The average voter doesn't care about SC vacancies, and wouldn't have been joining in, the way they did, for example, with MFOL.

More to the point, the average voter had the opportunity to protest the blocking of Garland's nomination by voting out the Republicans blocking it.

Mass talked only hit home when they are addressing issues that hit people where they live. The Civil Rights movement picked up steam when white faces were on the screen and killed during protests. The Vietnam protests hit home because there was a draft and everyone was somehow affected. An average citizen doesn't pay attention to court rulings because it has been a very long time since there were visible affects on the daily lives of ordinary people.

You could have driven and protested all around the country, Fleur, and it would have made about as much difference. Half the nation was delighted to have Garland blocked, and no doubt they would have also been delighted to see Democrats marching helplessly in the streets because THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED CONGRESS.

Also, federal judges have life tenure. They can only be impeached for cause and almost never are. As for the states, their judges are appointed for terms, but removing them is the business of the people of each state. It's very hard to remove judges, though, for the simple reason that we can't be replacing them every time a decision offends some group, which they always do. HOWEVER, when their terms are up, if Democrats control, Democrats elect or appoint the new ones.

COUNTDOWN TO TAKING CONTROL OF CONGRESS: 154 days.

Get control, Fleur, then start fixing things.

by not protesting, marching in the streets everyday until this madness ends... there should be nonstop protest until DT is out!!

Remember this?



Did that stop the travesty and tragedy of the Iraq War? Did it get us out of Afghanistan? (My daughter's boyfriend is 18 and joined the National Guard out of High School...he was not even BORN when that war started, and he has orders for the Middle East next spring...in 2019.

Protests do not move the needle after that...they are feel good events that the GOP and NRA and their ilk play the same way every time...they spout platitudes and talking points, they ignore all calls to action and then they wait for our attention-deficit disorder society to get bored and move on to the next scandal du jour....it is why we have Trump at all and it is why we won't be able to get rid of him either...

People either show up in MASSIVE numbers and vote them out despite the blockades, intimidation and outright fraud or we will get NOTHING....no impeachment, no admission of guilt, no relief from this nightmare....NOTHING. Massive turnout is the only thing that can give us a prayer of staying above water, period.

Also, to other posters who deflect by blaming Obama for any of this nonsense, shame on you. Until you have stood in his shoes to have a solid grasp of what the issues he was faced with, you have no business making snarky comments about him at all.

...would have changed little Mitchie's mind? Especially when he saw that most of the protests were in heavily-Democratic states?

No, where "we" as Democrats and/or progressives screwed up was when we stopped showing up for midterm elections, allowing the Republicans to sweep 2010 and 2014. Even if you are among those who think Obama was "too centrist," could you imagine how much else we could have accomplished had we not thrown away our congressional majorities by sitting those elections out?

The coulda, shoulda, woulda crowd. Always late to the party.

He made some reasonable, level-headed objections, and acquiesced. He should have punched McConnell in the face and sworn Garland in.

If they don't want to provide Advice and Consent, it's not the Executive Branch's fault.

You cannot confirm a SC justice without the Senate. That's how the constitution works.

Set a date, issue crazy threats, attack attack attack.

The Constitution says the Senate "shall provide", not "must provide". And they shirked their duties by refusing - where's the constitutional remedy for that?

I would have settled for Obama making a stink about it every fucking day. I would have settled for punching McConnell in the face. That seat was ours to fill.

I would have settled for a filibuster of all Senate business until McConnell agreed to hearings. But since obstruction served his purposes perfectly, it likely wouldn't have worked.

Once again the Bad Daddy Party gets its way, while the Mommy Party just grits its teeth and waits to clean up the mess.

The one I have says (in Article II, Section 2): "And he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law."

It doesn't say the Senate shall or must do anything. Only that the president shall nominate and shall appoint, if the requisite consent of the Senate has been obtained, various officials, including Supreme Court justices.

