This is the fight we need to stand up for. Fight Mitch. Fight the GOP.
27
The Senate would be well served to hold confirmation hearings of Judge Gorsuch , and delay vote on Judge Gorsuch in the Senate . The FBI investigations need to clear Trump presidential campaign 's wrong doing , and criminal charges , if any . This is a huge consequential issue for highly placed political appointees . Indeed the Dems are also making a political statement . Nevertheless , their decision to filibuster Gorsuch in the Senate is based on : a ) The FBI is investigating Russia 's meddling in 2016 elections . President 's election campaign officials including former National Security adviser and others are under investigations . b ) There are quite a few ongoing serious concerns . This process is broken by stark increases in influence of money on elections , Not the free speech , very partisan and unfair as for this seat is involved ! This Supreme Court seat would be recorded in history of the Congress for ever, as the one stolen by Republicans from Judge Garland . President Obama 's nominee in February of 2016 . Republican party majority in the Senate for more than a year delayed an up and down vote in the Senate. This was an unprecedented violation of the Constitution , and hurtful display of political gamesmanship at its worst . c ) This is a call for the conscience of all Americans : to call their Senators ASAP , if you as responsible citizens are invested in democracy , integrity of this process and the future of the Supreme court . What do you think ?
20
Silencing opposition, and changing the subject is what you find in the play books of autocratic leaders that has been creeping into the GOP for decades. The same way that Congressional Rep Darrel Issa tried to do with Congressman Elijah Cummings on the Benghazi Inquisition. Cut off his microphone, otherwise it has to go into the hearings "RECORD."
With the help of media partners Fox, Limbaugh, AM talk Radio, etc. they want to control the narrative, telling people in the PRESS "don't QUESTION US-Read and to FOLLOW everything we tell you to read and follow their lead, and it is they that have an AGENDA...!"
While the real AGENDA is to turn off the GAS, Water and POWER or FUNDING to all those UNNECESSARY government agencies that provide SERVICES that the public doesn't really need...! While we control the FLOW of DATA and INFORMATION (while taxpayers still for it); don't worry-you will never need those expensive SATELLITES and all that expensive RICH data that was paid for by taxpayers. We don't want you to see from space how we exploit, develop and SELL your publicly own land and natural resources while we dirty the air and water. You won't even notice this as we want to control what you hear, see and read...!
With the help of media partners Fox, Limbaugh, AM talk Radio, etc. they want to control the narrative, telling people in the PRESS "don't QUESTION US-Read and to FOLLOW everything we tell you to read and follow their lead, and it is they that have an AGENDA...!"
While the real AGENDA is to turn off the GAS, Water and POWER or FUNDING to all those UNNECESSARY government agencies that provide SERVICES that the public doesn't really need...! While we control the FLOW of DATA and INFORMATION (while taxpayers still for it); don't worry-you will never need those expensive SATELLITES and all that expensive RICH data that was paid for by taxpayers. We don't want you to see from space how we exploit, develop and SELL your publicly own land and natural resources while we dirty the air and water. You won't even notice this as we want to control what you hear, see and read...!
9
It was bad enough that the Republicans snubbed Garland 100% and now are upset that the Democrats are not all smiley over Gorsuch. I truly do not trust him. The old adage "a friend of yours is a friend of mine" has an opposite. A friend of Trump IS NOT! And I do not like many of his decisions-the trucker case, the special ed, his original-ism, etc are all questionable.
27
Mitch McConnell is the biggest slimball of the Senate and now even has traded any trace of ethical consideration of the Trump regime so that his wife can have a cabinet job. King of the SlimBalls will be his legacy.
33
Mitch McConnell is vying to wrest from Joseph McCarthy the title of the vilest individual to ever disgrace the U.S. Senate.
Has he no shame? The answer clearly is "No".
Has he no shame? The answer clearly is "No".
52
You don't show up to a gunfight with a knife. It's time to pull out the cannons.
18
McConnell blaming Democrats for his actions is a lot like an abusive husband blaming his wife for forcing him to beat her up.
35
The Democrats should filibuster ALL Supreme Court nominations until "the people have spoken" and we have a new president.
22
It's amazing that the lying hypocrite McConnell got away with denying President Obama his rightful pick for the Supreme Court. Now, when the Democrats, hopefully, block the cagey, and extreme corporatist rightwinger Gorsuch, Mitch McConnell screams like a stuck pig. It's shameful to have a government consisting of immoral, blatant liars, who are now unchecked.
30
The Republicans need to be taught they cannot successfully subvert the progressive agenda with no consequence! I'm still reeling over the bloodless coupe d'etat they waged against President Obama's nominee, Judge Garland. Now THAT was seditious . . .
17
Mitchy Mouse and his minions mince [Ryan] and mich [Nunes] and maul [the whole bloody lot of republicans] the Republic. Mr. Mc[cannot]C threatens to "go nuclear". Let's hope Trump doesn't follow suit and go nuclear. We are so much better than this roundish regime.
4
Drop the nuke, Senator McConnell.
And let's hope Trump's next SCOTUS nomination is much more conservative than Judge Gorsuch.
And let's hope Trump's next SCOTUS nomination is much more conservative than Judge Gorsuch.
5
According to Gorsuch, you must freeze to death a truck or else you can be fired because a plain textual reading of the the law says so. And it's OK to torture people by drowning them because ... well ... he gave his approval in writing. But heaven forbid Democrats try to filibuster such a highly qualified psychopath for the highest court of the land.
22
"If Senator McConnell blows up Senate rules to jam through President Trump’s nominee, he will be exposed as the radical that he truly is."
So what? How will the 'exposure' change anything?
So what? How will the 'exposure' change anything?
8
I don't understand how Mitch McConnell is still a senator. His poll ratings are the worst of all senators, even in his home state, yet he keeps getting elected. Is he in a gerrymandered, voter suppressed district in KY? Is it dark money keeping him in power? What gives? This guy is toxic to our democracy.
21
If the rich and powerful in the United States were not above the law, Mitch McConnell would have long ago been impeached, shunned, and convicted of crimes agains humanity.
10
At 75 years of age, Mitch McConnell functions as if he will live long- to see the ill-gotten fruits of his labor: Alas, there is another *locale* ( on the horizon) where Mr. McConnell's power plays won't be impressive.
12
I find it appalling that the US "oligarchs" are able to contribute millions for campaign ads and air time for Gorsuch in order to get the SCOTUS they want. This is an appointment, not an election.
11
mitch mcconnell is very simply evil and there is no way for him atone for the damage he has done to this country.he has earned the face he sees in the mirror.
17
Call your Democratic senators and urge them to filibuster. The Senate will swing back to the Dems in 2018..We can then repulse any extreme second candidate that Trump would put forth. This will be the consequence of the nuclear optiion and McConnell knows it.
8
The GOP was not going to stop with their refusal to give Judge Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote.
“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the supreme court,” said Sen. Richard Burr.
Sen. John "Straight Talk" McCain said, “If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the supreme court.”
Unctuous Sen. Cruz was another one in that boat.
So, yeah, the Democrats should tell the Republicans to go to a place where a snowball has no chance.
“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the supreme court,” said Sen. Richard Burr.
Sen. John "Straight Talk" McCain said, “If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the supreme court.”
Unctuous Sen. Cruz was another one in that boat.
So, yeah, the Democrats should tell the Republicans to go to a place where a snowball has no chance.
15
45 should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court judge in the last year of his office.
24
Please keep the spotlight on McConnell's treachery. He has done more than any single person to undermine the will of the people with his stonewalling of the Obama administration. Our democracy is seriously threatened by him.
22
We all knew McConnell's quality (or rather lack of it) when we found out that the day after President Obama's appointment, McConnell declared his intention to make Obama a one-term president; and then did everything he could to obstruct, no matter what it did to the country as a whole.
So as far as I'm concerned, McConnell didn't have any honor left to lose.
So as far as I'm concerned, McConnell didn't have any honor left to lose.
20
In stead of just reporting events- after the fact; perhaps the NYT could create a continuing series on the actual workings of our Congress. Americans needed to know long ago about the 500 Republican Filibuster and why they occurred.
16
The GOP logic is transparently deceitful:
If they don't get their way in this highly controversial appointment they will blame their opponents for having to resort to dirty tricks to get their way. How can anyone be more hypocritical?
When the GOP rams through bad policy by enforcing a party-line GOP vote and breaking established Senate rules, they should remember: what goes around comes around.
Rest assured that the GOP will howl "unfair" when it loses its majority next election...
If they don't get their way in this highly controversial appointment they will blame their opponents for having to resort to dirty tricks to get their way. How can anyone be more hypocritical?
When the GOP rams through bad policy by enforcing a party-line GOP vote and breaking established Senate rules, they should remember: what goes around comes around.
Rest assured that the GOP will howl "unfair" when it loses its majority next election...
4
I don't understand why everyone avoids the obvious end game here. The Republicans have stolen a supreme Court seat. They have decided that ANY tactic is worth using to maintain the control of the court that they have had since the early 70s. After the Rs change the filibuster rule, there is only one way to restore the court to a fair balance.
When the Democrats regain the Congress and the Senate, the first order of business must be a term limit on SCOTUS judges of 15 years. Only the elimination of lifetime tenure and the prospect of a single appointment changing the tilt of the court for a generation will take the poison out of court nominations.
When the Democrats regain the Congress and the Senate, the first order of business must be a term limit on SCOTUS judges of 15 years. Only the elimination of lifetime tenure and the prospect of a single appointment changing the tilt of the court for a generation will take the poison out of court nominations.
6
The author is absolutely correct. We are each responsible for our own actions. This is as true for Republicans as it is for domestic abusers who state that their partner "made them do it." No one is forcing Republicans do "go nuclear." In their rush to approve an extremely conservative justice to the Supreme Court, they will do and overlook just about anything.
4
I wish the author were correct in a meaningful way. Mitch McConnell is the worst american leader in modern history, nakedly putting partisan advantage ahead of country again and again. He crossed the Rubicon of leadership when he pronounced that his first priority was to ensure Obama was "a one-term president" and has continued in the same manner since on issue after issue.
Unfortunately, unlike Mr. Jentleson, I have NO faith that voters will be moved by McConnell exposing himself as something other than an institutionalist. Conservative GOP voters, in large numbers, are craving the destruction of american institutions and regularly reward scorched earth victories on the part of the Republican Party.
I don't know the correct road forward for the Dems, but stopping Gorsuch at the cost of further eroding Senate rules feels like a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Unfortunately, unlike Mr. Jentleson, I have NO faith that voters will be moved by McConnell exposing himself as something other than an institutionalist. Conservative GOP voters, in large numbers, are craving the destruction of american institutions and regularly reward scorched earth victories on the part of the Republican Party.
I don't know the correct road forward for the Dems, but stopping Gorsuch at the cost of further eroding Senate rules feels like a Pyrrhic victory at best.
4
That Gorsuch accepted the nomination at all rather than turning it down and saying it was Garland's seat was of itself a declaration that Gorsuch, just like McConnell, pursues power over the good of the country and the Constitution. He proved right there he should not have been nominated.
8
"But Democratic senators made clear that they wanted to give Judge Gorsuch the fair hearing that Republicans had denied Judge Merrick Garland."
Correction: Democratic senators wanted to give Judge Gorsuch the appearance of a fair hearing. There is no way they were ever going to risk the fury of their left wing base by actually voting for him.
Correction: Democratic senators wanted to give Judge Gorsuch the appearance of a fair hearing. There is no way they were ever going to risk the fury of their left wing base by actually voting for him.
6
It looks as though the "winner takes all" policy is the only one the GOP have complete agreement on. President Trump will find no problems with that.
4
"If Senator McConnell blows up Senate rules to jam through President Trump’s nominee, he will be exposed as the radical that he truly is."
"Exposed"? Really?! This Himmler wannabe has made a career of behaving like a small child. He has been the Enabler-in-Chief for the Party of "No", the chief architect of the plan to direct right-wing white fury at the first non-white ever to occupy the White House. That's a lot of white.
He is the High Priest of the religion of entitlement that permeates the Republican ethos--not simply in Congress but across the country--people who truly believe everything should be their way, all the time, without question or discussion; that they should have whatever they want, simply because they want it; that they are incapable of error and therefore have no need to examine their beliefs and/or the actions that derive from them; folks who enjoy so much a narrative that casts them as a victim they tend to view the world that way, to the point of making them up.
We aren't talking about "forgotten" people here. Try "self-absorbed", "deliberately ignorant and willfully dumb", "delusional on purpose", "stubbornly stupid". It's not name-calling when it's true--call it "precision of language".
"Exposed"? Really?! This Himmler wannabe has made a career of behaving like a small child. He has been the Enabler-in-Chief for the Party of "No", the chief architect of the plan to direct right-wing white fury at the first non-white ever to occupy the White House. That's a lot of white.
He is the High Priest of the religion of entitlement that permeates the Republican ethos--not simply in Congress but across the country--people who truly believe everything should be their way, all the time, without question or discussion; that they should have whatever they want, simply because they want it; that they are incapable of error and therefore have no need to examine their beliefs and/or the actions that derive from them; folks who enjoy so much a narrative that casts them as a victim they tend to view the world that way, to the point of making them up.
