• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aeolist

Banned
TyrantII said:
Theirs. The real argument is the GOP will do whatever they need to do to win a news cycle, so it's dead already. We just don't have the timestamp.

There might be a possibility they don't nuke it. But if they need to they will for something terrible. Every time something has been in their way the last 15 years, they broke precedent, and norms and pushed partisanship to get the result they wanted.

Nothing has changed, and to expect rationality is just insane at this point.

Democrats need to draw their line and hold. You only muddy the waters and provide cover by wishfully thinking DC is operating on the same rules it did 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying it's likely, but republicans aren't insane. they operate based entirely on self-interest and long term policy goals like political parties should, and in that sense democrats are the aberration.

if republicans think they're likely to lose the senate they'd probably consider keeping the filibuster intact. but as i said, it's unlikely.
 
T

The Salt Life

Banned
Bay Maximus said:
Big difference between blocking everything and blocking a stolen seat. Filibuster anyone who isn't Merrick Garland.
Click to expand...
Merrick Garland is never going to happen and Trumps pick could have been a jeff sessions type. We are getting a conservative judge, he won't be as bad as Scalia. GOP took a calculated risk not taking in Garlsnd, but the impossible happened and it paid off for them.
 
F

Future PhaZe

Member
Dhx said:
This is all for show and political posturing. The Democrats have no power to do anything at all until they can flip Senate seats, and I simply disagree with the political strategy. It is a given that the Senate Republicans will go nuclear. Use it to your advantage rather than 'get it over with.'

Garland has no bearing here to the electorate the Democrats need to win back. They don't care about revenge for Garland or even remember his existence.

What do you gain in forcing the nuclear option now with a nominee that looks competent and articulate to the general public beyond points with the base?

Either force them to nominate a more center-right nominee with the second pick or use the filibuster on a less polished pick.
Click to expand...

Precedence, and for the power to still be there for them to use when they retake government. They won't have to deal with the optics of nuking the filibuster themselves when they come into power again because it will have already been done.

Trump winning may actually been a blessing in disguise politically. Hillary winning narrowly and still dealing with a majority Republican congress would have been a shit show in terms of pushing policy.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
kittenbreath said:
Yeah, I have severe doubts about the wisdom of putting the filibuster at risk for what is essentially a status quo nominee, as opposed to someone who changes the balance of the Court - not when Trump could realistically appoint Ginsburg or Kennedy's successor...

But I think the calculation here is that Democrats couldn't extract any concession from the GOP that they wouldn't go nuclear for Trump's next nominee, so they might as well stand their ground here. Otherwise they risk alienating the party base and looking like fools when the GOP inevitably betrays them.
Click to expand...

that's the really weird part. i'd have thought that the republicans would make all kinds of promises about preserving the filibuster to get gorsuch through only to shamelessly go back on their word the next time this comes up. democrats would have eaten that shit up too.
 
Tal Shiar Agent

Tal Shiar Agent

Member
Until this Russian investigation is over and unless Trump is exonerated (which he won't be) Congress should obstruct everything the White House sends down lest Congress be complicit in treason.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
Chmpocalypse said:
Better fucking follow through.
Click to expand...

.

Dems better be united here. And this is absolutely the right thing to do... Let these fuckers baste in their terrible decisions and choices. They're going to nuke the filibuster as soon as it is in their best interest regardless.

aeolist said:
that's the really weird part. i'd have thought that the republicans would make all kinds of promises about preserving the filibuster to get gorsuch through only to shamelessly go back on their word the next time this comes up. democrats would have eaten that shit up too.
Click to expand...

And why the fuck would the Democrats trust them? It's too late for compromise- Their base has become frothing lunatics, who see any compromise as concession to the alt-left. The logical conclusion of years of right wing media brainwashing.
 
T

TyrantII

Member
'77 Shortbox said:
Force them to go nuclear on this pick, pray Ginsburg doesn't croak in three years? Sounds like a winning strategy!

Right until it blows up in their face.
Click to expand...

They have zero power and the filibuster is just a formality at this point. It's already dead.

Pretending they have any power is nothing more than giving cover to the real situation. All it does is serve as something for the GOP to hang over their head to grab concessions and force the minority party to play nice.

Fuck that. Use it and lose it. They should have gotten rid of it long ago. Do not give the GOP one Democratic vote on their terrible policy and politics. Make them own their legislation and appointments.
 