Even the "shall nominate" isn't a mandatory obligation imposed on the President. If so, presidents that leave any office vacant when they complete their term (or for some undetermined amount of time during their term) would be violating the Constitution. As used in the Constitution, "shall" sometimes imposes a duty, but other times it merely confers a power and expectation that it will be exercised.

See: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027712460#post73

looks like meekly surrendering to the overwhelming constitutional skills of the GOP is what Dem presidents have to do.

to accept that but it is still true.

He makes a lot of noise.

I know it's not "doing" anything, but Obama could have made a lot of noise, too. It would have kept it on the front pages, turned up the heat on McConnell and the Judiciary Committee, but he was too respectful of the GOP and the process. So was every Dem Senator.

Little did they know, Authoritarianism was just over the horizon. Now, the federal courts are lost to the Heritage Society for the next quarter century.

seat Pres. Obama's choice and continue into the next term even if Hillary won...noise had nothing to do with it...power did. And we achieve power only by winning elections...the old saying talk is cheap...it's is true...and now a face a new reality. If you don't have the Senate, you don't get judges. So midterms are as important as presidential races. And if we look at the states...the only way to achieve this is by having a big tent. As a liberal, I find that depressing.

there was a constitutional expert that said something about the Senate has waived their right to advise and consent after a certain number of days without action. I can't find the article, though.

have done so. And they could have voted it down in committee...so I just don't see it. I expect we will confirm future justices with 51 votes.

but, he was often not the most bold politically and doing that would have meant he went out on a limb and suffered heavy media attacks naming him a dictator or an emperor...

Done. There was no way to stop the GOP...and now we have a situation where unless we hold the senate, we won't get judges.

it seemed as if NOTHING, not even that BS, could anger no drama Obama.

appreciate. Pres. Obama save our economy and got us healthcare...he was the most obstructed president ever . He is a god.

There were still 30 million who didn't get it, and many who got it couldn't/can't afford to use it anyway. I personally set higher standards for my "gods" and quite frankly am more interested in results than demeanor. We could have used a major helping of FDR's "welcoming the hatred" of the banksters, for instance, particularly if it meant reining them in instead of rewarding their bad behavior.

new states are expanding Medicaid...Virginia did last week...that couldn't happen with the ACA. FDR didn't' healthcare nor even medicaid. President Obama had great results...and if the left left green riffraff had his back, we would have gotten more. The thing about Roosevelt, what you say is not true...Roosevelt protected many banksters so folks would not lose faith in capitalism. My Grandmother had a picture of Roosevelt in her home...great man no doubt. But I have a picture of Pres. Obama who saved our economy and was able to extend healthcare to millions in my hopw. And it can only get better from here.

Terrible that he wasn't given the opportunity, but McConnell wasn't obligated to confirm. Assuming he had gotten a vote and was voted down, how would that have changed anything? He still wouldn't have been seated.

There was no question that Garland would have been voted down. The game-playing was all to avoid a couple Republican senators going on the record as "no" votes for a moderate just before the election.

Also forgotten amidst all the whining? The fact that few Democrats wanted Garland to be confirmed (despite the noise they make now). Most of us firmly expected Hillary to win and the Senate to shift blue. Democrats were making it clear that once she won, they weren't going to let Republicans get away with quickly confirming Garland in a lame-duck session. Hillary was going to appoint a real progressive and we were going to see a generational shift in the makeup of the court.

There were hardly any Democratic senators who wanted Garland confirmed... they just wanted to force a vote so that they could use it as a campaign issue. They knew the vote would be "no".

Right or wrong, most of us thought it was “in the bag” up to the last couple weeks before the election, so it was just a matter of time before HRC would make the nomination... I wish we had taken to the streets in hindsight.

Not like we can blame that one on Jill Stein, after all...

for her or stayed home are responsible for Gorsuch...although no party will get judges now if they don't hold the Senate. Vote for the only party that can ever stop the GOP...Democrats.

Yeah, we shoulda. But wasn't it the responsibility of some of the people in office to buck that? I always thought Obama should have raised a stink 1/100th as bad as the Republicans would have under those circumstances.

And why couldn't the Democrats sue or something?