We aren't talking about "forgotten" people here. Try "self-absorbed", "deliberately ignorant and willfully dumb", "delusional on purpose", "stubbornly stupid". It's not name-calling when it's true--call it "precision of language".
5
As I recall, after the 9/11 attacks, conservatives and Republicans exonerated Pres. Bush by saying, "He'd been in office only nine months. The attacks were Pres. Clinton's fault."
We have Mitch McConnell declaring that a the last year of a presidency is null and void and important matters such as nominating SC justices should wait until the next election (I'm quite sure, though, that were the president a Republican, he would not have decided we should wait until after the election. Call me cynical).
If an attack on the country within the first nine months of a presidency, so presumably everything, continues to fall under the purview of the prior president, shouldn't Obama' choice therefore carried through to at least Sept. 11 of this year and declared not Trump's responsibility?
We have Mitch McConnell declaring that a the last year of a presidency is null and void and important matters such as nominating SC justices should wait until the next election (I'm quite sure, though, that were the president a Republican, he would not have decided we should wait until after the election. Call me cynical).
If an attack on the country within the first nine months of a presidency, so presumably everything, continues to fall under the purview of the prior president, shouldn't Obama' choice therefore carried through to at least Sept. 11 of this year and declared not Trump's responsibility?
2
Does anyone outside of Washington, D.C., really care about whether the Senate's rules are changed to allow a Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed with 50 votes instead of 60? Indeed, most people outside the Beltway probably think that requiring anything more than a simple majority is anti-democratic. Mitch McConnell realizes that he has little, if anything, to lose politically by invoking the so-called nuclear option. What he stands to lose is the upper hand once the Democrats retake control of the White House and the Senate. So Democrats should welcome a change in the rules.
4
Even before he became Speaker, New Gingrich figured out that showing up on C-SPAN and calling an opponent a bomb-throwing bolshevik got his coverage on the nightly news. He advised his party to consider every policy decision through the electoral lens. that is, winning re-election is more important than governing.
Newt got the boot, but his premise drives the Republican Party. The bigger the flame-thrower, the more media coverage. That, and not the public good, became the goal.
Enter Mitch McConnell with his goal to stop the will of the people and their choice for president, and to deny that president his nominee for Supreme Court.
It definitely is the Republican Party that is responsible for tearing down the system of checks and balances that makes our government work. Now, that is not even a consideration. Just win to stay in power and move money to rich donors.
Newt got the boot, but his premise drives the Republican Party. The bigger the flame-thrower, the more media coverage. That, and not the public good, became the goal.
Enter Mitch McConnell with his goal to stop the will of the people and their choice for president, and to deny that president his nominee for Supreme Court.
It definitely is the Republican Party that is responsible for tearing down the system of checks and balances that makes our government work. Now, that is not even a consideration. Just win to stay in power and move money to rich donors.
5
The Democrats and their media enablers are so desperate to oppose Trump that they've lost all perspective and strategic sense. This irrational "Charge of the Schumer brigade" as the Democrats follow him off the cliff to filibuster Gorsuch, an obviously qualified candidate, will make it easy for the Republicans to justify nuking the filibuster so SCOTUS justices can be confirmed by simple majority vote. Forgoing the filibuster to let Gorsuch replace Scalia would not alter the balance of the court and waiting for the next nominee, who might be someone more extreme like Pryor, might make it possible for Democrats to pick off a few "institutionalist" Republican Senators to vote with them to retain the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments.
As it is, once the filibuster for SCOTUS justices is gone, it's gone forever. That could prove very significant because the ages of the oldest justices creates a confluence of timing that will pave the way for Trump to appoint almost certainly one and perhaps as many as two or even three more increasingly conservative SCOTUS justices and change the tenor of the court for the next 30 years.
Brilliant strategy by Schumer and the Democrats. Not even a Pyrrhic victory because if they follow this path they are going to lose both the battle and the war.
As it is, once the filibuster for SCOTUS justices is gone, it's gone forever. That could prove very significant because the ages of the oldest justices creates a confluence of timing that will pave the way for Trump to appoint almost certainly one and perhaps as many as two or even three more increasingly conservative SCOTUS justices and change the tenor of the court for the next 30 years.
Brilliant strategy by Schumer and the Democrats. Not even a Pyrrhic victory because if they follow this path they are going to lose both the battle and the war.
5
The problem isn't the nuclear confirmation--the problem is that the seat was President Obama's to fill.
This will render the Supreme Court and its decisions illegitimate.
This will render the Supreme Court and its decisions illegitimate.
7
As a woman, my rights are at stake with this nomination. If the Republicans want to go nuclear, so be it. If they want to diminish the Senate by eliminating the filibuster, so be it.
8
Mitch McConnell's status as a non institutionalist, radical Republican rule breaker was long ago exposed. This will only confirm what has been amply demonstrated repeatedly in the past. What do the Democrats -and the country - get out of his endless strong-arming repetition? A steamrolling Republican House that knows no bounds - that throws temper tantrums when it doesn't get its way and, whenever it deems necessary, violates the Constitution with impunity while accusing the other side of blowing things up. Get ready once again for the GOP to defecate all over the document it pretends to hold sacred.
6
Up until the current occupier of the oval office, I believed Mitch McConnell was the most repugnant of politicians. And now, even though he comes in second, history will provide revenge. Throughout history, for all time, his repulsiveness will be evident to generations.
11
Senator McConnell: synonymous with obstruction and make no doubt about it, racist. He did everything he could over eight years to deny any progress for our Black President. His real immoral and unprecedented actions with respect to Obama's Supreme Court nominee is, as always - Republican Party over Country.
3
The GOP is effectively asserting that the Scalia seat is a permanent republican/conservative seat, and can never be held by a liberal/democratic appointee. Failure to filibuster Gorsuch is tantamount to acceptance of this claim.
5
The backdrop is this: the Court has stayed conservative for the last 30 years despite liberals holding the presidency and/or Senate for roughly half that time. How did that happen? If the picture was more balanced, there'd be less intransigence.
2
It sure feels like everything Mitch McConnell does is jaded and frankly unethical. Doesn't it feel like his support of Trump at this point with his wife a cabinet officer is essentially an ethics violation?
The guy is an effective hate monger in a more subdued way than Trump. Just like Trump, he doesn't stand for anything. He made his career based on opposition to the Democrats. Now that he has more power, he is caught in a problem: Since he doesn't stand for anything, his effectiveness has completely disappeared. All he can do is continue supporting hate for all Democrats.
The question I would pose for Republicans is do you really want to open up the filibuster rule? It looks great when you are in opposition, but government is inherently based on the notion of balance and the assumption that all Congressman are honestly trying to do what is right. How will the party fare if they are in a minority without the rule? How will Americans regard them? Can you continue to fool all of the people all of the time?
The guy is an effective hate monger in a more subdued way than Trump. Just like Trump, he doesn't stand for anything. He made his career based on opposition to the Democrats. Now that he has more power, he is caught in a problem: Since he doesn't stand for anything, his effectiveness has completely disappeared. All he can do is continue supporting hate for all Democrats.
The question I would pose for Republicans is do you really want to open up the filibuster rule? It looks great when you are in opposition, but government is inherently based on the notion of balance and the assumption that all Congressman are honestly trying to do what is right. How will the party fare if they are in a minority without the rule? How will Americans regard them? Can you continue to fool all of the people all of the time?
5
Should President Trump be found to have colluded with the Russians by the FBI, I think that would make his presidency illigetimate. Therefore his nomination of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court would be illigetimate too.
5
I am one lawyer who will see an asterisk every time I see an opinion with the name, "Gorsuch, J *). His occupation of a stolen seat will be an never-ending insult to the Constitution.
8
When McConnell refused to hold hearings on Garland, I thought that Supreme Court seats would in the future be filled only when the presidency and the senate were held by the same party.
Sure looks like it will come true.
Sure looks like it will come true.
3
Senators should adopt in tandem with the Gorsuch vote a Senate rule that would advance the country's interest in having higher public confidence in the judiciary:
All nominees for Article III judges shall be voted upon by the Senate within 120 days of their nomination and the votes of 55% of senators are required for confirmation.
This could end the ongoing problem of 10%-15% vacancies in the federal judiciary and would codify the dictum that great changes should not be decided by narrow majorities.
Confirming judicial nominees to life-tenured positions by a simple majority is unwise. It can create or further the appearance that the judiciary is a partisan branch, thus undermining confidence that the courts deliver justice. It encourages the legislature to default on its responsibilities and to allow the judicial branch to function as a supreme legislature.
All nominees for Article III judges shall be voted upon by the Senate within 120 days of their nomination and the votes of 55% of senators are required for confirmation.
This could end the ongoing problem of 10%-15% vacancies in the federal judiciary and would codify the dictum that great changes should not be decided by narrow majorities.
Confirming judicial nominees to life-tenured positions by a simple majority is unwise. It can create or further the appearance that the judiciary is a partisan branch, thus undermining confidence that the courts deliver justice. It encourages the legislature to default on its responsibilities and to allow the judicial branch to function as a supreme legislature.
Having personally destroyed the comity and goodwill of the Senate, it's primary attribute and role, McConnell sniffs at the idea that he might need to seek the same to get a candidate confirmed. To those who say this is a Democratic tantrum, I say that the institution was put at stake by McConnell, and no one else.
5
Gorsuch wrote briefs and policy that justified torture and oppression of human rights when he was high up in Buch justice department.
He is unfit to uphold American values on our highest court, no matter his legal training or knowledge.
He is unfit to uphold American values on our highest court, no matter his legal training or knowledge.
2
I agreed up until the last sentence: "If Senator McConnell blows up Senate rules to jam through President Trump’s nominee, he will be exposed as the radical that he truly is."
I don't believe most (or certainly not enough) of our country is clever enough to see through the subterfuge. The rabid party-liners (and it seem that nothing less is acceptable) are not willing or not capable of thinking critically and drawing their own conclusions. They'll just swallow whatever Fox feeds them.
I don't believe most (or certainly not enough) of our country is clever enough to see through the subterfuge. The rabid party-liners (and it seem that nothing less is acceptable) are not willing or not capable of thinking critically and drawing their own conclusions. They'll just swallow whatever Fox feeds them.
3
Here's Gorsuch:
for Voter Suppression, against Voting Rights
for Torture
for Fetuses, against Women and living Children
for Corporations, against Individuals
And, as noted, the Republican record on preventing action by Democrats is long, and keeping Democratic legal appointments long as well. What choices do they offer?
Oh yes, agree with us or go away. That is not Democracy.
Garland or noone, and oppose to the last breath. These tyrants are dangerous and unpatriotic. We need a habitable planet.
for Voter Suppression, against Voting Rights
for Torture
for Fetuses, against Women and living Children
for Corporations, against Individuals
And, as noted, the Republican record on preventing action by Democrats is long, and keeping Democratic legal appointments long as well. What choices do they offer?
Oh yes, agree with us or go away. That is not Democracy.
Garland or noone, and oppose to the last breath. These tyrants are dangerous and unpatriotic. We need a habitable planet.
5
"By the time Democrats exercised the nuclear option, Senator McConnell had unleashed nearly 500 filibusters and spent years twisting Republicans’ arms to prevent them from working with Democrats, regardless of the substance of a given issue, in pursuit of his goal of denying President Obama a second term."
This tells me everything I need to know about the GOP and their tactics.
This tells me everything I need to know about the GOP and their tactics.
35
No. Harry Reid unleashed 500 cloture votes as a tactic to prevent Republicans from having any say on legislation.
Harry Reid insisted upon absolute control of the Senate...
And, in doing so, he has assured that Democrats will have little to say on appointments for most of the next decade.
Harry Reid insisted upon absolute control of the Senate...
And, in doing so, he has assured that Democrats will have little to say on appointments for most of the next decade.
4
In the first 14 months of Obama's terms, only 42.8 percent of judicial nominees were confirmed compared to 86.8 during Bush II's terms. That tells me something about the nature of the GOP and the hatred they have of President Obama.
33
And Democrats. We should never forget their vicious fishing expedition and witch hunt of Pres. Bill Clinton. The GOP has become that sociopath you can get nowhere with because they have absolutely no sense of decency or fair play, and they don't care about it at all. Look at their base, in fact. The more vicious, mean-spirited, hypocritical, ruthless and sociopathic they are toward the "enemy", the more they love them. We are in a very bad place with the American right wing right now, ironically because they are solely about party, power, and warring against anyone they don't like.
1
Trump should not be allowed to nominate someone to the SCOTUS in the first 48 months of his term. Let's let the American people decide in 2020. Go filibuster.
22
Go ahead...
The price will be staggering.
The price will be staggering.
I'm amused by very privileged, and very conservative, white men (e.g. Gorsuch) forever bolstering corporate interests in the name of "individual liberty."
Who falls for this?
"Individual liberty" is code for "big money rules."
Who falls for this?
"Individual liberty" is code for "big money rules."
27
Of course McConnell will go nuclear, and of course he couldn't care less what people think of it.
17
Even if putin's pick to replace scalia is seated, as soon as putin's presidential pet is jailed for collusion and tax evasion Americans will demand that gorsuch is Repealed and Replaced with an American lawyer.
