AP: Trump intends to announce his Supreme Court pick on Feb. 2

[DogofWar1]

The GOP had better be 100% sure that Trump won't be indicted before 2018.

 

Because if you go nuclear for Gorsuch and then Trump is indicted, it means that the GOP went nuclear for a nominee of a probably criminal President.

 

You do not want to go to bat for a probable criminal President.  That's 2018 fodder hardcore.  That's the kind of thing that WILL endanger seats all over the place.

 

If GOP is smart, they will not go nuclear until investigation has totally and completely concluded.

 

If they were also smart they would harp on the ABA's highly qualified rating, but...the Cheeto-in-Chief cut them out of it, so it doesn't make much sense to harp on ABA rating when your party killed it.

[No Excuses]

The Democrats have nothing to lose. Anyone who thinks Mitch McConell won't go nuclear for a RBG replacement is a fool. 

 

Make the Republicans take this action and live with the consequences.

[Kilmer17]

6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The Democrats have nothing to lose. Anyone who thinks Mitch McConell won't go nuclear for a RBG replacement is a fool. 

 

Make the Republicans take this action and live with the consequences.

They lose the political talking point.

 

If the Dems filibuster now, then the GOP has enough votes to nuke it, and the public will see the Dems as opposing a qualified judge for political reasons only.  Then the GOP has no problems getting a radical appointed when the next opening happens.

 

If the Dems hold back now, Gorsuch gets confirmed, and the next opening they can fight two ways.  1- they can point to their lack of filibuster of Gorsuch as the example of what they would do to a qualified judge, but hold a filibuster for (my guess is Ted Cruz) an unqualified one.  It would also then put alot of GOP Senators on the hot seat for voting to nuke it, AND it would give the Dems to political rally point.

 

Either way, Gorsuch is going to get approved.  The issue for the Dems is how they want to lose.

 

Filibustering this now is EXACTLY what the GOP wants them to do.

[twa]

15 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The Democrats have nothing to lose.

 

They are in pretty bad shape. 

[Popeman38]

9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

They lose the political talking point.

 

If the Dems filibuster now, then the GOP has enough votes to nuke it, and the public will see the Dems as opposing a qualified judge for political reasons only.  Then the GOP has no problems getting a radical appointed when the next opening happens.

 

If the Dems hold back now, Gorsuch gets confirmed, and the next opening they can fight two ways.  1- they can point to their lack of filibuster of Gorsuch as the example of what they would do to a qualified judge, but hold a filibuster for (my guess is Ted Cruz) an unqualified one.  It would also then put alot of GOP Senators on the hot seat for voting to nuke it, AND it would give the Dems to political rally point.

 

Either way, Gorsuch is going to get approved.  The issue for the Dems is how they want to lose.

 

Filibustering this now is EXACTLY what the GOP wants them to do.

This is precisely why the Dems should approve the nomination with exactly 60 votes. "He was approved, but barely" is much more defensible than "We denied a qualified nominee because our leaders told us to and we are really upset about Garland." You can't complain for 8 years that the GOP is the party of no and then transform into the party of no on Inauguration Day and think an already fed up populace will look the other way. The VAST majority of Americans fall somewhere between the parties...

[No Excuses]

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

They lose the political talking point.

 

If the Dems filibuster now, then the GOP has enough votes to nuke it, and the public will see the Dems as opposing a qualified judge for political reasons only.  Then the GOP has no problems getting a radical appointed when the next opening happens.

 

If the Dems hold back now, Gorsuch gets confirmed, and the next opening they can fight two ways.  1- they can point to their lack of filibuster of Gorsuch as the example of what they would do to a qualified judge, but hold a filibuster for (my guess is Ted Cruz) an unqualified one.  It would also then put alot of GOP Senators on the hot seat for voting to nuke it, AND it would give the Dems to political rally point.

 

Either way, Gorsuch is going to get approved.  The issue for the Dems is how they want to lose.

 

Filibustering this now is EXACTLY what the GOP wants them to do.

 

The Republicans will have more senate seats in 2018 most likely. They will have no problem pushing through another lifetime conservative judge over RBG. 

 

There is nothing to indicate that McConnel won't be the usual hack that he is when time comes for RBG replacement. 

 

The filibuster was going to meet its death at some point for SCOTUS nominations. The American public does not care enough of this issue to punish either party. 

15 minutes ago, twa said:

 

They are in pretty bad shape. 

 

It would be worse if the Republicans knew how to govern but alas.

[Gamebreaker]

Where do I go to vent about Sessions undoing the very little progress being made towards police corruption/brutality? 

