Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

octoberlib

(14,971 posts)
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:04 AM Jan 2017

Democrats 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

69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrats consider backing off big battle over Trump's Supreme Court pick (Original Post) octoberlib Jan 2017 OP
You could smell this coming miles away. Wellstone ruled Jan 2017 #1
So, Dems expect he'll be there for a while? Dark n Stormy Knight Jan 2017 #2
Ah yes, the "cave now and (maybe) stand up later" tactic. Barack_America Jan 2017 #3
The old "keeping our powder dry" strategy dflprincess Jan 2017 #12
Seriously, stupid move... expect Bernie to lead the fight (as usual). InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2017 #36
After the US lies in ruins, last Dem pol will climb out from under rubble, and say to the air Turn CO Blue Jan 2017 #46
They must think we are stupid marlakay Jan 2017 #51
@%# that. W_HAMILTON Jan 2017 #4
Fuck that is right! Time to grow a spine!! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2017 #37
Schumer said NO MFM008 Jan 2017 #5
Good! All these conflicting articles.. :( Cha Jan 2017 #19
I really hope so mvd Jan 2017 #23
agreed. MFM008 Jan 2017 #26
Said no to what? Amaryllis Jan 2017 #45
at what point does dry powder turn into useless dust. KittyWampus Jan 2017 #6
Wha...? C_U_L8R Jan 2017 #7
And they'll say the same damn thing next time dalton99a Jan 2017 #8
I don't like it. Equinox Moon Jan 2017 #9
No means no Freethinker65 Jan 2017 #10
Wanna bet that they'll do the nuclear thing anyway? eleny Jan 2017 #11
Roll over, close your eyes, go back to sleep . . . isn't that what we elected you all to do? NBachers Jan 2017 #13
They're kidding, right? ck4829 Jan 2017 #14
If you're going to surrender without a fight, just quit and let somebody else fight. Girard442 Jan 2017 #15
They surely must have enough dry powder by now. n/t QC Jan 2017 #16
Keeping you powder dry if it means losing the war is a lousy strategy Brother Buzz Jan 2017 #17
We've seen this show before Jersey Devil Jan 2017 #18
Noooo!!!! Phoenix61 Jan 2017 #20
Anyone who voted for a trump nominee after what they did to Garland I will never onecaliberal Jan 2017 #21
I understand the... Snackshack Jan 2017 #22
I'm glad they are giving it some thought... SaschaHM Jan 2017 #24
Senate Democrats should start calling Donald Trump a lame-duck president. Efilroft Sul Jan 2017 #25
Why avoid the nuclear option? HoneyBadger Jan 2017 #27
Considering what is at stake... Laffy Kat Jan 2017 #28
I don't agree with them entirely, but they are considering what's at stake.... SaschaHM Jan 2017 #35
Plus you cant filibuster for years. Their only hope is to win seats in 2018 mr_liberal Jan 2017 #55
The Nuclear Opinion LovingA2andMI Jan 2017 #29
The nuclear option was a change to the rules FBaggins Jan 2017 #39
Well I think we need to find out who his pick is first n/t TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #30
rumor mill says Gorsuch or Hardiman. n/t Turn CO Blue Jan 2017 #47
Between those 2 Hardiman MIGHT be acceptable TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #58
Dollars to Donuts it's Pryor. Warren DeMontague Jan 2017 #63
Yeah. If he picks Garland, then okay. Warren DeMontague Jan 2017 #62
Oh fuck no!!! TDale313 Jan 2017 #31
I saw & heard Mitch McTurtle say very firmly "I will NOT change the filibuster rules. I believe napi21 Jan 2017 #32
Reportedly, he was speaking of filibusters on legislation FBaggins Jan 2017 #41
I don't understand what the difference is Bradical79 Jan 2017 #33
It would change the balance of the court mr_liberal Jan 2017 #61
Good thing they've announced their strategy! Beartracks Jan 2017 #34
exactly...but now they can write strongly worded letters. So there's that. nt LaydeeBug Jan 2017 #38
+1, they'll put some harsh language in it like gosh and darn and a few danggits uponit7771 Jan 2017 #44
They must be counting on picking up senate seats citood Jan 2017 #40
It's a nasty lineup of seats up in 2018 Yupster Jan 2017 #53
Well, that didn't last long. milestogo Jan 2017 #42
I think Sen. Schumer should do what he did with the cabinet vetting letter califootman Jan 2017 #43
Except he doesn't have that power BainsBane Jan 2017 #49
Fuck That. Warren DeMontague Jan 2017 #48
give trump his nominee to avoid the nuclear option NOW when it will just be used for the next one? msongs Jan 2017 #50
Yeah. I'm trying to wrap my head around that. n/t susanna Jan 2017 #56
I have friends .... LenaBaby61 Jan 2017 #52
As long as you live in an open primary state TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #68
There is one unlikely scenario where I could imagine this paying off. BzaDem Jan 2017 #54
Right, there could be several moderate republicans like that mr_liberal Jan 2017 #59
This is why they NEVER get my money anymore. FiveGoodMen Jan 2017 #57
Er, you don't need the nuclear option if you can get Ds to roll over, do you? stopbush Jan 2017 #60
Dems preemptively cave LittleBlue Jan 2017 #64
Oh, for Christ's sake. I knew they would do this. They always do this. WHAT. THE. Nay Jan 2017 #65
PRIMARIES!!!! bigdarryl Jan 2017 #66
good grief--the law says Garland must get his chance first! OBSTRUCT! librechik Jan 2017 #67
Jeebus! K&R Stellar Jan 2017 #69

dflprincess

(28,079 posts)
12. The old "keeping our powder dry" strategy
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:12 AM
Jan 2017

used so often during W's years.