I do NOT think it was entirely the public's responsibility to fix that problem.

Advise and Consent/Separation of powers...we would lose in court.

I'm blaming the Dems for NOT RAISING HELL ABOUT IT.

If the Minority Leader had sued the Speaker for REFUSING to bring an appropriately qualified SCOTUS niminee before the Senate, how is that a separation of powers issue? He was not doing his job. Period.

so that wouldn't work.
Anyway, the Constitution plainly states that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...". The Senate followed the rules that they determined.

that's what lawsuits are for. Are those rules CONSTITUTIONAL?? Is it Constitutional to deprive a sitting President his choice of SCOTUS candidate?

a dispute over what the law says. The jurisdiction of the third branch of government is also in the Constitution. The Senate gets to determine its rules, not the courts.

The Senate could say Democrats will not be seated in the Senate, will not be allowed to sit on Committees, and it couldn't be challenged in any court??

because there are specific qualifications spelled out in the Constitution for being a member. Powell v McCormack

But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to vote on a presidential nominee (nor, as a practical matter, is there anything that requires the President to put forward a nominee to fill a vacancy).

back in 16...these protests and all...hey I went to the Woman's march but it would be better to vote Democratic always.

Democrats "ran away" from Obama in 2010 and others sat it out. That is what flipped the House.

Of course the hope is that we can do the same this year and flip it back.

party has lost the idea of party loyalty...and we join in with the GOP when they attack our people...it has to stop or we won't win.

the Minority Leader (and the rest of the Dem caucus), might have made a difference. As it turns out, the refusal to RAISE HELL until the wrong was righted has been as catastrophic as not more hell being raised before the election about the Russian interference.

Do you really think that would have made an iota of difference to the Republicans in Congress?

it made it clear he and the Democrats were wusses, and could be walked all over. Not only did Congressional Republicans get that message, but so did an awful lot of people who subsequently voted for Trump.

Had he been pounding away at it, they'd have eventually understood that what they were refusing to do mattered. He might well have stirred up enough anger on the part of the electorate for their shirking their job, to have made a difference in 2016. Hard to say for sure, but look at where we are now.

To a certain extent, the half-hearted nature of the response to the republican-controlled Senate's decision to stonewall the Garland nomination may have been influenced by two things. One is Joe Biden's 1992 floor speech suggesting Supreme Court vacancy's shouldn't be filled in an election year. And the other is the expectation that Hillary would win and we'd capture the Senate in 2016 and thus it might make sense to keep our power dry in case we ever wanted to do a Republican president what McConnell wanted to do to us.

Bad strategy. Bad outcome.

It was never something that had happened before.

And I thought the blithe assumption that Hillary would win was dumb. It simply set the precedent for a lot of crap that has followed.

What a load of malarkey. I need a pair of wellies and a hose down after reading that fantasyland, MMQB twaddle.

continues to cause damage to Democrats and the party...never blame the Gop for their brazen attacks on the judiciary...no by magic somehow the Dems should have fixed this. It doesn't work that way. Elections have consequences and until our side starts voting for Democrats period...without hesitation or purity tests, we will continue to be screwed over by the the GOP. We failed as a party to stand up for our people in 14 and lost the Senate. The Democratic electorate not all but those who don't 'turn out at midterms and demand perfection in their candidates are to blame.

We lost the senate and it can't be fixed until we toss the GOP bastards out and hint hint blaming our own folks won't help this effort. So now we start blaming and bashing Pres. Obama as well Bill Clinton? How is that ever a good idea? Support your party, vote in all elections and fight Republicans not Democrats. This is how we unite and win...and without winning, we get nothing.

We elect Dems to fight them. When they don't appear to try, we get frustrated. Losing is not fun, particularly when it's your Democracy.

Did you see Sen. Merkley's "show and tell" at the Brownsville Child Prison? Dipshit cop is like "and you're who, now? Senator of what?". Merkley spells out his name instead of dominating. Who the fuck are they to turn away a sitting Senator from a Government-contracted facility? Make them haul you off in cuffs! That makes the news.