6
The Trump administration is being investigated by the FBI. Shouldn't we wait until that investigation is concluded before confirming a Supreme Court nominee? This is no different than the argument that we should wait for the next election instead of giving Obama's nominee a hearing.
27
...I agree, and would take it one step further. We've been waiting for Trump's tax returns until the IRS audits are done. Seems just right to wait on the Supreme Court nomination until the investigations are done. Especially since it is so possible that Trump is going to be facing the Supreme Court at some point in the near future.
3
Ten million dollars of dark money seems to buy a lot of comments.
3
Both parties are dug in, because both see the gain. No one really likes the filibuster. Democrats can employ it because it increases turnout among the base. Republicans can dump it because moderate voters don't care that Gorsuch gets in (note: this would not be true if he were replacing a moderate or liberal Justice). Fillibuster is now gone. Now we get to see which lasts longer: the Republican Presidency (until 2020 at least), or Ginsburg.
Note, I mention 2020. I know there is a lot of talk among progressives of flipping the Senate in 2018. Do the math, though. That requires taking out all three of Heller (good chance), Flake (decent chance), and Cruz (good luck), while losing NONE of McCaskill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin and Tester, all of whom are running in heavily red states that Trump won by 20 points. Manchin could flip parties for political gain too, or King could caucus with Republicans. Only gaining a net of two doesn't flip the Senate, since Pence still votes in ties.
I previously saw more harm than good for Democrats (the risk of Ginsburg's mortality is that great). Republicans would not nuke to replace Ginsburg with a candidate like Gorsuch - too much political cost. However, I had forgotten Diane Sykes. She's even more conservative than Gorsuch, but comes with the "How could Democrats block a woman!" story line.
Note, I mention 2020. I know there is a lot of talk among progressives of flipping the Senate in 2018. Do the math, though. That requires taking out all three of Heller (good chance), Flake (decent chance), and Cruz (good luck), while losing NONE of McCaskill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin and Tester, all of whom are running in heavily red states that Trump won by 20 points. Manchin could flip parties for political gain too, or King could caucus with Republicans. Only gaining a net of two doesn't flip the Senate, since Pence still votes in ties.
I previously saw more harm than good for Democrats (the risk of Ginsburg's mortality is that great). Republicans would not nuke to replace Ginsburg with a candidate like Gorsuch - too much political cost. However, I had forgotten Diane Sykes. She's even more conservative than Gorsuch, but comes with the "How could Democrats block a woman!" story line.
2
Simply brilliant writing
Incisive and a pleasure to read in it's precision. The hypocrisy is galling.
Incisive and a pleasure to read in it's precision. The hypocrisy is galling.
11
Why even have hearings? Now that the filibuster will be eliminated for Supreme Court Justice hearings, just confirm if the nominating party has a majority reject if they do not. There is no open minded consideration. What a waste of time and energy.
6
The Democrats can thank Harry Reid for creating this template. He was warned at the time but ignored the warnings. Had he had the chance to blow everything when a Supreme Court nominee was at stake he would not have hesitated for a moment
9
He hesitated for many moments. Those who were paying attention at the time were well aware of it. The article clearly outlines the reasoning, however. Try giving it another read.
1
I think I need some clarification here. If Republicans were within their rights to filibuster President Obama's nominations prior to 2013, why aren't Democrats within their rights to filibuster President Trump's nominees in 2017? According to you, it's OK for Republicans to use these tactics, but it's not acceptable for Democrats. Wait, I have the answer. This strategy makes sense for a party that has lost the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections. Seizing the judiciary is your "break glass in case of emergency" plan for controlling the country when the Republican party and President Trump are less popular than mosquitos or small pox.
4
Since the Democrats won't act, President Trump should put the Honorable Gorsuch on the Court by Executive Order
3
And, the Republicans would have been throwing hissy fits and temper tantrums like four-year-olds, who couldn't have their way, if Obama did the same thing, buy placing Garland in SCOTUS via Executive Order.
C'mon, Larry, get over yourself.
C'mon, Larry, get over yourself.
1
That's not how things work in this country. the Democrats ARE acting, only you don't like what they're doing. So sorry they didn't ask for your advice.
You're joking, right.
1
Judges should never have a lifetime position. This should be applied also to senators. Senators should never have more than two re-election cycles like presidents. In fact, no one should have a lifetime position including academicians. Lifetime positions completely block creativity, innovation, advances, productivity and everything that sustain a democracy. Could you imagine having a president with a lifetime position? It would be the end of US democracy. By keeping judges in lifetime positions and senators being re-elected many times, younger generations of politicians will never have the opportunity to bring fresh ideas that work for the young American people of the 21st century. Many senators are so old that they cannot even walk and have coherent conversations and clear thinking. What is McConnell doing in Congress? He is a radical and old-fashioned 75 year old with archaic ideas. He probably does not know anything about what is going on in the 21st century, a digital era where things are changing at a very fast speed and that belongs to young millennials and not to old McConnell. He would not be able to blame the democrats with his radical ideas and nonsense behavior because he is the one with the finger ready to exercise the nuclear option. Go ahead do it!! You will go down in history as the one who made such stupidity.
17
And would you not apply such term limits to wealth and property, also? How about college degrees (including medical degrees): shouldn't they be term-limited, too. Well?
The filibuster is a residue of the idea that the country should not come under the rule of a tiny majority in important matters. The nuclear option says that the votes of 48% of the Senate count for nothing. 52 Republicans are all that are important.
Nevertheless, Democrats should filibuster and let McConnell do his destructive work.
Nevertheless, Democrats should filibuster and let McConnell do his destructive work.
25
can't a series of Democratic Senators, holding the floor and defering to learned colleagues, expatiate on the nature of the filibuster and the unpredented illegality of McConnell's slimy trick last year? If there's no way out of the Repbulicans getting the Justice they want,at least they should get the loud and long excoriation they deserve...past Friday if breath holds out.
Who says a boy from Brooklyn can't quash a yokel from the hollers of Kentucky and call out the Republicans for what they truly are (which cannot be adequately described within the bounds of a family newspaper)?
Who says a boy from Brooklyn can't quash a yokel from the hollers of Kentucky and call out the Republicans for what they truly are (which cannot be adequately described within the bounds of a family newspaper)?
They can, however, slow the Senate down to less than a snail's pace and make sure NOTHING gets done. While the Senate gets to make its own rules, but imagine the firestorm if they simply outlaw all voting and the Chair "signs" off on any legislation.
You wanted "democracy".
And now you are arguing against it.
Can't you get your objectives straight?
And now you are arguing against it.
Can't you get your objectives straight?
1
Sen McConnell unilaterally decided not to give Judge Garland a hearing. Since Republicans won the election he looks like a hero to his side. Indeed, he goes on Meet the Press and laughs at any suggestion that what he did was untoward. but make no mistake, the only legacy McConnell is interested in upholding is one of dirty political tricks. He's as slimey as they come.
54
So you're OK that Schumer, a DEMOCRAT did the exact same thing in 2007. Thanks for setting the record straight on your hypocrisy.
1
In addition to this article be spot on, there is still one issue that constantly gets underreported. If the Democrats are successful in a filibuster vote, then the Senate would have to vote on changing the rules to allow a majority rule rather than a positive vote on cloture, which will require 51 yes votes. So we might say it is solely up to McConnel, but it would be the entire Republican Senate responsible for the eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court votes. This outcome on this vote should definitely not be taken for granted. Surely there may be three Republicans willing to step up in recognizing the long-term damage this would cause. Pressure should be brought to bare. Remember the bipartisan gang of 12 that made a deal to stop this before? Gorsuch was picked without ANY consultation with Democrats. This was not true of ANY DEMOCRAT OR ANY REPUBLICAN President ever before. A lifetime appointment of this significance should require at least a 60 bipartisan vote. For the Republicans to disgracefully deny Judge Garland even a hearing followed by approving a nominee that can not garner at least 60 votes is a recipe of decades of civil unrest, if not worse. Gorsuch should be not confirmed and a consensus nominee should be nominated.
15
Well said.
1
Goodbye Senate filibuster of Supreme Court nominees!
Hello Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch (start getting the new robes measured up!)
Hello Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch (start getting the new robes measured up!)
4
"Democrats are right to embrace their principled opposition to Judge Gorsuch..."
Except that it's not a "principled opposition." Actually, it's just petulance over the GOP's refusal to let the Dems pack the court with Merrick Garland.
The Dems need to remember that elections have consequences and their inability to bias the Court with another Lefty is a direct consequence of all the Congressional elections they've lost over the last eight years.
Except that it's not a "principled opposition." Actually, it's just petulance over the GOP's refusal to let the Dems pack the court with Merrick Garland.
The Dems need to remember that elections have consequences and their inability to bias the Court with another Lefty is a direct consequence of all the Congressional elections they've lost over the last eight years.
4
No, better to bias the court with a near-fascist ideologue. The Dems know votes have consequences. They've carefully weighed the potential consequences of their vote on this important issue.
2
Of course, Harry Reid was NEVER petulant.
2
The United States Senate will be a far better institution when McConnell is out of office, whether by defeat at the polls or simple human mortality. Good riddance.
37
Openly wishing for the death of Sen McConnell??!! Now we see why America is paralyzed by hyperpartisan fanaticism. Democrats are unpatriotic, evil, vile, despicable, trash
Give us all a break with this "Democrats should play the long game" nonsense. We have a president* with a 30% approval rating, with half his key staff under FBI investigation. Progressives are rightfully calling McConnell's bluff. He's holding nothing but a busted straight.
24
The greatest contempt for our Constitution, our national security and our reputation in the world comes from the Republican Party leaders who look the other way as Trump disgraces our country and puts us at great risk. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have boundless contempt for the American people but not one shred of human decency. The Republican Party is owned and controlled by like the Koch brothers, the Mercers. McConnell is one of their most loyal servants. Let the people be damned.
17
We never used to have these problems with the Supreme Court. Justices used to be confirmed without a hearing. Now, everything is blowing up into gigantic partisan joke. This is not gerrymandering or the presidency. This is the Supreme Court--it is above politics and always should be. Gorsuch did not answer questions because he did not want to politicize the Supreme Court.
As a Democrat, I think the Democrats are wrong on this one. The GOP base may be okay with the likes of Mitch McConnell politicizing the Supreme Court during an election year but I don't think Democrats really think the same way as the GOP base.
The Senate Democrats should just confirm Gorsuch and move on. Then they can say that they prevented Mitch McConnell from, yet again, abusing the political process. Sounds like a win-win to me.
As a Democrat, I think the Democrats are wrong on this one. The GOP base may be okay with the likes of Mitch McConnell politicizing the Supreme Court during an election year but I don't think Democrats really think the same way as the GOP base.
The Senate Democrats should just confirm Gorsuch and move on. Then they can say that they prevented Mitch McConnell from, yet again, abusing the political process. Sounds like a win-win to me.
5
No, Democrats do not have the same thought process. That's why the Republicans always win. My mother used to say, "People will only treat you like a doormat if you lie down on the ground." Time to stop assuming that position.
1
The entire nation shall not be taken hostage by the Democrats' temper tantrum over a failed attempt to steal another election
3
Right. It will be held hostage by the Republicans successful theft of an election by working with Russia, no less, and declaring a love of Wikileaks.
FYI, Larry: Democrats running for office is not the same thing as stealing an election. And what election did they steal before? The one where five conservative SC justice decided an election? That was Bush.
Wasn't Russia hacking on behalf of Democrats. Wasn't the Clinton camp meeting with Russians during the campaign. Isn't a Clinton admin. desperate to distract and try to submarine investigations in to the Russian connection.
What is it with you right-wingers just sayin' stuff with no foundation? It's weird.
FYI, Larry: Democrats running for office is not the same thing as stealing an election. And what election did they steal before? The one where five conservative SC justice decided an election? That was Bush.
Wasn't Russia hacking on behalf of Democrats. Wasn't the Clinton camp meeting with Russians during the campaign. Isn't a Clinton admin. desperate to distract and try to submarine investigations in to the Russian connection.
What is it with you right-wingers just sayin' stuff with no foundation? It's weird.
4
Are you Gorsuch's PR person? If he's not on the court, the entire nation would be taken hostage? Google hyperbole. You probably thought it was fine when McConnell took the vacant court seat hostage for almost a year. Google hypocrisy.
And, by the way, it's clear who tried and succeeded at stealing an election.
And, by the way, it's clear who tried and succeeded at stealing an election.
2
Anyone with a passing knowledge of politics knows that the liberal wing of the Supreme Court believes the Constitution is “a living document,” meaning that it is meaningless. Thus, Supreme Court nominations are more important than elections in determining policy. Because of the Supreme Court, porn and filth pollute our televisions and internet (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). Because of the Supreme Court, abortion is legal for nine months (Roe v. Wade), gay marriage is legal (Obergefell v. Hodges) and corporations can confiscate the houses of working people for corporate interests (Kelo v. City of New London). Because of the Supreme Court illegal immigrants have the right free health care and free education (Plyler v. Doe). If the liberals want these policies, let duely elected representatives enact them . The Republicans should only nominate judges who interpret law, not make them. If the nuclear option is the only way to do this, then so be it.