[Kilmer17]

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/4/15168316/filibuster-gorsuch-senate-nuclear-mistake

 

Another POV on why it's a bad idea-

 

Schumer and other Senate Democrats might be standing firm here because they are worried about backlash from their own base if they don’t. Certainly, the senators who are contemplating a run for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020 would be well-advised to support the filibuster here. Personal ambition and partisan fury are a combustible combination.

 

This makes some sense.  If they are seen as not far enough left, they could easily face serious primary challenges.

[Larry]

11 hours ago, Hersh said:

IAnyway, the ability of an individual Senator to put holds on judges/appointments is absurd and was abused for the last 8 years. 

 

Just pounting out, blocking appointments without a vote, and changing the rules of the Senate to help one Party or another, have been going on for a lot longer than that.  

 

Remember reading a summary of some of the things that were done, for W's term.  (I'm going to try to summarize what I remember, from a decade-old article.)  

 

Seems that, for a long time, the Senate had a rule for federal judges saying that when a judge was appointed, if both of the Senators from the state he's being appointed to objected, they could anonymously forbid the Senate from voting for that candidate.  That's all it took.  Two Senators, and the nominee simply never got brought up for a vote.  (The article mentioned that, for the entire time Jesse Helms was in the Senate, not one black appointee to the federal bench in North Carolina ever received a vote.)  

 

But then the GOP took over the Senate, under Clinton, and they changed the rules.  It took only one Senator from a state to block a vote.  

 

Because they wanted to make it harder for Clinton to get judges through.  

 

In the last two years of Clinton, less than half of his appointees got votes.  Because they wanted the next (supposedly Republican) President to have lots of opening on the bench, when he took office.  

 

Then W took office.  

 

The Senate decided it was time to change the rules again.  Now it takes both Senators to block an appointee.  Then they changed it again.  Even if both candidates objected, that was merely advisory, not binding.  

 

If I recall the article, I think they said that, over a four year period, the Republicans changed the rules for confirming judicial appointees 17 times.  First to make it easier to deny a vote to Clinton's appointees, then to make it harder to block W's.  

 

 

---

 

I'll also point out that this isn't the first time that the filibuster rules have been changed.  The Democrats changed the rules in the 60's, so that the southern states couldn't filibuster the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights legislation.  (It used to take 66 votes to end a filibuster.  They changed the rule so that it only took 60.)  

 

---

 

Me?  I don;t think there's anything particularly sacred about changing the Senate rules.  I judge my opinion on the change, based on my opinion of why they're changing it.  

 

I don't have a problem with Reed changing it, a few years back.  What was going on was an unprecedented abuse of the Senate's rules.  

 

Whereas, the current argument?  I think both sides are wrong.  I think it's incredible hypocrisy for the Party which precipitated this whole descent into hyperpartisanship to try to claim that the other side is interfering with the function of the government.  (Considering that they haven't even started to do so, yet.)  

 

And I think that the Dems, when or if they actually do filibuster this appointee, are abusing their power, as well.  Yes, they're correct that "the other side did something unprecedented, for years, before we did."  But that's not a good enough reason for them to do this.  Two wrongs, and all that.  

 

[Hersh]

13 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

They lose the political talking point.

 

If the Dems filibuster now, then the GOP has enough votes to nuke it, and the public will see the Dems as opposing a qualified judge for political reasons only.  Then the GOP has no problems getting a radical appointed when the next opening happens.

 

If the Dems hold back now, Gorsuch gets confirmed, and the next opening they can fight two ways.  1- they can point to their lack of filibuster of Gorsuch as the example of what they would do to a qualified judge, but hold a filibuster for (my guess is Ted Cruz) an unqualified one.  It would also then put alot of GOP Senators on the hot seat for voting to nuke it, AND it would give the Dems to political rally point.

 

Either way, Gorsuch is going to get approved.  The issue for the Dems is how they want to lose.

 

Filibustering this now is EXACTLY what the GOP wants them to do.

 

I'm sorry, but this is kinda laughable. The Dems won't pay a political price for opposing Gorsuch for political reasons and the GOP doesn't give a **** what the Dems do now cause they will push anyone through so long as they have the majority in the Senate. They don't care if the Dems filibuster after not giving Garland a hearing let alone a vote. Both sides are simply playing to their base and neither side has an advantage here. This will be a non-issue in November of 2018. 

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Just pounting out, blocking appointments without a vote, and changing the rules of the Senate to help one Party or another, have been going on for a lot longer than that.    

 

I'm aware of all these things. I just find it really bad for our country that a single Senator can hold up an individual from their own home state from receiving appointments. It's garbage actually. 

