SCOTUS under Trump

How? How exactly does that play out?

They are responding to Democrats filibustering a candidate who is qualified, just because of their political motivations.

You see how that’s totally a losing argument, right? How no one but hyper partisans on the left think that’s a rational act?

I seem to remember another big bet the Democrats made a little while ago. One in which a big old racist idiot Cheeto would absolutely no way no-how be able to become President. That turned into a really fun time for everyone.

No, the problem with AHCA was that it had to thread the needle of being done through budget reconciliation, and in order to do that it had a tight timeline to get thrown together and the resulting Frankenstein of a bill was so ugly it’s own parents smothered it in the cradle.

Nobody is getting “saved” by a procedural point of order that nobody fears, but nobody wants to be blamed for torching. So we’ll get to line up for this song and dance every goddamn time a bill or nomination makes its way to the Senate. Because Trump is desperate for a win and he can’t be seen backing down to the democrats. And the democrats are probably getting tired of their phones ringing off the hook from their constituents.

That is EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

You can try to pretend like it’s not, but you already fucked that up at this point. Right here, within the past few posts, is already been made painfully obvious that the core rationale behind any rejection is purely partisan in nature.

At this point, any attempt to pretend otherwise is just like Trump pretending like his orders aren’t intended to discriminate against Muslims.

You already showed your hand. It’s too late to pretend like there’s some reasonable basis for saying he’s unqualified.

Ok dude. Generally speaking I like you but I can see there’s no discussion to be had here. I’m out.

I mean, Timex isn’t wrong.

Hell, that position isn’t even indefensible, imo. I mean Garland was stolen, so people want to hit back. It wont end up working, but it’s politics at the end of the day, not everything pans out. Sometimes you just do stuff to make a point or get people motivated.

Gorsuch is qualified. You can’t even make the case that he isn’t. So was Garland. That’s apparently irrelevant in America though.

First, if Trump is able to get any crazy he wants on the Supreme Court-- a power the Democrats seem determined to grant him-- he may be able to guarantee GOP control forever: say hello to super-restrictive voter ID and changes to the selection of electors, and goodbye to voting rights and any restrictions on gerrymandering.

Second, even if the Senate goes back to the Democrats, we don’t want it to work like the House. The US works as a representative democracy; as a parliamentary democracy, it will fail.

That’s ridiculous. All the gerrymandering and voter ID tricks in the world wouldn’t guarantee that kind of permanent control. Trump certainly isn’t the first president to hope his party would stay in power forever… and guess what it doesn’t happen.

And the reason it had to be done through budget reconciliation is the threat of filibuster. It was a real enough threat that it made for a bill the Republicans couldn’t pass. That is the power that is getting thrown away now.


Mark is a pretty libertarian guy. Like to the point that he actively mocks “progressives” all the time.
Mind you, he supports Gorsuch. He thinks he is the best choice off the list the GOP gave Trump.
But from a strategy point of view, it still mostly makes sense, even if it does nothing.

I’ve actually come around on this issue, though I think, ultimately it wont matter. The threat of “going nuclear” has been crippling to the Democratic party… forever. They refuse to use it themselves and cower in fear of it being used against them constantly. Make them do it. They’re going to do it anyway at some point, just remove the threat of it. Because right now the threat of it is more effective than the actual act of it.

As Mark says, “it will eventually be used.” And he’s right. It will be. Make them do it and then move on to the new landscape that arises instead of capitulating non-stop out of fear of it being used. Because those capitulations don’t lessen the threat of it being used next week anyway.

Yes, I totally understand the anger. McConnell is a dick, and pulled a dick move that cheapened the entire Senate.

But the partisan response won’t earn political points. And it won’t prevent the nomination. It will achieve zero.

Let’s try it a different way.

Anyone who thinks that a filibuster here is good, lay out exactly how you think things will go down, like you are playing out chess moves. Lay out exactly how you think it will go.

Well, “forever” is hyperbole. But “generations” is perfectly plausible. How long were the Democrats able to hold the South after reconstruction (actually, they still hold the South; they just call themselves Republicans now)?

The House, the Senate and the Presidency are held by Republicans even though they were outvoted by Democrats in the House and Presidential elections. I am seriously concerned that we may be seeing the early stages of a legal regime that is able to entrench this minority rule for decades-- a cleverly-disguised apartheid.

Auchinleck was a magnificent stag and McClellan probably would have eventually won.

I think it’s a matter of getting the “nuclear option” off the table. Because lets say they do force it here. How is that any worse than the next “worse” guy coming along and the GOP using it then? There is no difference. You’re basically giving into the threat of it, without forcing them to ever use it.

You might as well get it over with and remove that sword of Damocles from the equation and all future equations. Because, honestly, keeping it has done literally nothing for the Dems anyway. If they had forced a nuclear option a long time back, Obama’s first term would have been more successful. Instead they got The Button, which they were (and always will be) unwilling to push anyway.

It’s a weapon of blackmail only usable by your opponents. Might as well make them use it rather than have the threat of them using it result in the exact same effect as them actually using it.

That is EXACTLY it, ShivaX.

But, don’t worry, everyone, the Dems will fold like a cheap suit at the mere threat of this blackmail, just like they always do, this time, then the next, and the next after that, ad nauseam.

The problem with not fillabustering is that it shows Democrats are still happy to eat the hypocrisy pie the Republicans keep shoving at them for decades. Fundamentally the Republicans are cowards. I think worrying about how not-bad Gorusch is like someone worrying that your partner will hit you harder for standing up to them and reporting them to the police. The Republicans need to fear the repercussions of their actions and not hide behind parliamentary proprieties and conventions.

Senators who will vote to change the rule to get Gorsuch confirmed wouldn’t necessarily vote to change the rule to get Alex Jones’ nomination through. And if the filibuster still exists when Trump nominates Jones, it gives some political cover to senators who don’t want Jones to be confirmed but don’t want to be seen as resisting the party. Knowing that political cover for Republicans is there actually prevents Trump from nominating Alex Jones in the first place.

The threat of filibuster helped the Democrats just recently: it resulted in an unpassable Republican health care bill.

What the Democrats in the Senate are giving up is not worthless. Say hello to Justice Jones.

Did it though? They couldn’t get the Freedom Caucus on board, which was a bigger issue.

Remember the Republicans and Democrats are basically equal in the Senate right now Pence has decided things twice already because of ties. They’re just getting straight out-voted on things.

Exactly. We’ve been through this before.