D

Dhx

Member
Poodlestrike said:
Historically not the case; when Trump's other nominees failed or backed out or had to be replaced, the replacement was almost always a significant step up.
Click to expand...

In those cases he had to put forward a more palatable nominee because the originals were incompetant political fumbles that became liabilities. This is not the case with Gorsish.

slit said:
BS. Dems allowing the vote to go through now does not force them to do anything at a later date.
Click to expand...

I did not claim it forced the Republicans to do anything. But it does play into the political calculus.

The bottom line is the Democrats have near absolute zero power. Everything is politics. When the Republicans obstructed they had one or both houses of Congress.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
Dhx said:
In those cases he had to put forward a more palatable nominee because the originals were incompetant political fumbles that became liabilities. This is not the case with Gorsish.



I did not claim it forced the Republicans to do anything. But it does play into the political calculus.

The bottom line is the Democrats have near absolute zero power. Everything is politics. When the Republicans obstructed they had one or both houses of Congress.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but McConnell was hesitant to nuke the filibuster for a reason- He knows it could come back and bite them in the ass hard when (and it is a question of when) the Democrats regain control of Congress. So, fuck em. If they're willing to use the nuclear option, let them pass their awful legislation and reap what they sow.

You cannot compromise with these people anymore. Those days are gone.
 
H

heyf00L

Member
A

aeolist

Banned
Maxim726X said:
And why the fuck would the Democrats trust them? It's too late for compromise- Their base has become frothing lunatics, who see any compromise as concession to the alt-left. The logical conclusion of years of right wing media brainwashing.
Click to expand...

because they're all fucking idiots
 
E

etrain911

Member
I can't think of any judge that probably wants to hitch their wagon to the Trump train that is currently careening on the tracks ready to tear itself apart at any minute.
 
O

Ogodei

Member
The filibuster should last until the investigation into Trump being a possible traitor is concluded. Nobody should be able to impact American jurisprudence for a generation just because they managed to sneak a judge past the goalie before they were carted off to jail.
 
P

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Gnome Scat said:
It should've been Garland.
Click to expand...

I'd obstruct the GOP at every turn on that alone.

Complete fucking bullshit.

Ogodei said:
The filibuster should last until the investigation into Trump being a possible traitor is concluded. Nobody should be able to impact American jurisprudence for a generation just because they managed to sneak a judge past the goalie before they were carted off to jail.
Click to expand...

Fuck that. A Republican gets to sit in the White House no matter how the investigation shakes out.
 
R

RaidenZR

Member
dave is ok said:
Honestly not a fan of gridlock everything but I guess its par for the course.
Click to expand...

Drewton said:
I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.
Click to expand...

Dhx said:
It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of these.

The next nomination will be for someone far more extreme, just out of spite if for no other reason. We're all fucked.
 
M

Maxim726X

Member
PepsimanVsJoe said:
I'd obstruct the GOP at every turn on that alone.

Complete fucking bullshit.
Click to expand...

Well, that's why they're doing it.

They just can't say that, at the risk of looking too partisan. Under normal circumstances, Gorsuch would have been confirmed.

aeolist said:
haha nope: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

they wanted a deal, which means they were willing to take the republicans at their word. it just fell through.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I heard... That is of course pathetic. We don't know for sure if they would taken them at their word, but ultimately the end result is that they will fight it. And now, it has set a precedent.
 
W

wildfire

Banned
Ogodei said:
The filibuster should last until the investigation into Trump being a possible traitor is concluded. Nobody should be able to impact American jurisprudence for a generation just because they managed to sneak a judge past the goalie before they were carted off to jail.
Click to expand...

That's fair. If Trump hasn't done anything illegally even if unethical I would be very shocked but I would agree it would be hard to maintain a filibuster beyond that.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Maxim726X said:
Well, that's why they're doing it.

They just can't say that, at the risk of looking too partisan. Under normal circumstances, Gorsuch would have been confirmed.
Click to expand...

Under normal circumstances Gorsuch wouldn't be nominated for the supreme court.

I am 100% okay with this being entirely about the GOP's actions last year and 0 to do with whether or not Gorsuch is qualified or whatever. Are we going to let what happened last year go by without any consequences?

Line in the sand people.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Z

Zubz

Banned
Drewton said:
I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.
Click to expand...

Have you listened to him? Regardless of his abysmal stances, he was temperamental throughout his hearing.

Dems better filibuster him twice as hard as Garland was.
 
