SCOTUS Potential Filibuster

[mbonder]

It appears as though there is increasing possibility that the Dems are going to Filibuster the nomination of Gorsuch for the SC. Figured I'd create a new thread as it was mentioned in the Chump for President thread but I didn't want to sully the surreal nature that thread has taken on with actual political discussion.

My view, it's a dumb move by the Dems to filibuster. They are going to get shut down when the GOP majority changes the rules (the so-called nuclear option). The only rationale that I see here is that the Dems want to make a stance to show their base that they are pushing back against everything Trump. But why fight a battle that is a guaranteed loss? It just seems like they are playing a card that might be better left used for another fight as bigger issues come to the fore (Tax Reform, Immigration come to mind). Because in the end, Gorsuch will be nominated.

From what I've read, Gorsuch seems to be a bit pro business/corporation, he obviously has a more conservative mindset, but by and large seems to be a fairly moderate pick. I certainly haven't read anything that says he's going to be nearly as conservative as Scalia was.

So what do the denizens of OT W&P have to say?

[ajhostetter]

RESISTANCE!!! It's all grandstanding, and complete bullshit. What a circus. Gorsuch is a perfectly reasonable judge. The repubs gambled on Garland and won. Before anyone howls, Schumer threatened the same thing with Bush in '07. So, now we'll have a repub senate go nuclear, and all future supreme justices will be partisan ideologues. Awesome. Just really fucking awesome.

[nrubenstein]

It appears as though there is increasing possibility that the Dems are going to Filibuster the nomination of Gorsuch for the SC. Figured I'd create a new thread as it was mentioned in the Chump for President thread but I didn't want to sully the surreal nature that thread has taken on with actual political discussion.

My view, it's a dumb move by the Dems to filibuster. They are going to get shut down when the GOP majority changes the rules (the so-called nuclear option). The only rationale that I see here is that the Dems want to make a stance to show their base that they are pushing back against everything Trump. But why fight a battle that is a guaranteed loss? It just seems like they are playing a card that might be better left used for another fight as bigger issues come to the fore (Tax Reform, Immigration come to mind). Because in the end, Gorsuch will be nominated.

From what I've read, Gorsuch seems to be a bit pro business/corporation, he obviously has a more conservative mindset, but by and large seems to be a fairly moderate pick. I certainly haven't read anything that says he's going to be nearly as conservative as Scalia was.

So what do the denizens of OT W&P have to say?

Gorsuch is far, far right wing. He only seems moderate on the surface because he's intelligent and affable and can restrain himself from saying things that are utterly repulsive in public.

The reality is that the filibuster is going to die regardless. It might as well be the GOP that kills it. There is no point in simply letting their nominee through to preserve a filibuster that has no teeth. (Or worse, that the Democrats respect, but the GOP don't.)

[naplesE30]

^ Please site court rullings to support your claims. He seems to be a constitutionalist..... but does that make him far right and repulsive? Is the constitition far right in your opinion? If so, why?

I hate the idea of changing the rules. It will only drive a deeper wedge between sides in this country and make the pendulum swing farther. I think the supreme court has always been a political tool, but now its just more in the open.

[BraveUlysses]

^ Please site court rullings to support your claims. He seems to be a constitutionalist..... but does that make him far right and repulsive? Is the constitition far right in your opinion? If so, why?

I hate the idea of changing the rules. It will only drive a deeper wedge between sides in this country and make the pendulum swing farther. I think the supreme court has always been a political tool, but now its just more in the open.

This is a nonwinning situation for the democrats--oppose the nomination and the rule gets changed, but if they let it happen the threat of changing the rule will loom over all future confirmations and bill votes.

ideally someone goes back in time and makes sure that the rules are written to prevent this change to ever become a consideration and 60 votes are required forever and ever.

[FredK]

It seems to be a risky move to draw a line in the sand now, as confirmation won't change the ideological balance of the Court, rather than to keep the filibuster mechanism in case another appointment has to be made during the Trump presidency.