4
as an apparent "originalist,"should we also bring back the 3/5 ratio?
1
Why don't the democrats demand a vote on Merrick Garland before they will allow a vote on Gorsuch? Seems fair to me.
16
Because Garland's nomination died the minute the new Congress was convened.
Adam Jentleson "is former deputy chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid," so obviously everything in this column is unbiased and balanced. "Democrats have come by their opposition to Judge Grouch honestly... Democratic senators made clear that they wanted to give Judge Gorsuch" a fair hearing. Where is this news coming from?
2
The right is making this a "will of the people " or the Dems lost, get over it" issue.
Not even close!
First, the entire US IC has agreed that Russia interfered in our election.
Second, DJT lost the popular vote by MILLIONS of votes.
The US electorate simply did not vote to give DJT the right to pick next SCOTUS appt.
If mitch still thinks that Russia had no part in getting DJT elected and that more voted FOR the GOP than against- do it! Go nuclear!
That will cement mitch's legacy and display another miscalculation by the GOP.
I am all for working together but I support a filibuster and forcing mitch's hand on this.
And I am not a Clinton supporter... but right is right. Any lifetime appt should be a bipartisan selection. Gorsuch isn't!
Not even close!
First, the entire US IC has agreed that Russia interfered in our election.
Second, DJT lost the popular vote by MILLIONS of votes.
The US electorate simply did not vote to give DJT the right to pick next SCOTUS appt.
If mitch still thinks that Russia had no part in getting DJT elected and that more voted FOR the GOP than against- do it! Go nuclear!
That will cement mitch's legacy and display another miscalculation by the GOP.
I am all for working together but I support a filibuster and forcing mitch's hand on this.
And I am not a Clinton supporter... but right is right. Any lifetime appt should be a bipartisan selection. Gorsuch isn't!
9
"Any lifetime appt should be a bipartisan selection.".......exactly right - well said
1
I've heard over and over the question presented to Schumer and other Democrats referring to Garland and Gorsuch and the possibility of filibuster.. "But do 2 wrongs make a right?" and granted I haven't seen a tremendous number of interviews, but I haven't heard that same shaming question put to the Republicans when they use their excuse that Democrats went "nuclear" (terrible term) to fill hundreds of seats that Republicans blocked out of hand. Is there an understanding that Democrats are vulnerable to shame and Republicans aren't? If so--isn't that in the roots? Let's ask McConnell "But gee, Senator... 2 wrongs don't make a right--why would you go nuclear if you have any morals or ethics or concern for democratic processes?" oh--you don't.
7
the judge deserves a vote . you mean judge garland, right?
8
Nope, Judge Gorsuch. Don't you read?
So McConnell "will be exposed as the radical that he truly is." And? This is a big revelation? Anyone paying the least attention knows he'll stop at nothing to gain and retain power. All the nonsense written about how he reveres Senate traditions was never even close to being true. Another media fail. Do you really think he cares? This is editorial is all well and good, but it's just rehashed frustration about the horror show we're forced to watch for the next 4-8 years, and decades once the Supreme Court is a 7-2 right-wing juggernaut. And you, NY Times -- along with your media buds -- had more than a small hand in starting the show.
3
Mitch has come to represent the worst of our political system.......unable to see past the end of his nose he makes decisions for his party not our country......a political anachronism, a card carrying "swamp" member what better example could there be for term limits......Mitch, look up patriotism in the dictionary - it's not you being described
8
Senator McConnell must do what is necessary to overcome Democrat intransigence. Thank you.
2
You mean intransigence like insisting that a Supreme Court candidate nominated by a sitting president who actually won the popular vote get at least a hearing? That sort of intransigence?
12
We all deplore intransigence. Especially when it is exhibited by our opponents. Our OWN intransigence, on the other hand -- well, that's just standing firm for principle.
Tit for tat, Bubba.
1
Where was Mr. Jentleson when Harry Reid eviscerated the filibuster rule in 2013?
It's not that long ago, how could a man so close to Senator Reid forget that...
Is he an amnesia victim or just a rather obvious hypocrite?
It's not that long ago, how could a man so close to Senator Reid forget that...
Is he an amnesia victim or just a rather obvious hypocrite?
2
If Gorsuch is confirmed he will forever have an asterisk beside his name...
* Sits in a STOLEN seat
* Forced the end of the democratic filibuster
* Came to SCOTUS determined to repeal Roe v. Wade
Americans -- that is decent Americans deserve better -- even from Trump
* Sits in a STOLEN seat
* Forced the end of the democratic filibuster
* Came to SCOTUS determined to repeal Roe v. Wade
Americans -- that is decent Americans deserve better -- even from Trump
3
News flash, Harry Reid deputy chief of staff says "Harry Reid had it right."
2
Gorsuch is the last brick in the wall.
4
Gorsuch--The "Truck Driver Freezer" and the one who thinks learning disabled kids deserve "less than the minimum". Anyone who could write decisions like that is just plain evil, and we're going to be stuck with him for many years. Please Dems fight, even if in the end you lose.
8
WB in San Diego...Obstructionist Dems? The work of the people? You are surely under the influence of insecurity of a job in big Health Insurance/Pharma, Big Ag, or Big Defense. Elsewise, you have some family or social relationship with Kelly Ann Conway.
Funny isn't it, how your rhetoric says so much about you?
Funny isn't it, how your rhetoric says so much about you?
1
Adam, are you suggesting that Mitch McConnell is IMMORAL?
Yes, of course he is but that immorality springs from the undereducated white households that put both McConnell and the treasonous Trump in office. Dare I suggest those voters are also immoral? Perhaps it is only ignorance on their part? Perhaps stupidity.
Even so, McConnell cannot give life to his immorality without the immorality of his fellow Republican Senators.
The miasma known as the Republican Party is as sick and diseased as it has ever been.
Yes, of course he is but that immorality springs from the undereducated white households that put both McConnell and the treasonous Trump in office. Dare I suggest those voters are also immoral? Perhaps it is only ignorance on their part? Perhaps stupidity.
Even so, McConnell cannot give life to his immorality without the immorality of his fellow Republican Senators.
The miasma known as the Republican Party is as sick and diseased as it has ever been.
6
McConnell effectively went passively nuclear in blocking even considering Merrick Garland, Barack Obama's pick for the court, and arguably better qualified than Gorusch.
Ya, by all means make McConnell come out of the closet and go nuclear in public where everyone can see who and what McConnell is.
Ya, by all means make McConnell come out of the closet and go nuclear in public where everyone can see who and what McConnell is.
17
Republicans have already severely damaged the House and the Senate, the executive branch (obviously) and SCOTUS. They are enabling an unqualified, corrupt and intemperate president. They've closed down the government several times. They probably coordinated the release of the DNC/Clinton/Podesta emails with national elections. There's not much more they can do. If McConnell
uses the nuclear option it will hurt him a lot more than it will hurt Dems. Have at it, Mitch!.
uses the nuclear option it will hurt him a lot more than it will hurt Dems. Have at it, Mitch!.
12
Boy, with all their winning you'd think rightists would be a little calmer in confirming putin's supreme court pick.
I guess they aren't tired of all the winning just yet.
I guess they aren't tired of all the winning just yet.
9
For McConnell to blame the Democrats for his decision to eliminate the filibuster would be the same as a predator telling his beaten, bleeding wife "You made me do this."
8
correct. or a female police officer in Tulsa, OK shooting an unarmed man and going on 60 Minutes to say her only regret is that "me made me do this with his actions".
2
Tiring to read one sided political screeds like this, whether they are from the right or from the left. The idea that democrats on the committee came in with an open mind but were turned off by Gorsuch's testimony? Laughable. Battle lines were drawn long ago. We were treated to three days of substanceless softballs from the republicans and substanceless gotcha questions or self-aggrandizing rants from the democrats. Plenty of shame to go around. Garland had no constitutional right to a seat on SCOTUS, nor did Obama have one to compel a Republican senate to vote on his nominee. All of this, from start to finish, has been politics, and the outcomes are different because elections have consequences.
3
"...nor did Obama have one to compel a Republican senate to vote on his nominee."
He most certainly did. Equating permanent Republican antipathy to government and intransigence with Democrats occasional hissy-fit is a false equivalence. A false equivalence that gave us DJT. Tired of reading one-sided screeds? Quit listening to conservatives...
He most certainly did. Equating permanent Republican antipathy to government and intransigence with Democrats occasional hissy-fit is a false equivalence. A false equivalence that gave us DJT. Tired of reading one-sided screeds? Quit listening to conservatives...
Palo alto...what's your hang up with the baLance part of check and balance...
Yes, it is all politics, that is how democracies work: follow the rules and gather your votes.
Oh, unless you don't have the votes, then just change the rules.
Oh, unless you don't have the votes, then just change the rules.
1
Here is a troubling question, and we can't pretend to know the answer. Did McConnell refuse to consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee out of sheer spite for Obama? Or did he cannily hold the seat open in the very unlikely hope that Hillary would lose the 2016 presidential election?
Or did Mitch keep the seat open because he had been assured that Republican victory in 2016 was not as unlikely as everyone believed?
Or did Mitch keep the seat open because he had been assured that Republican victory in 2016 was not as unlikely as everyone believed?
5
McConnell kept the seat open to get Republicans to the polls in 2016. Many Republicans are single-issue voters who'll vote even for Trurmp if that helps overturn Roe v. Wade.
3
THIS is the question I ask myself everyday. back when he stopped Obama, it looked almost certain Hilldog would be the 45th president. It was even possible Bernie Sanders would be elected, and we would nominate an even more progressive justice. It didn't make sense to stop Obama's nominee. It would make sense if Obama was unpopular and the democrats not the likely favorites. But it looked like democrats would win in 2016. Either Mc-turkeyneck-connell had some ruskie insider information, or he hated Obama so much he was willing to "cut off his noise to spite his face". He was willing to let a possible more liberal justice get on the court, just to spite obama. I find that second one harder to believe.
It is exactly the response Harry Reid made to stack the Federal bench for the DC Federal district court. He did not accept the Republicans blocking those nominations, so he changed the rules. Personally I see no reason for the filibuster at all. It is not in the Constitution, and if the people of the country elect the same party in the House, the Senate, and the White House. They deserve the change they are voting for, for good or for bad.
3
Obama himself said the American People would render their judgement after the GOP enforced the Biden Doctrine and saved the integrity of the Court by keeping Garland off. For once, Obama was right. The American People spoke, and the Democrats refuse to accept the People's ruling, democracy, the Constitution, and America itself. The Democrats are once again on the wrong side of the truth and history
2
The American people spoke, with the majority voting for Clinton.
2
We do not have a democracy, we are tenuously a republic. The electoral college is not a democratic institution. Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000 votes. That is fact. Republicans only win elections through gerrymandering, they are not the majority. They do not represent the people, only the shareholders and CEOs who are now running our government. We are closer than ever to a corrupt autocratic oligarchy. That is what you get when you run your country like a business. Your gleeful and unjustified putdowns of Democrats are just sad.
2
Except the Democrats did win by 2.85 million votes across the country to 77,000 in three states. Truth and reason are two things missing from the conservative mindset.
1
Democrats should have changed the senate rules in earl 2009 when they had a super majority. That way when they lost the one vote from Massachusetts from Ted Kennedy, they still could have done things. Instead pretty much after his death not much got done, because republicans in the senate filibustered hundreds of bills. This was not how the senate was intended to work. Bills with large majority support in both houses and support of the President of the United States were blocked. And when the democrats finally had enough of this underhanded, American, obstructionism and got rid of the filibuster for certain judges they were decried and attacked for that. And now it's no biggie Mc-turkeyneck-Connell will change the rules before Trump is even there a year. Democrats were cowards to not do more to get more bills passed when they had majorities, and then the damage that did got us into the current situation.
Let us also not forget Mc-turkeyneck-Connell STOLE a supreme court seat. And now he's in a rush to fill it. If democrats don't filibuster they're idiots and pushovers. Every democrat who doesn't retire from public service, as they are horrible public servants and can't even fight for what they ostensibly believe. They are not fighters, they let the republicans walk all over them for 8 years. FIGHT DEMOCRATS. Stop bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Let us also not forget Mc-turkeyneck-Connell STOLE a supreme court seat. And now he's in a rush to fill it. If democrats don't filibuster they're idiots and pushovers. Every democrat who doesn't retire from public service, as they are horrible public servants and can't even fight for what they ostensibly believe. They are not fighters, they let the republicans walk all over them for 8 years. FIGHT DEMOCRATS. Stop bringing a knife to a gun fight.
7
I meant to write:
*** And when the democrats finally had enough of this underhanded, UN-American, obstructionism and got rid of the filibuster for certain judges they were decried and attacked for that.
**** Every democrat who doesn't FILIBUSTER SHOULD retire from public service, as they are horrible public servants and can't even fight for what they ostensibly believe.
*** And when the democrats finally had enough of this underhanded, UN-American, obstructionism and got rid of the filibuster for certain judges they were decried and attacked for that.