Z

Zeus Molecules

illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Good. If they want to Nuke the fillibuster let them have to go out there and justify basically breaking Congress to get what Trump wants
 
O

Ogodei

Member
PepsimanVsJoe said:
I'd obstruct the GOP at every turn on that alone.

Complete fucking bullshit.



Fuck that. A Republican gets to sit in the White House no matter how the investigation shakes out.
Click to expand...

I mean it more in terms of the Democrats being able to justify it. This isn't plain old obstruction (or tit-for-tat obstruction which, while justified, plays poorly with the voters who just want government to function and don't get that it's all one party's problem), this is about preventing a possible traitor from making a lifetime appointment.

The idea that Pence would survive a Trump impeachment is difficult to fathom. They would have to appoint a centrist Dem as VP and resign in lieu of them, that would be the demand if push came to shove on an impeachment.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
Ogodei said:
I mean it more in terms of the Democrats being able to justify it. This isn't plain old obstruction (or tit-for-tat obstruction which, while justified, plays poorly with the voters who just want government to function and don't get that it's all one party's problem), this is about preventing a possible traitor from making a lifetime appointment.

The idea that Pence would survive a Trump impeachment is difficult to fathom. They would have to appoint a centrist Dem as VP and resign in lieu of them, that would be the demand if push came to shove on an impeachment.
Click to expand...

lol what world do you live in?
 
P

Pseudo_Sam

Survives without air, food, or water
Linkura said:
After hearing about his disgusting ruling regarding IDEA (that the Supreme Court just UNANIMOUSLY overturned- YES EVEN CLARENCE FUCKING THOMAS), he can go fuck himself. Dems need to block him if at all possible.
http://time.com/4709234/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-supreme-court-decision/
Click to expand...

I don't think you grasp of the concept of legal precedent. Judges don't and shouldn't rule based on emotion, heartless as that sounds. Precedent set by his circuit -> Gorsuch follows precedent -> highest court in the land says the precedent was bogus. It's a perfectly valid chain of legal events that in no way makes him disgusting or a monster. It's what judges should do. It's like... are you seriously suggesting Gorsuch is a Voldemort monster who hates autistic kids?

Honestly this is more disastrous Dem signaling that will almost assuredly blow up in their faces. What the public sees in Gorsuch is a perfectly reasonable, calm, level-headed and articulate judicial candidate (because he is) against a legion of whiny Democrats who would oppose Socrates himself if only just to squeeze out another "fuck you" to Trump.

Complain about Garland getting screwed all you want – it's not fair and the Republicans are wormy bastards for doing it too. But political gridlock does not suddenly become justifiable when your team does it. If you seriously think this is going to help anyone you are wrong. At the end of the day Gorsuch will be sitting on the Supreme Court bench and the Dems will have taken yet another fat "L" opposing someone who is honestly a perfectly qualified and reasonable candidate. The optics here are not good for anyone who isn't already a diehard Dem.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Pseudo_Sam said:
I don't think you grasp of the concept of legal precedent. Judges don't and shouldn't rule based on emotion, heartless as that sounds. Precedent set by his circuit -> Gorsuch follows precedent -> highest court in the land says the precedent was bogus. It's a perfectly valid chain of legal events that in no way makes him disgusting or a monster. It's what judges should do. It's like... are you seriously suggesting Gorsuch is a Voldemort monster who hates autistic kids?

Honestly this is more disastrous Dem signaling that will almost assuredly blow up in their faces. What the public sees in Gorsuch is a perfectly reasonable, calm, level-headed and articulate judicial candidate (because he is) against a legion of whiny Democrats who would oppose Socrates himself if only just to squeeze out another "fuck you" to Trump.

Complain about Garland getting screwed all you want – it's not fair and the Republicans are wormy bastards for doing it too. But political gridlock does not suddenly become justifiable when your team does it. If you seriously think this is going to help anyone you are wrong. At the end of the day Gorsuch will be sitting on the Supreme Court bench and the Dems will have taken yet another fat "L" opposing someone who is honestly a perfectly qualified and reasonable candidate. The optics here are not good for anyone who isn't already a diehard Dem.
Click to expand...

Would Gorsuch have voted with the majority or not?

That's the relevant question. I haven't seen it answered.
 
T

TyrantII

Member
aeolist said:
i'm not saying it's likely, but republicans aren't insane. they operate based entirely on self-interest and long term policy goals like political parties should, and in that sense democrats are the aberration.

if republicans think they're likely to lose the senate they'd probably consider keeping the filibuster intact. but as i said, it's unlikely.
Click to expand...