[nrubenstein]

It seems to be a risky move to draw a line in the sand now, as confirmation won't change the ideological balance of the Court, rather than to keep the filibuster mechanism in case another appointment has to be made during the Trump presidency.

Why? What exactly does saving the filibuster for a worse candidate accomplish?

[mbonder]

Interestingly, people thought (Trump included) that all Republicans would vote for the new healthcare bill, and then a portion of them refused to and the bill died.

Preserving the filibuster might be important if we get to an issue where some GOP members can be convinced to join the Dems in whatever they are crusading for (albeit for very different reasons in the case of the healthcare bill). By using the filibuster now they are removing it from their arsenal without actually gaining anything in return (besides saying that they pushed back against Trump's nominee).

That's a thought that I've had about it. I'm just not convinced that Gorsuch is super far right and will push the court to the far right extreme. What makes people believe this is what he will do? I'm honestly searching for information here because I don't know all that much about him.

[nrubenstein]

Interestingly, people thought (Trump included) that all Republicans would vote for the new healthcare bill, and then a portion of them refused to and the bill died.

Preserving the filibuster might be important if we get to an issue where some GOP members can be convinced to join the Dems in whatever they are crusading for (albeit for very different reasons in the case of the healthcare bill). By using the filibuster now they are removing it from their arsenal without actually gaining anything in return (besides saying that they pushed back against Trump's nominee).

That's a thought that I've had about it. I'm just not convinced that Gorsuch is super far right and will push the court to the far right extreme. What makes people believe this is what he will do? I'm honestly searching for information here because I don't know all that much about him.

Once we saw what was in that ridiculous healthcare bill, it became very clear that it was going to struggle in the House and was DOA in the Senate. They certainly *could* have passed something, but it was pretty obvious that the legislation proposed would not pass.

Why do you think that preserving the filibuster accomplishes anything in the case of some future nominee? The most likely result is that it preserves it for the GOP to use against the Democrats next time they are in control.

[FredK]

A future nominee could provide the deciding vote to roll back more rulings on social/gender issues, so the political stakes could easily be significantly higher than replacing Scalia.

Point taken, that it would preserve the filibuster for the GOP to use against the Dems should the next SCOTUS justice replacement be left-leaning. That very well could be the way the cookie crumbles.

[mbonder]

^exactly how I feel about it.

[naplesE30]

Without the filibuster the senate then becomes mob rule. Clearly the founders wanted the minority to have power in their design. This is short sighted, and once the genie is out of the bottle you cant put it back. Inching closer to banana republic.

[mrsleeve]

The fact that every single SCOTUS judge has been confirmed on a simple majority vote, even the most controversial nominations, like Thomas have all been majority votes. The "nuclear option" would just cement into procedure what has been tradition for the last couple hundred years. This threat of holding up judge noms is mostly a recent thing and pushed largely by Chucky Schumer, who is now pushing it even harder than ever from his new seat of greater influence.

[nrubenstein]

Without the filibuster the senate then becomes mob rule. Clearly the founders wanted the minority to have power in their design. This is short sighted, and once the genie is out of the bottle you cant put it back. Inching closer to banana republic.

THE FILIBUSTER ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING IF USING IT CAUSES IT TO BE REMOVED. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT USING THE FILIBUSTER TO "PRESERVE" IT AND THE MAJORITY KILLING IT OFF TO GET THEIR WAY.

There is no value to a filibuster that can't be used. None whatsoever.

[nrubenstein]

The fact that every single SCOTUS judge has been confirmed on a simple majority vote, even the most controversial nominations, like Thomas have all been majority votes. The "nuclear option" would just cement into procedure what has been tradition for the last couple hundred years. This threat of holding up judge noms is mostly a recent thing and pushed largely by Chucky Schumer, who is now pushing it even harder than ever from his new seat of greater influence.

Do you not remember the GOP holding up the nomination of Merrick Garland by refusing to allow it to go to the floor? Are you claiming that that is somehow less novel?