**** Every democrat who doesn't FILIBUSTER SHOULD retire from public service, as they are horrible public servants and can't even fight for what they ostensibly believe.
Confirming a judge should NOT be about getting rulings consistent with a Senator's personally ideology, but rather getting rulings consistent with the Constitution they have taken an other to uphold.
"In private conversations and meetings with progressive groups, many senators who knew that Judge Gorsuch would rule in a way they wouldn’t like on every major issue they care about nevertheless made it clear that they entered the judiciary committee hearings willing to be persuaded to support him, or at least not stand in his way."
A point lost by most progressives is we do not have a progressive constitution, at least where Federal powers are concerned. Our Constitution gives the Federal government a handful of enumerated powers and leaves everything else to the people and States.
From Federalist 45, James Madison. ( http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm )
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
John
"In private conversations and meetings with progressive groups, many senators who knew that Judge Gorsuch would rule in a way they wouldn’t like on every major issue they care about nevertheless made it clear that they entered the judiciary committee hearings willing to be persuaded to support him, or at least not stand in his way."
A point lost by most progressives is we do not have a progressive constitution, at least where Federal powers are concerned. Our Constitution gives the Federal government a handful of enumerated powers and leaves everything else to the people and States.
From Federalist 45, James Madison. ( http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm )
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
John
3
This Supreme Court seat has been stolen by the GOP. But then again, they can never win without cheating. They should not be rewarded for their despicable behavior.
17
Forcing Republicans to use the nuclear option only makes sense if voters will see that as an abuse of power, and punish them for it. But they won't. They didn't punish Republicans for Garland. So to Republicans, the "nuclear" option is cost-free. It was called "nuclear" at a time when it really was that. Times have changed.
If Democrats seem intent on blocking _any_ Trump nominee, Republicans' nuking of filibuster won't look absurd. So the "we'll only confirm Garland" stance helps Republicans. If Democrats want to filibuster, they must propose realistic compromise alternatives.
If Democrats seem intent on blocking _any_ Trump nominee, Republicans' nuking of filibuster won't look absurd. So the "we'll only confirm Garland" stance helps Republicans. If Democrats want to filibuster, they must propose realistic compromise alternatives.
3
Compromise is dead; Mitch McConnell killed it.
From your analysis it sounds like our democracy is already lost.
The author of this article is so full of it. The Democrats invoked the nuclear options to get lower court justices confirmed, despite the Republican's principled opposition to them. So why is it not now legitimate for the Republicans to do the same to Democrats?. The good that will come out of this is that after the nuclear option is triggered, Trump will be able to appoint anyone he wants to the next S.C. vacancy and the Democrats will be powerless to stop him. Say hello to future Supreme Court Justice Ted Cruz and Justice Moore.
1
Until the democrats have a chance to choose their own SC justices without fear of filibuster.
1
The author made clear that Democrats only went nuclear on lower appointments after years of extreme obstruction from Repubs. 500+ filibusters from them before the Dems finally went nuclear - and only on lower appointments to keep the government running. And Democrats had followed procedure, custom and law in filling appointments when open, hearing nominees, and nominating "compromise candidates". Repubs attacked our Judiciary branch and violated their constitutional duty by refusing to even hear Garland citing a baseless claim that they shouldn't appoint a justice during an election year. And after barely winning the Executive Branch, they want to force through an extremist, nominated by a POTUS who is under FBI investigation. Talk about hypocrisy. And if Dems rolled over to let Gorsuch through, Repubs would still be able to appoint any old unqualified hack the next time around through the same nuclear option.
1
The Senate Democrats need to focus on what's good for America and vote to confirm Gorsuch and focus less on the fanatical demands of their unpatriotic, violent, hate-filled, rabid, intransigent hair-on-fire base
3
or we'd like to see a judge who isn't so clearly extreme in his views on equal rights, women's rights, immigrants and the right for people to walk around with a loaded gun strapped to their hip.
2
Senate Democrats believe Gorsuch is bad for America, so they will do what they can to stop him. That's not a fanatical, violent, hate-filled, rabid or intransigent.
3
Voting against a nominee is not throwing bombs.
It is McConnell et al. who are threatening fire and desctruction (does the term "nuclear option" not mean anything to you?).
It is McC's scortched-earth, unconstitutional refusal to allow the Senate to consider Garland that is the definition of "unpatriotic, hate-filled, rabid, intransigent behavior."
It is McConnell et al. who are threatening fire and desctruction (does the term "nuclear option" not mean anything to you?).
It is McC's scortched-earth, unconstitutional refusal to allow the Senate to consider Garland that is the definition of "unpatriotic, hate-filled, rabid, intransigent behavior."
1
Schumer has said "change the candidate, not the rules". Maybe McConnell will run into some trouble with the GOP trying to change the rules. Maybe that's worth testing.
As for changing the candidate, if votes for Gorsuch fall through, there will be a sequence of corporate candidates. Maybe it's better to choose one who's a dunce that one that's clever?
As for changing the candidate, if votes for Gorsuch fall through, there will be a sequence of corporate candidates. Maybe it's better to choose one who's a dunce that one that's clever?
2
Well put.
2
To the Democrats the US Constitution is a "far right" document. The GOP has nothing to lose by going nuclear, after all Tim Kaine said that the Dems would go nuclear to ram through Hillary's picks, back when they thought Hillary was a shoo-in and the Dems would have a Senate majority.
6
You joke surely - Republican's filibusted over 500 times, refusing to approve ANY of Obama's nominations and then when they held the majority they refused even to hold a hearing on Garland.
9
Democrats urging payback for Garland: consider a few points. (1) Democrats did comparable things. From NYTimes: "Waiting for Clinton, Democrats Hold Up Court Confirmations" (Sep. 1, 1992: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/us/waiting-for-clinton-democrats-hold-... ). Biden's speech two months prior was likely part of that effort. (2) Court vacancies are random. What was stolen from Democrats was a random windfall, not something to which Democrats were "entitled" to begin with. (3) If two liberal justices retire in 2020, Trump can't replace them unless he wins again... or unless Democrats have already gotten their payback with Gorsuch. (4) If not Gorsuch, then who? Filibuster is a tool to force compromise. Which possible Trump appointee would Democrats support? (5) Filibuster can't survive if misused, as Republicans found in 2013. Do Democrats really want to lose this last-ditch tool? Had we kept it in 2013, we could've blocked Trump's worst appointments like Perry and DeVos.
7
This seems very disingenuous to me --let's see how long it takes to unpack this hooey:
1. Both parties had a long-standing tradition of slow-walking fed judge appointments (and presidents of both parties have suffered the consequences) and filibusters for fed judgeships were removed last term.
2. "Random windfall" Suddenly there's a taxonomy of appointments? Documented where? The decades-long standard has been to advise and consent, period.
3. Nothing but Senator McConnell's adherence to precedent enforces your claim that Trump wouldn't be allowed to appoint justices in 2020 and we've seen the Majority Leader's penchant for going both ways whenever it suits him and his ideology.
4a. Garland, obviously.
4b. What compromise did McConnell extract by filibustering Judge Garland's nomination for a year?
5. Misused? A) You're assuming facts not in evidence; B) It isn't a tool if it can't be used; C) When a bully pushes you, you push back and take a stand unless you want it to continue --if nothing else you stand up for your principles and give your allies a reason to rally to your cause.
1. Both parties had a long-standing tradition of slow-walking fed judge appointments (and presidents of both parties have suffered the consequences) and filibusters for fed judgeships were removed last term.
2. "Random windfall" Suddenly there's a taxonomy of appointments? Documented where? The decades-long standard has been to advise and consent, period.
3. Nothing but Senator McConnell's adherence to precedent enforces your claim that Trump wouldn't be allowed to appoint justices in 2020 and we've seen the Majority Leader's penchant for going both ways whenever it suits him and his ideology.
4a. Garland, obviously.
4b. What compromise did McConnell extract by filibustering Judge Garland's nomination for a year?
5. Misused? A) You're assuming facts not in evidence; B) It isn't a tool if it can't be used; C) When a bully pushes you, you push back and take a stand unless you want it to continue --if nothing else you stand up for your principles and give your allies a reason to rally to your cause.
5
I think it is terrible how Merrick Garland was blocked but I am not convinced the Democrats would not have done the same thing under the circumstances.
We need to stop politicizing everything. The Democrats should give the GOP their Scalia 2.0 and then fight this fight elsewhere.
We need to stop politicizing everything. The Democrats should give the GOP their Scalia 2.0 and then fight this fight elsewhere.
1
A couple of points: in regards to 91) Clinton reference: there was no supreme court nomination that was held up. (2) You are wrong the president is entitled to put forward his nomination. Only by the most egregious flouting of the rules did the Republicans stop ANY hearing on Garland - the senates role has always been advice and guidance. (3) Not sure what point you are making. (4) We shall see - Gorsuch is not acceptable. (5) If you remember correctly Republicans stopped approving all Obama's judicial nominations - they did it over 500 times and now they complain?
2
Early in President Obama's first term Senator McConnell made his feelings very clear. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
"Single MOST important thing" - this was while we were still invoked in two wars, still reeling from the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.
Then of course, McConnell stopped President Obama's legal, lawful and Constitutional responsibility to nominate a judge for the very seat Judge Gorsuch is seeking. NO! That's what I say. Unfortunately the voters did not punish McConnell and the Republicans for this. They should have- if only to preserve the Constitutional values Senators are supposed to obey. Republicans are just better at firing up their base. We are fired up now.
Nuclear option is a bluff. Call it! McConnell has turned government a zero-sum game. There is no governing. Let McConnell do it now - if he doesn't have to use it now, you know he will do it at a later date, for another Judge. He is NOT to be trusted!
Republicans know exactly how Judge Gorsuch will judge cases that are important to us. He was very well rehearsed to say nothing while using real words, the same words over and over, interspersed with "Golly's" and 'Gee's" and sometimes together "Golly Gee".
Time to call McConnell's bluff!
"Single MOST important thing" - this was while we were still invoked in two wars, still reeling from the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.
Then of course, McConnell stopped President Obama's legal, lawful and Constitutional responsibility to nominate a judge for the very seat Judge Gorsuch is seeking. NO! That's what I say. Unfortunately the voters did not punish McConnell and the Republicans for this. They should have- if only to preserve the Constitutional values Senators are supposed to obey. Republicans are just better at firing up their base. We are fired up now.
Nuclear option is a bluff. Call it! McConnell has turned government a zero-sum game. There is no governing. Let McConnell do it now - if he doesn't have to use it now, you know he will do it at a later date, for another Judge. He is NOT to be trusted!
Republicans know exactly how Judge Gorsuch will judge cases that are important to us. He was very well rehearsed to say nothing while using real words, the same words over and over, interspersed with "Golly's" and 'Gee's" and sometimes together "Golly Gee".
Time to call McConnell's bluff!
19
It's no bluff. McConnell will go nuclear. It's who he is.
1
" McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 — nearly two years after Obama was elected president."
No Democrat should be allowed to vote on Gorsuch or any issue until Podesta's close financial ties with Russia and Putin are cleared up. Podesta's served on the Board of Joule, a company with close ties to Putin!!!!! Now Podesta can't account for 75,000 shares of stock he received from the company!!!! This taints every Democrat because of Podesta's power in the Party. I urge President Trump to act on this vital issue of national security since the Democrats won't
4
Are you for real? Podesta isn't an elected official. Now on Earth can your brain make the connection between Podesta's Russia ties and Congress? Oh, and does Putin pay you benefits?
Firstly lets deal with Trump's relationship with Russian government and mafia! In the big scheme of things the president entanglements are far far more important than the ex head of a campaign. To think otherwise shows a serious lack of perspective.
We know that Russia interfered by attacking Hilary and hacking the DNC's email. What we don't know is whether or not Trump's campaign colluded with them.
We know that Russia interfered by attacking Hilary and hacking the DNC's email. What we don't know is whether or not Trump's campaign colluded with them.
Mr. Jentleson is apparently suffering from a case of selective amnesia. After what then US Sen. Biden noted some two decades ago and the treatment of Miguel Estrada by Senate Democrats, neither party has cornered the market on decency/ethics when it comes to SCOTUS nominations. Perhaps, working for former Majority Leader Reid earlier in his career continues to adversely impact Mr. Jentleson's thinking.
2
The filibuster itself is bad. The country will be better off without it.
3
I agree. Let republicans destroy it. Then in 8 years when demographics make it so democrats have control of congress and the presidency, republicans can do nothing to stop them from actually helping the country.
I believe McConnell would love being called a radical. He's been shouting it to the high heavens for ages. Ir would be an even louder shout if only he could wipe that smirk off his face.
What does it all matter? Dirty air, smog filled cities, eating tainted chicken, more homeless living under our freeways, while the rich get richer and the poor get more poor. What could possibly go wrong? After all, Trump, the wonder boy, and McConnell the wonder imp, have our best interests in mind. Of course they do. NOT.
What does it all matter? Dirty air, smog filled cities, eating tainted chicken, more homeless living under our freeways, while the rich get richer and the poor get more poor. What could possibly go wrong? After all, Trump, the wonder boy, and McConnell the wonder imp, have our best interests in mind. Of course they do. NOT.