[Burgold]

Remember, when going nuclear was considered a terrible option? Now it seems that it's if I don't get my way immediately after trying once and not even making an effort to talk to the other side then hit that red button.

 

Whatever happened to earning a vote, backdoor negotiations, compromise, etc. Yeah, I know the D's started it, but basically it seems the Gorsuch nomination and especially the Garland Obstruction was designed fully with the intent to go nuclear. There was never any effort to negotiate, wrangle, or engage. It's pretty pathetic.

 

I remember SCOTUS Noms being voted down and a second or sometimes third candidate making it. The Nom made no effort to soften worries. The Senate never made its case that this is a good guy. They just declared he's qualified, we want him, that's good enough. What about the very legitimate concerns about Gorsuch's rulings? He has a history and a pattern and it has been very personal liberty unfriendly. Very anti-strict Constitutionalist.

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Remember, when going nuclear was considered a terrible option? Now it seems that it's if I don't get my way immediately after trying once and not even making an effort to talk to the other side then hit that red button.

 

Whatever happened to earning a vote, backdoor negotiations, compromise, etc. Yeah, I know the D's started it, but basically it seems the Gorsuch nomination and especially the Garland Obstruction was designed fully with the intent to go nuclear. There was never any effort to negotiate, wrangle, or engage. It's pretty pathetic.

 

I remember SCOTUS Noms being voted down and a second or sometimes third candidate making it. The Nom made no effort to soften worries. The Senate never made its case that this is a good guy. They just declared he's qualified, we want him, that's good enough. What about the very legitimate concerns about Gorsuch's rulings? He has a history and a pattern and it has been very personal liberty unfriendly. Very anti-strict Constitutionalist.

If you apply the level of scrutiny to ANY nominee that has been applied to Gorsuch, no judge will be "qualified" for approval. He is in the majority 99% of the time, and unanimous 97% of the time. That means in the very vast majority of the cases he has heard, he comes to the same conclusion as liberal judges. There are no cases where legal analysts look at his ruling and can't figure out how he got there. His rulings are well reasoned. The ONLY reasons Neil Gorsuch hasn't been confirmed is because Garland didn't get a vote and Trump nominated him. That is it. The "concern" about his ruling is present in ANY/ALL nominees.

[Burgold]

The level of scrutiny for Gorsuch has been average or even below average. SCOTUS picks need to be highly scrutinized. These are life time appointments and a misstep can cause tremendous damage. You need to look through his history, his decisions, his writings, etc. The last thing you want is a rubber stamp appointment. This becomes even more true with this President who already 3 months in is rife with conflict issues, abuse issues, and corruption issues. There is a very good chance that the Justice will need to consider one of Trump's actions... maybe the Travel Ban... maybe another EO since he seemingly signs one every day.

 

The idea that Gorsuch has been highly scrutinized is laughable. The GOP majority has been entirely negligent in scrutinizing any aspect of his career. The minority has done a standard evaluation and found him wanting.

[Kilmer17]

In today's media Information Age, everything was known about Gorsuch.  The hearing etc were nothing more than grandstanding theatre. 

[visionary]

While I disagree with filabustering him, a good thorough scrutinizing was needed and still is.  Most people knew very little about him before the hearings and there were some areas of worry that needed clarification.

[visionary]

 

[Kilmer17]

I hope the Dems keep using the phrasing "the seat was 'stolen'".

[Popeman38]

3 hours ago, Burgold said:

The level of scrutiny for Gorsuch has been average or even below average. SCOTUS picks need to be highly scrutinized. These are life time appointments and a misstep can cause tremendous damage. You need to look through his history, his decisions, his writings, etc. The last thing you want is a rubber stamp appointment. This becomes even more true with this President who already 3 months in is rife with conflict issues, abuse issues, and corruption issues. There is a very good chance that the Justice will need to consider one of Trump's actions... maybe the Travel Ban... maybe another EO since he seemingly signs one every day.

 

The idea that Gorsuch has been highly scrutinized is laughable. The GOP majority has been entirely negligent in scrutinizing any aspect of his career. The minority has done a standard evaluation and found him wanting.

Bull****. This same argument could be floated as to why Garland didn't even deserve a vote. The majority investigated him, and found him wanting. The reason he hasn't sailed through the process is because of Garland and Trump. End of story. There is too much agreement from even liberal sources that he is a worthy nominee.

 

Explain how he is "wanting" without repeating the talking points that EVERY critic of him have used. There is a reason the same talking points are used by EVERY critic - it is the message that has been disseminated. 