I expect my Senators sharper, louder, angrier, more authoritative. If one of them is going to take Trump down in 2020, they have to be loud and charismatic. Otherwise our best shot is going to be an asshole like Howard Schultz.

I have no purity tests. I have never voted for a Republican, I never will, and I have never not voted.

cable every night...but not constant rage...I simply don't think it works. I expect people to understand that the Dems were kneecapped in 16 ( and those who participated in the kneecapping to feel shame and STFU as you have no right say anything if you helped elect Trump-not saying you) and there is little we can do. I think going after the GOP's kidnapping of immigrant kids is a worthy fight for us because it is moral and we must stop the GOP from essentially putting kids in concentration camps and Dems are doing so. However, I hear over and over ...they don't do enough...I call bullshit on that. What these critics done? Some are never satisfied and would be better to go after the GOP than blame our people for not being 'angry;' enough to fix it all despite the shitty votes in 2016...not saying you, but in general. Get out and vote Democratic k 2018, and in the meantime go after the GOP...not the only party that can stop them because it is a political suicide mission to go after Democrats in 2018. Didn't we see enough of that shit in 2016?

and yeah, the public does count. Look at what tRump has been able to accomplish by owning the narrative on the airways--even half of Democrats don't believe that Mueller has found any crimes.

But of course in the interests of bipartisany goodness we are always the "adults" in the room: even when the other side is bat shit crazy we do not challenge them, we just try to work with them. Fuck that. If we want to limit what the assholes get away with, everybody has to know what they are trying to pull!

That's just laughable.

Exactly what percentage of people in this country does this moron think can name the SC nominee Obama picked, and the SC Justice that was eventually installed? I'm betting about 15%.

Most people in this country don't give a flying fuck about Garland or Gorsuch. Most people don't even know the difference.....and this guy thinks people are going to 'take to the streets' over it?

That's just foolish.

made this country an uncomfortable place to live.

Answer: Never.

It's beyond silly to imagine a general strike over the republican controlled Senate's refusal to act on the Garland nomination. Most people probably weren't paying attention and I would guess that half of those who were paying attention probably figured Hillary would be elected, the Democrats would capture the Senate and, if anything, we might up with someone even more progressive than Garland.

put on him.

Did it make a difference?

But the guy is 83, right? Perhaps an appeal to his fear of the afterlife....

To my mind, the entire Republican body of the Senate that refused to consider Garland is guilty of putting party over country.

Problem is, there was no law forcing them to do it.

Bottom line, we've got to flip both Houses.

Addressing SC vacancies so this travesty doesn’t happen again. Such as a vacancy can only exist for 90 days. If no agreement in 90 days then the sitting President (at the time of the vacancy) choice stands.

How would this work in practice. If the nominee is voted on and rejected would your timeline still apply?

If we had taken to the streets and pushed this hard, the Republicans STILL wouldn’t have let the nomination go to a vote (since when has this crowd done the right thing just because a lot of angry Democrats demanded they do?).

And had we done that and Trump still won, we would have blamed ourselves for pushing too hard, yelling too loud and driving away the Republicans we always think will vote Democrat if we’re just nice enough to them.

weren't a lot of people more concerned with criticizing President Obama's pick?

It would not have influenced the Turtle one bit.

to win the Senate...after that there was nothing we could do. The GOP don't care about protests and they knew this was not a voting issue for most people so we were screwed. The only way to stop the GOP is to vote...take the House and the Senate if we can...this is the only way.

Is it EVER the "politicians" fault?? Asking for a friend...

Politically speaking, no groups were motivated to defend him. Obama pleased editorial boards with it, but nobody on the ground cared. I don’t think it would have made a difference in Nov. of 2016, but it was a missed opportunity.

...they made it clear they wouldn't, long before Obama picked Garland.

I’m talking about a choice that would have helped with voter turnout. The stonewalling was a fact, but which groups among our base took it personally? An African-American, a Latino or even an Asian would have generated more of a voter response than Garland. It would have motivated racists too, but Trump already maxed out that vote IMO.