Do they have any clue why people don't come out and vote for them?

Turn CO Blue

(4,221 posts)
46. After the US lies in ruins, last Dem pol will climb out from under rubble, and say to the air
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 01:57 AM
Jan 2017

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)
51. They must think we are stupid
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 02:11 AM
Jan 2017

They have done this too many times and republicans laugh all the way to getting what they want.

W_HAMILTON

(7,869 posts)
4. @%# that.
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:09 AM
Jan 2017

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.

mvd

(65,174 posts)
23. I really hope so
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:23 AM
Jan 2017

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.

eleny

(46,166 posts)
11. Wanna bet that they'll do the nuclear thing anyway?
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:11 AM
Jan 2017

I'm expecting that they'll do it for shits and giggles - because they can.

NBachers

(17,122 posts)
13. Roll over, close your eyes, go back to sleep . . . isn't that what we elected you all to do?
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:12 AM
Jan 2017

I just love the "Liberal Firebrands" slant.

melting into a pool of disgust

ck4829

(35,077 posts)
14. They're kidding, right?
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:15 AM
Jan 2017

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)
15. If you're going to surrender without a fight, just quit and let somebody else fight.
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:15 AM
Jan 2017

Don't give us the keep-the-powder-dry bullshit.

Brother Buzz

(36,444 posts)
17. Keeping you powder dry if it means losing the war is a lousy strategy
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:16 AM
Jan 2017

You just keep thinkin', Butch. That's what you're good at.

Phoenix61

(17,006 posts)
20. Noooo!!!!
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:19 AM
Jan 2017

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)
21. Anyone who voted for a trump nominee after what they did to Garland I will never
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:21 AM
Jan 2017

Vote for them again. We need Dems with intestinal fortitude.

Snackshack

(2,541 posts)
22. I understand the...
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:23 AM
Jan 2017

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)
24. I'm glad they are giving it some thought...
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:24 AM
Jan 2017

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)
25. Senate Democrats should start calling Donald Trump a lame-duck president.
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:25 AM
Jan 2017

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)
27. Why avoid the nuclear option?
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:28 AM
Jan 2017

How about they just do what they are told and stop playing games designed to extend their careers.

Laffy Kat

(16,383 posts)
28. Considering what is at stake...
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:28 AM
Jan 2017

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)
35. I don't agree with them entirely, but they are considering what's at stake....
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:39 AM
Jan 2017

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)
55. Plus you cant filibuster for years. Their only hope is to win seats in 2018
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 03:05 AM
Jan 2017

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)
29. The Nuclear Opinion
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:31 AM
Jan 2017

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.

TexasBushwhacker

(20,202 posts)
58. Between those 2 Hardiman MIGHT be acceptable
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 03:22 AM
Jan 2017

I saw William Pryor was also on the short list. He would be not a no but a HELL NO!

TDale313

(7,820 posts)
31. Oh fuck no!!!
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:33 AM
Jan 2017

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)
32. I saw & heard Mitch McTurtle say very firmly "I will NOT change the filibuster rules. I believe
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:35 AM
Jan 2017

in retaining long standing rules of the Senate". Has he changed his mind already? PIA!!!

FBaggins

(26,748 posts)
41. Reportedly, he was speaking of filibusters on legislation
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:59 AM
Jan 2017

He also thinks he had other options to get past a filibuster.

 

Bradical79

(4,490 posts)
33. I don't understand what the difference is
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:36 AM
Jan 2017

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)
61. It would change the balance of the court
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 03:40 AM
Jan 2017

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

citood

(550 posts)
40. They must be counting on picking up senate seats
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 12:57 AM
Jan 2017

In 2018, for the next fight.

IMHO, they cannot count on that.

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
53. It's a nasty lineup of seats up in 2018
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 02:53 AM
Jan 2017

Hard to see where they pick up seats.

Easy to see where they can lose some.

Tester, McCaskill, Manchin for starts.

califootman

(120 posts)
43. I think Sen. Schumer should do what he did with the cabinet vetting letter
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 01:17 AM
Jan 2017

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)
49. Except he doesn't have that power
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 02:03 AM
Jan 2017

because he is in the minority. Republicans control the Senate and therefore make those decisions.

msongs

(67,420 posts)
50. give trump his nominee to avoid the nuclear option NOW when it will just be used for the next one?
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 02:11 AM
Jan 2017

like repubs won't use it whenever they want despite what dems do? how stupid is that?

LenaBaby61

(6,974 posts)
52. I have friends ....
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 02:40 AM
Jan 2017

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)
68. As long as you live in an open primary state
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 11:47 AM
Jan 2017

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)
54. There is one unlikely scenario where I could imagine this paying off.
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 03:03 AM
Jan 2017

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)
59. Right, there could be several moderate republicans like that
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 03:27 AM
Jan 2017

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)
57. This is why they NEVER get my money anymore.
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 03:16 AM
Jan 2017

The only thing they ever do is email saying, "the GOP did something awful; give us money"

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
64. Dems preemptively cave
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 04:38 AM
Jan 2017

This is another idiotic mistake. The grassroots folks are going to abandon this party if it won't stand up.

Nay

(12,051 posts)
65. Oh, for Christ's sake. I knew they would do this. They always do this. WHAT. THE.
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 11:36 AM
Jan 2017

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.

librechik

(30,674 posts)
67. good grief--the law says Garland must get his chance first! OBSTRUCT!
Tue Jan 31, 2017, 11:43 AM
Jan 2017

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democrats consider backin...