4
Circumstances conducive to bipartisan cooperation? God Almighty, how long has it been since we've seen anything like that? And why in the name of all that's holy should Democrats be the ones to blink on this issue? All Democrats in Congress: take a deep breath and remember what the Republicans did to Obama's nominee top the Supreme Court. Go thou and do likewise. Oppose! Oppose! Oppose!
4
Bottom line democrats don't like his ideology. The only candidate they will like is a Garland Merrick clone. Anything else becomes out of the mainstream for them.
I don't see Gorsuch as being so far out of line he deserves a 60 vote filibuster when you realize Scalia came in without one.
I don't see Gorsuch as being so far out of line he deserves a 60 vote filibuster when you realize Scalia came in without one.
6
"Honor avoids him who seeks honor; honor comes to him who shuns honor."
2
We the People gave President Trump a landslide mandate for a reason. Gorsuch is the reason
3
A "landslide mandate"? Are you forgetting that Hillary Clinton beat Trump by more than 3 million votes? That's a very odd "landslide".
Hardly a landslide, Trump clone.
2
This was no landslide. He lost the popular by 3 million votes and had one of the narrowest electoral votes in history. And by the way, in 2008 and in 2012 WE THE PEOPLE elected President Obama to name Supreme Court Justices during all 8 of his years as president - not just 7.
1
Since the Democrats cannot cite even one rational argument for opposing the highly qualified Gorsuch, their hatred of democracy, the Constitution and the American People is on full display
6
Well, can't much the same argument be made about the Republicans and Merrick Garland?
One big difference; Garland is reputedly respected,on BOTH sides of the aisle.
One big difference; Garland is reputedly respected,on BOTH sides of the aisle.
1
You are delusional. But Alternate Facts are in vogue.
3
His totally insane decisions are probably a good enough reason.
Old news! McConnell "went nuclear" when he engineered the Senate's dereliction of its constitutional duty by obstructing the nomination of Merrick Garland, an eminently qualified jurist widely acknowledged as a centrist. Coming from a reasonably popular two-term Democratic president, Garland's nomination was about as magnanimous a gesture as The Party of No could ever expect to receive, and that is to Obama's credit.
The damage to the polity of the Senate is accomplished fact, and will not be undone by the Democrats' backing down. Let the extortionists jump off the limb which they chose to walk, let them own it and let them reap the blowback. By now, McConnell's own words have made it clear that Democrats have nothing, literally nothing, to lose.
The damage to the polity of the Senate is accomplished fact, and will not be undone by the Democrats' backing down. Let the extortionists jump off the limb which they chose to walk, let them own it and let them reap the blowback. By now, McConnell's own words have made it clear that Democrats have nothing, literally nothing, to lose.
5
Most American voters are not well versed in the minutiae of Senate procedure or understand how "radical" it would actually be to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. If Mr. Jentleson thinks that McConnell "going nuclear" is going to result in a groundswell of support for the Democrats, he's is grossly misreading the electorate. It is a shame that Democrats and Republicans have both decided to focus on short-term political gain rather than the long-term health of our democracy. History will judge Mr. McConnell poorly, but his supporters will cheer, and other than ardent Democrats, no one else will care.
Democratic Party owes it to all of the angry town hall voters and protestors all over the country to at least try something.
2
Or the Democrats will see most of their base sitting home on election day in 2018 - even worse than in 2016 when they disillusioned so many voters by actively working to submarine Bernie Sanders.
Please remember, Republican's don't function at any higher level than a playground. Right now, they are the bully with all the muscle threatening to beat you up for your money. Don't just hand them the money - make them take it and/or hit them back. They're going to get the money (Gorsuch). Accept that is unpreventable and do what you can to fight and expose the bully.
Make them nuke it. It's abundantly clear Mitch McTreason will do anything and everything to steal power. Don't live the next years under that threat.
Make them nuke it. It's abundantly clear Mitch McTreason will do anything and everything to steal power. Don't live the next years under that threat.
4
Nuclear option or not, Judge Gorsuch will soon be Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch. When that happens, we will need Justice Kennedy to become the heart and soul of the Court.
The following is from an open letter I wrote to Justice Kennedy this weekend:
"I am writing to you specifically of all the Justices because you have shown yourself to be the Justice most willing to eschew judicial philosophical dogma and instead truly take each case on its merits, regardless of the political angles of the case. I am writing to ask you a favor. The favor is not for me, but for the country. Please, to the extent you are able, act as a counter-balance to the addition of Justice Gorsuch. To the extent you are able, please bring the voice of Judge Garland to Court deliberations.
In some ways, you are the last, best hope for a Supreme Judiciary that will not simply rubberstamp anything corporations or the Executive Branch decides to do. The four Justices to your ideological right (assuming Senate confirmation of Judge Gorsuch) can be described as Corporate Authoritarians. Please speak for the great masses of Americans who are in danger of being silenced by the double-barreled powers of money and authority."
http://c-dawson.blogspot.com/2017/04/an-open-letter-to-justice-anthony.html
The following is from an open letter I wrote to Justice Kennedy this weekend:
"I am writing to you specifically of all the Justices because you have shown yourself to be the Justice most willing to eschew judicial philosophical dogma and instead truly take each case on its merits, regardless of the political angles of the case. I am writing to ask you a favor. The favor is not for me, but for the country. Please, to the extent you are able, act as a counter-balance to the addition of Justice Gorsuch. To the extent you are able, please bring the voice of Judge Garland to Court deliberations.
In some ways, you are the last, best hope for a Supreme Judiciary that will not simply rubberstamp anything corporations or the Executive Branch decides to do. The four Justices to your ideological right (assuming Senate confirmation of Judge Gorsuch) can be described as Corporate Authoritarians. Please speak for the great masses of Americans who are in danger of being silenced by the double-barreled powers of money and authority."
http://c-dawson.blogspot.com/2017/04/an-open-letter-to-justice-anthony.html
4
Just a reminder, I keep hearing, mainly from Republican talking heads, that the Democrats changed the rules for lower court nominees that eliminated the filibuster. What they fail to mention is that Mitch McConnell in his crusade to prevent anything Obama had so backlogged the appointments to lower Federal courts that it became necessary in order to move things along in face of this juvenile petulance.
6
The party of no is now getting perturbed because of the pushback from the Dems. The GOP stole the nomination for a SC Justice from Barack Obama and now they want to act like its all the Democrats fault. Let Mitch pull his nuclear trigger and see what happens. Sixty Five million of us are fed up with the GOP shennagins we have endured for the past eight years.
I'm very hopeful that come 2018 the GOP will be wondering how they lost one or both Houses of Congress, we will be here to help them remember.
I'm very hopeful that come 2018 the GOP will be wondering how they lost one or both Houses of Congress, we will be here to help them remember.
5
I'm inclined to agree with this Op-Ed. I also fail to see the point in preserving the filibuster if it means voting against your own desires to prevent those desires from being overridden by force. Seems to me like it better to take a stand then not.
Even while ignoring the Garland fiasco, the issue seems pretty basic to me. A SCOTUS nominee was picked that Democrats don't like. It is not the responsibility of Graham, Mcconnell, or anyone else to decide if Dems should or should not like Gorsuch, they don't.
The Republicans have two options here, eliminate the filibuster or don't and try to work with Dems to find a SCOTUS nominee.
They are not going to do the latter, that is on them.
Even while ignoring the Garland fiasco, the issue seems pretty basic to me. A SCOTUS nominee was picked that Democrats don't like. It is not the responsibility of Graham, Mcconnell, or anyone else to decide if Dems should or should not like Gorsuch, they don't.
The Republicans have two options here, eliminate the filibuster or don't and try to work with Dems to find a SCOTUS nominee.
They are not going to do the latter, that is on them.
1
McConnell has played his hand well by Machiavellian standards – he has pushed his partisan power play to the limit by claiming he will go nuclear to force Garland onto the Court.
But he is in danger of overplaying his hand with this move. He should keep in mind the law of unintended consequences, the “known-unknowns” as well as the “unknown-unknowns.” Especially with such a unpredictable, flaky, finger-pointing President as Trump.
IMO, it would be in McConnell and the Republican’s self-interest to preserve the filibuster, let Gorsuch succumb to it, thus forcing Trump back to the drawing board. It would send a clear signal to Trump that they will protect Senate important traditions, that they are not Trump's lackeys, and that Trump will have to go a little more centrist in his nominee to get it through the Senate.
McConnell and the Republicans would eventually get the conservative Justice they want -- just not Gorsuch -- while looking like “statesmen.” That would maximize McConnell’s power and standing, as well as demonstrate to the American people that Republicans can provide a check on Trump and be “moderate.”
Oh, yes, a handful of other Republican Senators could also decide not to be McConnell's lackeys and preserve the filibuster as well, for all the same reasons.
But he is in danger of overplaying his hand with this move. He should keep in mind the law of unintended consequences, the “known-unknowns” as well as the “unknown-unknowns.” Especially with such a unpredictable, flaky, finger-pointing President as Trump.
IMO, it would be in McConnell and the Republican’s self-interest to preserve the filibuster, let Gorsuch succumb to it, thus forcing Trump back to the drawing board. It would send a clear signal to Trump that they will protect Senate important traditions, that they are not Trump's lackeys, and that Trump will have to go a little more centrist in his nominee to get it through the Senate.
McConnell and the Republicans would eventually get the conservative Justice they want -- just not Gorsuch -- while looking like “statesmen.” That would maximize McConnell’s power and standing, as well as demonstrate to the American people that Republicans can provide a check on Trump and be “moderate.”
Oh, yes, a handful of other Republican Senators could also decide not to be McConnell's lackeys and preserve the filibuster as well, for all the same reasons.
5
No chance, Gorsuch will be elected to the Supreme Court, probably by the end of the week, with or without the filibuster.
Corrections: Should be "Gorsuch" in 1st paragraph/sentence. And while I'm at it, "...protect important Senate traditions..." in 3rd paragraph
I think you are right HenryC, but disagree there is "no chance" just because you say so. As I've pointed out, there are considerations why McConnell and the Republicans would avoid this. Again, they probably won't, but you haven't disputed any of those reasons.
The Republicans broke the House and now they want to break the Senate all for a man that broke the Presidency.
9
Cut to the heart of the matter.
Mitch McConnell is a racist Kentucky redneck. His hatred for a President who happened to be black has governed over all of his actions. Senator McConnell had unleashed nearly 500 filibusters and spent years twisting Republicans’ arms to prevent them from working with Democrats, regardless of the substance of a given issue, in pursuit of his goal of denying President Obama a second term.
A truly despicable cretin.
Mitch McConnell is a racist Kentucky redneck. His hatred for a President who happened to be black has governed over all of his actions. Senator McConnell had unleashed nearly 500 filibusters and spent years twisting Republicans’ arms to prevent them from working with Democrats, regardless of the substance of a given issue, in pursuit of his goal of denying President Obama a second term.
A truly despicable cretin.
6
McConnell was so dedicated to destroying Obama's presidency, no matter what harm he had to do to the country in the process that Mitch once voted against a bill that he, himself, had authored and presented after he heard Obama was also for it.
I've always maintained that apes are the evolutionary link between Republicans and Modern Man. McConnell is one of the best exemplars of this.
I've always maintained that apes are the evolutionary link between Republicans and Modern Man. McConnell is one of the best exemplars of this.
Our country is doomed.
Why we allow Confederate trash from insolvent traitor states like kentucky to hold an entire branch of government hostage is beyond me.
We should make it a law that loser states that can't pay their own bills, like kentucky and 85% of the treasonous confederacy, should not be allowed at the table when laws are written.
Why should we allow input from bankrupted sewers like kentucky?
Let them be big boys and pay their own bills for a while, then we real Americans will let them have a voice.
Do we allow last place teams vie for the Sure Bowl or play in The World Series?
Of course not because they are losers...
Why we allow Confederate trash from insolvent traitor states like kentucky to hold an entire branch of government hostage is beyond me.
We should make it a law that loser states that can't pay their own bills, like kentucky and 85% of the treasonous confederacy, should not be allowed at the table when laws are written.
Why should we allow input from bankrupted sewers like kentucky?
Let them be big boys and pay their own bills for a while, then we real Americans will let them have a voice.
Do we allow last place teams vie for the Sure Bowl or play in The World Series?
Of course not because they are losers...
6
Trump wants other NATO countries to "pay their fair share." We should at least hold our own states to the same rule. Any state that receives more money from the federal government than it contributes should be barred from the House and Senate until it can pay its dues. I'm tired of Red states moralizing to me when my own tax dollars, living in New Jersey most of my working life, have gone to provide socialist welfare to these right-wing third-world slackers. If your state government and its citizens can't create enough state revenue to pay their own bills, they should be kept as far away from the federal budget & all other responsibilities of federal governance as possible.
Kentucky was not in the confederacy.
2
Many Kentuckians fought for the confederacy.
It's not surprising that the Democrats want to destroy the Constitution and nation with their temper tantrum. These "people" want to launch a nuclear war of aggression against Russia over something that has been proven to have never happened!
