General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats consider backing off big battle over Trump's Supreme Court pick
Washington (CNN)Senate Democrats are weighing whether to avoid an all-out war to block President Donald Trump's upcoming Supreme Court pick, instead considering delaying that battle for a future nomination that could shift the ideological balance of the court, sources say.
Democrats privately discussed their tactics during a closed-door retreat in West Virginia last week. And a number of Democrats are trying to persuade liberal firebrands to essentially let Republicans confirm Trump's pick after a vigorous confirmation process -- since Trump is likely to name a conservative to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
The reason for the tactic: Republicans are considering gutting the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats stay largely united and block Trump's first pick. By employing the so-called "nuclear option," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could move to reduce the threshold for clearing a filibuster from 60 votes to 51 votes.
That would mean Democrats could lose leverage in the next Supreme Court fight if Trump were to replace a more liberal justice, since the GOP now has 52 seats in the Senate.
Preserving the filibuster now could give Democrats more leverage in the future, proponents of this strategy say. But it would enrage the Democratic base that wants a furious Democratic response to Trump's court pick.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/democrats-supreme-court-battle/index.html
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,770 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)It has worked so well for Dems in the past.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)used so often during W's years.
Do they have any clue why people don't come out and vote for them?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)that he needs to keep the powder dry at this time.
Or that's my fear.
It's going to be up to us to charge the hill, and drag them with us.
marlakay
(11,476 posts)They have done this too many times and republicans laugh all the way to getting what they want.
W_HAMILTON
(7,869 posts)Anyone Democrat that doesn't fight this tooth and nail is on my perma-shit list.
Republicans have no integrity -- letting them claim this stolen seat in the expectation that they won't eliminate the filibuster down the road is the type of stupidity that you would think Democrats would have gotten over by now.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)MFM008
(19,818 posts)that means NO now.
N O W.
Cha
(297,323 posts)mvd
(65,174 posts)Trump the wannabe dictator needs complete opposition! I am not a fan of Schumer as minority leader, but will wait and see. He needs to back up words with actions.
if not, he gets primaried.
Amaryllis
(9,524 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,003 posts)Fight, goddammit.
dalton99a
(81,516 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Freethinker65
(10,024 posts)eleny
(46,166 posts)I'm expecting that they'll do it for shits and giggles - because they can.
NBachers
(17,122 posts)I just love the "Liberal Firebrands" slant.
melting into a pool of disgust
ck4829
(35,077 posts)What's to stop McConnell from trying it anyway? What's to stop McConnell from trying it in the future with another justice?
The Trump poor excuse of an Administration is taking damage, but here some Senators are willing to snatch defeat and concession from the jaws of victory.
An all-out war is here, it is happening now. If you can't or won't see that, then you need to get out of the way.
Girard442
(6,077 posts)Don't give us the keep-the-powder-dry bullshit.
QC
(26,371 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,444 posts)You just keep thinkin', Butch. That's what you're good at.
Jersey Devil
(9,874 posts)It bombed.
Phoenix61
(17,006 posts)They really need to stop acting like they can control the repubs. They can't. Playing nice now will not change their behavior. If it did we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
onecaliberal
(32,864 posts)Vote for them again. We need Dems with intestinal fortitude.
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)Tactical reasoning for the strategic value but it is no less infuriating. This vacancy should have been filled by President Obama months ago.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)I want them to fight like hell and obstruct, but this is basically the "filibuster on appointment positions" debate all over again. Dems listened to the calls from the base to get rid of it and now we are stuck with anyone that Trump chooses.
Do we push the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster on a conservative nominee that doesn't shift the court from where it was during the Obama presidency and accept having no say when the RBG or Breyer inevitably resign due to age? It's a gamble that could have generational consequences.
That being said, I'd like to see them call Turtle's bluff.
Efilroft Sul
(3,579 posts)Follow that up by saying he's not going to be in office for too much longer. Totally fuck with their heads as to what is meant by that. Say nothing. Just smile at the cameras like Joe Biden as if he were about to have Paul Ryan's bony ass again for dinner.
Next, to really send Trump into a tertiary stage syphilitic Twitter rage, the Senate Democrats should tell him that the Kremlin won't get to fulfill its advise and consent role with his Supreme Court nominees.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)How about they just do what they are told and stop playing games designed to extend their careers.
Laffy Kat
(16,383 posts)It would be an unimaginable slap in the face to the women of this country. If they don't fight tooth and nail, I will resign my party membership.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Preserving a filibuster on SC nominees is more vital for Dems than Republicans right now. RBG is 83 and Breyer is 79. A conservative replacing Scalia leaves the deciding vote to Kennedy. A conservative replacing RBG or Breyer means it's game over for the next 20-30 years.
