Darth Cheney or anything.

If the Democrats blow their wad on this nomination when the next one comes up they will have absolutely no way to apply any sort checks on who Trump decides to nominate.