What planet are you living on? ALL our intelligence agencies have said that the Russians have in fact meddled in our election, and done it so as to give an advantage to Trump. Whether any of the Trump team colluded with Russian in the meddling has yet to be determined.
Neither of these two things "has been proven to have never happened"
Neither of these two things "has been proven to have never happened"
1
It is no more certain that Mitch has the GOP votes to remove the Senate's cloture rule than it was that Ryan has the GOP votes to pass the AHCA. If he does, I hope he is forced to cast the deciding vote. It would repudiate everything he has claimed to stand for as a defender of the Senate's traditional mission as a deliberative body.
2
McConnell has no interest in anything for the American citizens, or even bipartisan in general; he is and represents the ugly American. I know of zero legislation he has engaged in that actually helps our citizens. He's an embarrassment both here and abroad, total disgrace as a leader of the majority party. Although, he was considered well suited as an obstructionist, as he opposed anything even remotely in our best interest and everything Obama, even when it was a GOP co-sponsored bill; although, now I see him blindly supporting Trump (talk about dereliction of duty). There is not end to his treasonous behavior, "No quarter for traitors Mitch"; you can take your spot in line next to Flynn, but remember to leave room for Trump and several of his minions, so leave room to expand! As anyone who knows this Chump Trump, knows he's a sell out. So, when the tough gets going, Trump gets stumped, and will start singing; even louder than Flynn has promised! Priceless!
4
Conservative humor writer P. J. O'Rourke once wrote:
The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it."
The way things are going with the trainwreck that is euphemistically called the Trump Administration, we are likely to see a loss of GOP seats in the House, and, if the Dems don't step all over their various appurtenances as usual, they may take back the Senate. They can restore the 60 vote filibuster for all succeeding SCOTUS nominees. Even if they don't quite capture the Senate, I'm betting 10 to 1 that 2020 will see the White House and the Senate in Democratic hands, and, with a good possibility, the House as well. Then McConnell will be caught by the Law of Unexpected Consequences as he finds that to get just one Justice on the SCOTUS with fewer than 60 votes, he has thrown away a major weapon. Constantly changing the rules of the Senate to benefit whichever party happens to be in power for the next two years is just asking for trouble. Given that SCOTUS is (supposed to be) totally independent of the other branches of government, is for life - and in recent years has been highly politicized by Justices Rehnquist & Scalia among others (nobody on the Right seems to complain when profoundly activist Justices are Conservatives!), we should think about amendments.
The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it."
The way things are going with the trainwreck that is euphemistically called the Trump Administration, we are likely to see a loss of GOP seats in the House, and, if the Dems don't step all over their various appurtenances as usual, they may take back the Senate. They can restore the 60 vote filibuster for all succeeding SCOTUS nominees. Even if they don't quite capture the Senate, I'm betting 10 to 1 that 2020 will see the White House and the Senate in Democratic hands, and, with a good possibility, the House as well. Then McConnell will be caught by the Law of Unexpected Consequences as he finds that to get just one Justice on the SCOTUS with fewer than 60 votes, he has thrown away a major weapon. Constantly changing the rules of the Senate to benefit whichever party happens to be in power for the next two years is just asking for trouble. Given that SCOTUS is (supposed to be) totally independent of the other branches of government, is for life - and in recent years has been highly politicized by Justices Rehnquist & Scalia among others (nobody on the Right seems to complain when profoundly activist Justices are Conservatives!), we should think about amendments.
8
That's a good point you make about conservatives taking it in stride when their guys legislate from the bench. In those cases, they default to the more technical and accurate term, "judicial review". But let a liberal cause be treated fairly and just watch the Republican spittle fly and the collar buttons burst, along with a few blood vessels.
Look, there's a conservative headed to that seat, now or later. Fact. Further obstructions don't help the country but do add to the international view that the USA is a dysfunctional mess. If not Gorsuch, then who? The next one could be even worse.
1
Thank you. The "make McConnell own the nuclear option" argument misses the point that conservatives benefit from the view that government is a mess. They have been telling their constituents for 30+ years that government is the problem. A "threat" which has the form you either let us filibuster this nominee or, we'll do something that will reinforce your what you have been telling your supporters for decades, isn't much of a threat.
Democrats, OTOH, believe that government can be used to solve social problems. We suffer more than conservatives from the deterioration of a functioning government.
Jeet Heer (always worth reading) develops this argument in greater depth in The New Republic.
Democrats, OTOH, believe that government can be used to solve social problems. We suffer more than conservatives from the deterioration of a functioning government.
Jeet Heer (always worth reading) develops this argument in greater depth in The New Republic.
Gorsuch may be reasonably qualified but you don't seem to get the extent of how McConnell acted with impunity on behalf of the Republican party which is supported by a monstrous alternate universe of policy shop propaganda.
Look no further than Jim DeMint for the daily sound bites published across the GOP mouthpiece spectrum. It's an enormous negative influence on our society and culture because it takes advantage of human nature. That is the GOP business model.
Follow the money. Will the Dems be able to right the ship?
Look no further than Jim DeMint for the daily sound bites published across the GOP mouthpiece spectrum. It's an enormous negative influence on our society and culture because it takes advantage of human nature. That is the GOP business model.
Follow the money. Will the Dems be able to right the ship?
3
Thanks for shedding a gaslight on this malodorous swamp-gas stink of malicious double standards and true hypocrisy on the right - enough gas to light an eternal flame of shame. Can't wait to rebury these fossils in 2018 so that we can restore sanity and sane laws and regulations with a simple Democratic majority in 2020.
2
As a longtime independent voter, I am still appalled that McConnell chose to unilaterally usurp Presidential power in his decision to deny Judge Garland even the chance to have an up or down vote in the Senate. in an interview on a weekend talk show, McConnell repeatedly struggled to provide even a modicum of legitimate justification for his summary rejection of Judge Garland, instead, coming across as callow and feckless.
Perhaps we should focus on how the system could allow someone as ill equiped as McConnell to rise to such a high level (throw in the Presidency while we are at it).
When the Democrats inevitably regain the Senate, look for an extrapolation of the new "McConnell Rule" to come into play, wherein if the Senate is held by a different party than the Presidency, the Senate will simply choose not to hold hearings for the President's nominees. Cruz, et al, have provided cover for this position by arguing vehemently about how the SCOTUS doesn't require a specific number of Justices.
McConnell is taking America down a very slippery slope.
Perhaps we should focus on how the system could allow someone as ill equiped as McConnell to rise to such a high level (throw in the Presidency while we are at it).
When the Democrats inevitably regain the Senate, look for an extrapolation of the new "McConnell Rule" to come into play, wherein if the Senate is held by a different party than the Presidency, the Senate will simply choose not to hold hearings for the President's nominees. Cruz, et al, have provided cover for this position by arguing vehemently about how the SCOTUS doesn't require a specific number of Justices.
McConnell is taking America down a very slippery slope.
5
McConnell used a tissue-thin excuse, a "procedure" he made up just for this case, that a President shouldn't be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during his last year in office (what about the last year of his first term, since he has no guarantee of winning a second?).
Well, in the legal British betting parlors a couple of weeks ago, they were giving at least 4 to 1 odds that Trump won't last a year. I'm sure the odds have gotten worse for Trump ever since. So, Trump may well be in his last year in the Presidency, and we should demand that the "McConnell rule" be followed at least until next January, if he lasts. Then we can reassess whether Trump will last through his second year before retiring to Mar-A-Lago to brag, play golf, and grab a bit of p**sy when the mood hits. Given the severity of the scandals about Trump, his administration, Russian help in a Red-rigged (pun intended) election, likely Trump money-laundering, Trump consistently filling his pockets from foreign entities currying favor by frequenting his properties, Trump tailoring his policies or non-policies to aid, or at least not oppose Russia's growing grab for international power, Trump debts or blackmail information held by Russia, we can't be sure that ANY year of Trump's presidency won't be his last year. No nominations while the Sword of Damocles dangles over Trump's Cheez-Doodle colored Lhasa Apso hair extensions.
Well, in the legal British betting parlors a couple of weeks ago, they were giving at least 4 to 1 odds that Trump won't last a year. I'm sure the odds have gotten worse for Trump ever since. So, Trump may well be in his last year in the Presidency, and we should demand that the "McConnell rule" be followed at least until next January, if he lasts. Then we can reassess whether Trump will last through his second year before retiring to Mar-A-Lago to brag, play golf, and grab a bit of p**sy when the mood hits. Given the severity of the scandals about Trump, his administration, Russian help in a Red-rigged (pun intended) election, likely Trump money-laundering, Trump consistently filling his pockets from foreign entities currying favor by frequenting his properties, Trump tailoring his policies or non-policies to aid, or at least not oppose Russia's growing grab for international power, Trump debts or blackmail information held by Russia, we can't be sure that ANY year of Trump's presidency won't be his last year. No nominations while the Sword of Damocles dangles over Trump's Cheez-Doodle colored Lhasa Apso hair extensions.
1
In the committee today on Judge Gorsch's nomination Senator Cornyn said that if Hilary Clinton had been elected we would not have heard about Judge Garland again. Meaning that Clinton would have nominated a more liberal judge for the Supreme Court. I think he is wrong. If Clinton had been elected the GOP controlled Senate would have convened between Nov 8 and Jan 20 to quickly approve Garland to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the GOP strategy of not allowing an up-or-down vote was correct unless Obama were to withdraw Garland's nomination if Hilary were elected.
Gorsuch has shown that he applies the law not just in favour for big corporations whatever the merits of the case in other respects, but more importantly without any common sense. He is of the religious and legal school of fundamentalist thinking. Extremely dangerous and unbending when considering the very lives and the hopes of his fellow Americans.
And he apparently still bears a grudge against environmentalists and anything progressive from what happened to his mother.
He will make a terrible Supreme Court judge. Just terrible.
Democrats are right to oppose him.
I hope he isn't appointed, but feel certain that he will be. SAD.
Senator McConnell is just pathetic. We all know that by now. If he triggers the nuclear option his disgusting disservice to the country will be forever enshrined in the annals of history.
And he apparently still bears a grudge against environmentalists and anything progressive from what happened to his mother.
He will make a terrible Supreme Court judge. Just terrible.
Democrats are right to oppose him.
I hope he isn't appointed, but feel certain that he will be. SAD.
Senator McConnell is just pathetic. We all know that by now. If he triggers the nuclear option his disgusting disservice to the country will be forever enshrined in the annals of history.
3
It is true that the Republicans are using the option and they will have the votes for Gorsuch. Chances are they will use this option if they have to for other future appointments. It appears that this is the first time any political party has block appointments or use the tools of the Senate. It seems that if you write an opinion that follows the law and actual court case decisions your not human or have compassion.
The Dems are 100% correct to adamantly oppose the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch, whose legal opinions have consistently supported the disempowerment of administrative government by coastal elites. It brings an ironic joy to those of us who can attribute achievement of this pivotal event in our nation's history to Harry Reid.
1
I support the nuclear option fully. I also believe that Judge Garland deserved a vote up or down. The concept that a minority in the Senate can block a vote is, in my opinion, totally undemocratic and needs to be removed in its entirety.
Of course, I also believe that there should be a time limit on how long a bill can be held in committee, that all committee hearings on a particular bill should be held simultaneously, that if a bill gets voted down by any committee it should still go to the floor marked disapproved by committee x, and that once a bill gets out of the committee process there is a strict time limit before a vote must be taken. So I guess that just shows how impractical my ideas are.
Of course, I also believe that there should be a time limit on how long a bill can be held in committee, that all committee hearings on a particular bill should be held simultaneously, that if a bill gets voted down by any committee it should still go to the floor marked disapproved by committee x, and that once a bill gets out of the committee process there is a strict time limit before a vote must be taken. So I guess that just shows how impractical my ideas are.
2
I find it very ironic that Republican opposition to Obama was obstruction and so Reid's use of the nuclear option was warranted while Democratic opposition is "honest" and justified. Will liberals ever look in the mirror and realize they have put themselves in the mess they're in? Would Democrats support any nominee from Trump? I would guess not even if he put forward a liberal extremist. They would think it is some sort of trick. As Obama said in 2008, elections have consequences so brace yourself. Trump has only just begun.
1
For 8 years ( effectively ) MoConnell and republicans shut down government.
Every single action in the Senate required a cloture motion. The vote to bring up a cloture motion required a cloture motion ( 60 votes )
Once republicans are confident that they can effectively blame Democrats for everything to follow, they will change the rules.
It is a given, just like republicans will revert back to requirng 60 votes for a cloture motion on everything, when they are turfed from power in the midterms.
Every single action in the Senate required a cloture motion. The vote to bring up a cloture motion required a cloture motion ( 60 votes )
Once republicans are confident that they can effectively blame Democrats for everything to follow, they will change the rules.
It is a given, just like republicans will revert back to requirng 60 votes for a cloture motion on everything, when they are turfed from power in the midterms.
1
McConnell is a politician. He has a set of beliefs. He is a conservative. He is leading the effort to confirm the appointment of the replacement for Antonin Scalia, the leading conservative Supreme Court judge of modern times.
Under the circumstances, and given what is at stake, has McConnell gone too far in what he has done to date? Would the "nuclear option", if he resorts to it, be going too far? Would the Democrats do the same if the roles were reversed?