Our entire government is about to be run by unqualified asshats because the filibuster on cabinet appointments is gone. The Dems have to be worried about whether the SC left leaning can survive such a change.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)and hope the next nominee fore Ginsburg or Kennedy doesn't come until late in Trumps term. Then they may be able to do the same thing Republicans did to Garland and hold out until after 2020.
I see nobody here except you is able to think rationally and strategically though, its all emotion.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Does not work on a Supreme Court pick. This was made into the rules when Reid dismantled the 60 vote test for Presidential Nominees outside of the Supreme Court pick, from what I heard.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)The same process could be used to change them again
TexasBushwhacker
(20,202 posts)Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,202 posts)I saw William Pryor was also on the short list. He would be not a no but a HELL NO!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)He's gonna go with the one most likely to piss people like us off.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)They damn well better fight, or plan on being out of power for good. If we can't count on them now, they're fucking useless.
napi21
(45,806 posts)in retaining long standing rules of the Senate". Has he changed his mind already? PIA!!!
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)He also thinks he had other options to get past a filibuster.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)If a 2nd Supreme Court pick comes up, why wouldn't he use the nuclear option then just because they got their first pick through?
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)because it would likely be for Ginsburg or Kennedy. This nomination is just a conservative replacing a conservative.
Its also later in Trumps term so he will be weaker as president. Theres the possibility of picking up seats in 2018. Theres a chance to hold out until after 2020 like they did with Garland. There's no way you could do that this early for 4 years.
There's all kinds of reasons why a second nominee would be easier to oppose. The only way this one would be is if its an extremist like Pryor and thats not who its going to be
Beartracks
(12,816 posts)Mitch will never gut the filibuster now!
==============
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)citood
(550 posts)In 2018, for the next fight.
IMHO, they cannot count on that.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Hard to see where they pick up seats.
Easy to see where they can lose some.
Tester, McCaskill, Manchin for starts.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Having a spine is really uncomfortable for some people.
califootman
(120 posts)I think Sen. Schumer should use the same approach he did with the cabinet vetting letter:
Refuse to give the nominee a hearing.
When the Republicans exclaim, "You are obstructing!"
Schumer says "That's just what you did with President Obama's nominee."
When the Republicans come back with, "But that's because Obama had less than a year left in office!"
Schumer retorts, "Exactly. Same, same."
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)because he is in the minority. Republicans control the Senate and therefore make those decisions.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)msongs
(67,420 posts)like repubs won't use it whenever they want despite what dems do? how stupid is that?
susanna
(5,231 posts)LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)Who had changed their party affiliation from Democrat to Independent (No Party Preference here in California) years ago, but they always vote Democratic--they just don't want a D--big one or little one--next to their name.
I'm close to doing the same thing myself, changing my party affiliation from D to I. Democrats caving in--tapping out like the fighters in MMA. The more things change the more they stay the same. WHY not just change their name from Democrats to Capitulators
Democrats caving yet AGAIN.
Just WOW
TexasBushwhacker
(20,202 posts)I would say go for it. If your state has closed primaries you would have to change back to D for every primary.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)There is no telling when the next SCOTUS vacancy will occur. It could occur well into Trump's first term, after he has royally pissed off certain Republican Senators (and possibly after Democrats gain 1-2 seats in the midterms). I could then imagine an extremely unlikely but possible situation where a few Republicans state they will not vote for the nuclear option, giving Democrats much more leverage.
As I said, it is very unlikely. But it isn't beyond the realm of possibility, given Trump's incompetence, immaturity, and disregard for Congress (or any other check on his power).
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)especially if they had already voted for Trumps first nominee. That will make them seem reasonable and give them cover to pressure him on his second. They will not want to be a part to stacking the court with conservatives, their moderate republican constituents wont want that.
Thats the only hope, to wait and go all out against Trumps second nomination which will change the balance.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)The only thing they ever do is email saying, "the GOP did something awful; give us money"
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Spineless.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)This is another idiotic mistake. The grassroots folks are going to abandon this party if it won't stand up.
Nay
(12,051 posts)HELL. is it going to take to get these Democrats to take things seriously????
I give up. I fucking give up. They have learned nothing.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)you fucking weenies. It's the only thing that will help, and don't fucking pick your battles. Fight ALL of it. ALL of you!
They don't care if we lose America as long as they keep their jobs.