They're rational only so far as they pine for what their insane base of voters asks of them. They just won every level of government in the nation from that group.

Trump showed them going right of the deep end is a winning strategy. It will be untill it is not. Do not expect anything else, as just like you say they will rationally do what's in their self interest. And right now that's appeasing the insane, fuck federal government as much as you can GOP base.
 
G

gurudyne

Member
I like the way someone on Twitter put it: the Dems should filibuster until one of two conditions are met:

A) A rule is established that no President can nominate a SCOTUS pick in the last year of their presidency, which would validate the Republican tactics from last year but officially establish a rule to prevent filling seats in the Supreme Court for a year at a stretch. This would fast track Gorsuch's nomination over Garland.

B) Establish the rule that a President has the full authority to nominate a SCOTUS pick in the last year of their presidency, which would open the doors for Garland's nomination to be heard/potentially confirmed before Gorsuch would be considered. This would prevent the logjam from last year from repeating in the future.

Both options have the effect of restoring legitimacy to the process and preventing political posturing from keeping a seat unfilled for a year on flimsy justifications.
 
Auto_aim1

Auto_aim1

MeisaMcCaffrey
I think Gorsuch is a great judge but if Dems roll over and approve him then it would be really unfair to Garland. He didn't deserve what Republicans did to him.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
TyrantII said:
They're rational only so far as they pine for what their insane base of voters asks of them. They just won every level of government in the nation from that group.

Trump showed them going right of the deep end is a winning strategy. It will be untill it is not. Do not expect anything else, as just like you say they will rationally do what's in their self interest. And right now that's appeasing the insane, fuck federal government as much as you can GOP base.
Click to expand...

ok? like i said, they're a normal political party which means they try to please their base because they're aware that if they don't they'll be primaried and voted out. their base being insane is another matter.

democrats don't seem to give a fuck about their base, which is the weirdest part of american politics imo.
 
link1201

link1201

Member
Dhx said:
It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they should have saved their powder for round 2. Gorsuch will get through. The next person will be more unpalatable I am sure as well. The filibuster would be more effective then if held now.
 
H

HammerOfThor

Member
I'm confused by this nuclear stuff, are they only allowed to use it once in a certain period of time?

Couldn't they just nuke everything they want?
 
O

Ogodei

Member
aeolist said:
lol what world do you live in?
Click to expand...

It's a dream scenario, i'll admit, but pretty much the entire line of succession is tainted if Trump goes down for this. They'd have to transfer power or yield to doing absolutely nothing until the next election.
 
F

Future PhaZe

Member
link1201 said:
Yeah, they should have saved their powder for round 2. Gorsuch will get through. The next person will be more unpalatable I am sure as well. The filibuster would be more effective then if held now.
Click to expand...


They are going to fucking use it no matter what. I don't get this lmao.

You can't predict who Trump will put up there. Mattis was a good pick for Dems. Devos was fucking horrific. Gorsuch is a good pick for dems.

But this isn't about Gorsuch. It's not even really about Garland. It's about not just rolling over to give Trump a lifetime pick when his administration is currently under investigation.
 
D

Darte

Member
Can someone explain the whole nuclear option in laymens terms?

As far as I understand it, Is it essentially forcing republicans to change the rules so that a simply majority can confirm the nominee? And that would end up setting a precedent in the future that allows democrats to do the same thing in the exact same scenario without the obvious fallout?
 
S

slit

Member
link1201 said:
Yeah, they should have saved their powder for round 2. Gorsuch will get through. The next person will be more unpalatable I am sure as well. The filibuster would be more effective then if held now.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the GOP thinks like that at all? If the Dems let it slide it will only signal weakness not only to the GOP but to the base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision, Interested in Buying Tik-Tok
2 3
143
8K
Gameplay Gods Bless replied
[VGC] Keighley weighs in on debate over Dave the Diver qualifying for Best Indie Game
Opinion News 2
86
5K
calistan replied
IGN’s GOTY 2023 is The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom
Opinion 2 3
124
6K
Hudo replied
  • Locked
TechRadar: PSVR 2 needs to change to outsell its predecessor
31
2K
diffusionx replied
In defense of Phil Spencer - he is not the problem with Xbox
Opinion Business Cringe 2 3 4 5
231
19K
rkofan87 replied
Top Bottom