6 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

And there you go Burgold, straight from the horse's mouth. "The seat has not yet been stolen."  The first Dem to oppose the nominee (ironically, before he was even nominated) alliterated exactly why Gorsuch hasn't been confirmed: HE ISN'T MERRICK GARLAND.

[DogofWar1]

The argument for filibustering Gorsuch is very simple.

 

Trump is potentially going to get impeached.  I know things feel slow moving now, but we are movjng at comparative light speeds.  Until the investigation has concluded with no indictment, no nominee should go through.

 

If I were a Senate Dem, I would hammer this point home everywhere, and say that I would be willing to compromise on a nominee after the Russkies have been ousted by not filibustering said nominee, provided, of course, they received a "highly qualified" rating from the ABA.

[Kilmer17]

Good grief.  He's not going to get impeached.

 

And even if he WERE, that still wouldnt be a reason to prevent his nominee to the Court or any other appointment.  Clinton was impeached, does that mean RBG and Breyer should be removed?

[Popeman38]

5 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The argument for filibustering Gorsuch is very simple.

 

Trump is potentially going to get impeached.  I know things feel slow moving now, but we are movjng at comparative light speeds.  Until the investigation has concluded with no indictment, no nominee should go through.

 

If I were a Senate Dem, I would hammer this point home everywhere, and say that I would be willing to compromise on a nominee after the Russkies have been ousted by not filibustering said nominee, provided, of course, they received a "highly qualified" rating from the ABA.

And what rating did Neil Gorsuch get from the ABA?

 

Hint, the highest possible.

[visionary]

9 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The argument for filibustering Gorsuch is very simple.

 

Trump is potentially going to get impeached.  I know things feel slow moving now, but we are movjng at comparative light speeds.  Until the investigation has concluded with no indictment, no nominee should go through.

 

If I were a Senate Dem, I would hammer this point home everywhere, and say that I would be willing to compromise on a nominee after the Russkies have been ousted by not filibustering said nominee, provided, of course, they received a "highly qualified" rating from the ABA.

I don't think this is a winning argument, not do I understand how Trump being impeached changes Gorsuch.  Maybe if impeachment was definitely going to happen soon, but it just seems a like a weak/desperate argument at this point.  Obama and Garland were screwed over, but as unacceptable as that was we shouldn't punish Gorsuch or the Supreme Court for it and need to move forward.

[sacase]

14 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The argument for filibustering Gorsuch is very simple.

 

Trump is potentially going to get impeached.  I know things feel slow moving now, but we are movjng at comparative light speeds.  Until the investigation has concluded with no indictment, no nominee should go through.

 

If I were a Senate Dem, I would hammer this point home everywhere, and say that I would be willing to compromise on a nominee after the Russkies have been ousted by not filibustering said nominee, provided, of course, they received a "highly qualified" rating from the ABA.

No he is not. Anyone talking impeachment is lying to themselves. Do  you REALLY think the GOP controlled house of representatives is going to submit articles of impeachment. Unless there is something REALLY serious that can be PROVEN, not just whined about, its never going to happen. Additionally do you REALLY think that you are going to get a supermajorty for removal? Impeachment talk is just an excuse. Dems can whine and moan but it will not happen unless there is something really serious that comes out. 

[nonniey]

4 hours ago, Burgold said:

Remember, when going nuclear was considered a terrible option? Now it seems that it's if I don't get my way immediately after trying once and not even making an effort to talk to the other side then hit that red button.

 

Whatever happened to earning a vote, backdoor negotiations, compromise, etc. Yeah, I know the D's started it, but basically it seems the Gorsuch nomination and especially the Garland Obstruction was designed fully with the intent to go nuclear. There was never any effort to negotiate, wrangle, or engage. It's pretty pathetic.

 

I remember SCOTUS Noms being voted down and a second or sometimes third candidate making it. The Nom made no effort to soften worries. The Senate never made its case that this is a good guy. They just declared he's qualified, we want him, that's good enough. What about the very legitimate concerns about Gorsuch's rulings? He has a history and a pattern and it has been very personal liberty unfriendly. Very anti-strict Constitutionalist.

I told you guys before that the filibuster, all filibusters, were killed when the Reid eliminated filibusters that effected the Democrats in 2013 (making it perfectly reasonable for the other party to eliminate filibusters that effect them - ie the filibuster was "De Facto" - dead in 2013 just not De Jure dead).  

[Gamebreaker]

If Trump ever gets impeached, it will be due House Republicans losing the seat majority and the Dems starting the impeachment process. Even if he's found liable or guilty of treason by his campaigns activities with Russia, this Congress is just entertaining us with this song and dance like they'll actually do something about it.