Clearly the answers are no, no and yes.
This is US politics in 2017. This is the norm.
Under the circumstances, and given what is at stake, has McConnell gone too far in what he has done to date? Would the "nuclear option", if he resorts to it, be going too far? Would the Democrats do the same if the roles were reversed?
Clearly the answers are no, no and yes.
This is US politics in 2017. This is the norm.
1
The Democrats made the mistake of allowing McConnell to use the filibuster for years and block confirmations and legislations while Democrats held a majority assuming that Republicans will continue the tradition when the situation was reversed. The Senate stopped being a gentleman's club when Obama was elected and should have eliminated that rule once it was clear that Republicans will abuse it. The filibuster should go the way of the dodo. If Republicans push legislation that is unpopular the right way is to remove them via elections.
I contend the answers to be Yes, Yes and No!
The nuclear option is too extreme in this case, and there was a reason democrats were forced to go nuclear in 2013, and that's because literally everything got filibustered. Even minor decisions required the 60 vote thresholds. Also, there was a major distinction to avoid making Supreme Court nominees a simple majority as part of that decision. Supreme Court nominees should be more main stream, and therefore Gorsuch does not pass that test in any measure. I also think if the nominee were more main stream he would have been on the Senates approved nominees list that is sent to the president for consideration, and not a slimy back room Heritage foundation slip to Trump as a rubber stamp. I say, "we're in the middle of an investigation of this administration", the American people deserve to know their president is not a crook before we allow him to pollute the supreme court the way he has the emoluments clause!
The nuclear option is too extreme in this case, and there was a reason democrats were forced to go nuclear in 2013, and that's because literally everything got filibustered. Even minor decisions required the 60 vote thresholds. Also, there was a major distinction to avoid making Supreme Court nominees a simple majority as part of that decision. Supreme Court nominees should be more main stream, and therefore Gorsuch does not pass that test in any measure. I also think if the nominee were more main stream he would have been on the Senates approved nominees list that is sent to the president for consideration, and not a slimy back room Heritage foundation slip to Trump as a rubber stamp. I say, "we're in the middle of an investigation of this administration", the American people deserve to know their president is not a crook before we allow him to pollute the supreme court the way he has the emoluments clause!
1
Agreed.
McConnell's threat to invoke the so-called 'nuclear' option rips away the final bit of veneer masking the arrogance of Senate Republicans; more importantly, it ensures the continued demise of comity and bipartisanship in the Senate.
Under McConnell's leadership, Republicans in the Senate rallied around his perspective that (in the Minority) obstructionism was a legitimate course of action (e.g., their unwillingness to grant Judge Garland a confirmation hearing); now in the Majority, their approach has been 'it's our way or the highway' (e.g., agreeing to speedy confirmations for Trump's Cabinet nominees before all ethics requirements were satisfied), bringing them to the current threat to bust the filibuster against Judge Gorsuch's nomination by invoking the 'nuclear' option.
While no praise can be attributed to Harry Reid for first invoking the 'nuclear' in 2013, with McConnell's Senate Republicans in a 'filibuster anything in sight' frame of mind during the Obama presidency, there were precious few -- if any -- ways to otherwise move business along.
The highly partisan path taken by McConnell's Republican majority ensures that on issues of national importance (budget, immigration policy, defense, foreign policy) -- with the exception of the current efforts by the Senate Intelligence Committee to get to the bottom of the Trump-Russia connection -- that comity and bipartisanship are now on life support in the upper chamber of the world's greatest deliberative body.
Under McConnell's leadership, Republicans in the Senate rallied around his perspective that (in the Minority) obstructionism was a legitimate course of action (e.g., their unwillingness to grant Judge Garland a confirmation hearing); now in the Majority, their approach has been 'it's our way or the highway' (e.g., agreeing to speedy confirmations for Trump's Cabinet nominees before all ethics requirements were satisfied), bringing them to the current threat to bust the filibuster against Judge Gorsuch's nomination by invoking the 'nuclear' option.
While no praise can be attributed to Harry Reid for first invoking the 'nuclear' in 2013, with McConnell's Senate Republicans in a 'filibuster anything in sight' frame of mind during the Obama presidency, there were precious few -- if any -- ways to otherwise move business along.
The highly partisan path taken by McConnell's Republican majority ensures that on issues of national importance (budget, immigration policy, defense, foreign policy) -- with the exception of the current efforts by the Senate Intelligence Committee to get to the bottom of the Trump-Russia connection -- that comity and bipartisanship are now on life support in the upper chamber of the world's greatest deliberative body.
1
We can all thank Harry Reid for this. This will allow Trump to pick the next supreme as a very hard right person who the dems will hate immensely but we only need 51. Thanks Harry. and if Gisnzy gets hit by a bus we will have a free for all battle.
Both Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch are extremely well qualified for the job of SCOTUS associate justice both by intellectual ability and demonstrated judicial temperament. Both are within the realm of acceptability by any reasonable standard. Sen. McConnell's refusal to allow Mr. Garland to have a confirmation was unreasonable but legal base partisanship of a magnitude comparable to the rejection of the Bork nomination in 1987. The sole reason that Mr Gorsuch got a confirmation hearing and Mr. Garland did not was because in the former case the president's political party controlled the Senate whereas in the latter it did not.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a Senate vote of 52-48 on 15 October 1991 after an acrimonious confirmation hearing that included an emotional allegation of sexual harassment by a co-worker. This is a clear precedent that a Justice of the Supreme Court can indeed be confirmed by a simple majority vote and that the rules for confirmation are mutable.
Robert Bork, a highly qualified but very conservative nominee--arguably more qualified than Clarence Thomas--demonstrated that being forthright during a SCOTUS confirmation hearing was a sure way to lose a confirmation vote. Hence the opaqueness of subsequent SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings, including that of Mr. Gorsuch.
And that is the hypocrisy and cynical reality of the American political system.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a Senate vote of 52-48 on 15 October 1991 after an acrimonious confirmation hearing that included an emotional allegation of sexual harassment by a co-worker. This is a clear precedent that a Justice of the Supreme Court can indeed be confirmed by a simple majority vote and that the rules for confirmation are mutable.
Robert Bork, a highly qualified but very conservative nominee--arguably more qualified than Clarence Thomas--demonstrated that being forthright during a SCOTUS confirmation hearing was a sure way to lose a confirmation vote. Hence the opaqueness of subsequent SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings, including that of Mr. Gorsuch.
And that is the hypocrisy and cynical reality of the American political system.
2
I strongly disagree that the rejection of Bork and the failure to hold a hearing on Garland are equivalent. They are not. At the time Bork was out of the legal mainstream. That stream has since shifted considerably to the right. Hearings were not held on Garland because the words of a number of Senators praising Garland as a wonderful nominee that they would strongly support would come back to haunt them. They stole the seat. If they had held hearings that theft would have been on live TV rather than behind closed doors.
1
I think Bork's involvement with Nixon and the midnight massacre played a role. The senate democrats pleaded with St Ronald not to nominate Borg as they knew he was an extremists and had done some underhanded things. Qualified? sure. But underhanded and an extremists. Additionally he made a fool out of himself in the senate hearings. He said he wanted to be on the court for himself, not for Americans, he looked at it as a selfish thing. Supreme court nominees took all the wrong messages from this fiasco. Instead of realizing that maybe being on the court should be a public service, and if they're not interested in that they shouldn't be there, they instead just directly lie to senators and avoid saying anything meaningful in confirmation hearings.
The "radical" move was Reid's decision to embark down this path to begin with. It's just the next logical step to extend the option to the Supreme Court once Reid decided that federal judiciary appointments were in play with his move to a simple majority. Democrats may indeed have come by their opposition to a fully qualified Gorsuch "honestly" but the GOP will be acting just as honestly, in their view, when an unjustified filibuster forces them to invoke the "Reid Option". It was just a bridge too far that Harry never should have crossed to begin with. Once again, the laws of unintended consequences are at work...
1
So they should have let a minority determine everything? How is that democracy? Nonsense. They gave the republicans a chance to play by the rules of the senate, same rules which lasted 200 years. Apparently they couldn't. And now that they're in power and they stopped playing by those rules 8 years ago, it's the democrats fault?
If I am not mistaken, there were a number of conservatives who, during the campaign, vowed to delay and/or block the proposed Supreme Court nominee even if Clinton or another Democrat had won the Presidential election. Trump himself said he would support "delay, delay, delay" and try to push this decision off until after the midterm elections. Being civil is not in these people's vocabulary.
I have seen no mention of this position in the press, am I dreaming?
.
I have seen no mention of this position in the press, am I dreaming?
.
1
No, the press is so cowed by Trump's Fake Media campaign and the absurd smokescreens he and his party and right-wing media throw out whenever the media seem close to reporting on reality that they never get to 90% of what we need to know.
McConnell said a president shouldn't be allowed to appoint a new Justice in the last year of his presidency, but he and numerous other Republicans said they would be happy to keep ANY Democratic president from appointing a Justice for that seat if it took 8 years of a Hillary presidency and an infinite number of years of succeeding Democratic presidents. That was "their" seat and they would never again let a Dem appoint a nominee. Eventually, the court would be entirely an extreme right kangaroo court that always found for corporations against individuals, the government against individuals, and the corporations against government - not to mention cases with conservative evangelical Christian implications.
McConnell said a president shouldn't be allowed to appoint a new Justice in the last year of his presidency, but he and numerous other Republicans said they would be happy to keep ANY Democratic president from appointing a Justice for that seat if it took 8 years of a Hillary presidency and an infinite number of years of succeeding Democratic presidents. That was "their" seat and they would never again let a Dem appoint a nominee. Eventually, the court would be entirely an extreme right kangaroo court that always found for corporations against individuals, the government against individuals, and the corporations against government - not to mention cases with conservative evangelical Christian implications.
2
It became a kangaroo court the day the people appointed by Bush's father and Father's boss picked our president.
Republicans like to claim that the Democrats are "forcing" them to use the nuclear option of abolishing the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. It is a completely spurious argument. Democrats are not denying Trump a judicial nominee, but only this specific nominee. All the Republicans have to do is put forward a slightly less right-wing judge and the nomination will sail through without any rule changes. It's entirely within Republican control.
Democrats are prepared to accept only a portion of what they want, whereas Republicans will not compromise and will accept only all of what they want. That's where the dislike of Congress and politicians comes from - recalcitrance when out of power and recalcitrance when in power. (Incidentally, the word comes from the Latin recalcitrare, meaning to kick back, and kickbacks are another reason politicians are frequently despised.)
Democrats are prepared to accept only a portion of what they want, whereas Republicans will not compromise and will accept only all of what they want. That's where the dislike of Congress and politicians comes from - recalcitrance when out of power and recalcitrance when in power. (Incidentally, the word comes from the Latin recalcitrare, meaning to kick back, and kickbacks are another reason politicians are frequently despised.)
1
The Dems need to show that they are the party of effective governance. The nation loses a great deal if the low majority consensus becomes the norm. Republicans have shown that they favor party over the health of US democracy. Dems need to set a higher standard. Republicans are going to fumble the FY 17 budget, Tax Reform, Infrastructure and the next revision of health care. If the nation sees the Dems as the "go to" party to make things happen. Then there is an opportunity for strong position when the next Supreme Court vacancy emerges and health of our democracy refreshed.
I disagree strongly. The democrats showed they were the adults the last eight years, and were payed back by losing control of the house, then the senate, and now the presidency. the GOP controls most of the state legislatures and governorship. The republicans were not punished for filibustering 500 times. 290 bills were filibustered with majority support in both houses and supported by the president. The GOP were children, kicking and screaming and obstructing. The obstruction cost them 0 votes. trying to set "higher standards" may sound nice, but it cedes control of the government to extremists. it doesn't win elections to be nice.
For all practical purposes, the nuclear option has already been triggered and the filibuster killed. McConnell cannot let Gorsuch be stopped by the Democrats for simple political reasons based on the prisoner's dilemma. If he doesn't invoke the nuclear option, then the Democrats likely will when they get back into the position to do so--just as they already used it on lower court nominees, and earlier than that, on passing the ACA on a pure party-line vote. That may not have involved the filibuster, but it did establish the precedent that major policy changes no longer require any degree or bipartisan support.
How can the filibuster survive in an era when we no longer have a two-party system but an alternating one-party system, in which no part of the opposition party will ever forge a governing consensus with the party in power to govern on major issues? That is how our system worked in the past, and in that context, the filibuster was a valid rule. But 60 vote majorities are simply no longer possible on ideologically divisive issues. The end of the filibuster is tragic, but probably inevitable. And one fears what will follow down the line.
How can the filibuster survive in an era when we no longer have a two-party system but an alternating one-party system, in which no part of the opposition party will ever forge a governing consensus with the party in power to govern on major issues? That is how our system worked in the past, and in that context, the filibuster was a valid rule. But 60 vote majorities are simply no longer possible on ideologically divisive issues. The end of the filibuster is tragic, but probably inevitable. And one fears what will follow down the line.
Until I read Eric Posner's op-ed in the Sunday NYT I was ready to dismiss the Neil Gorsuch nomination as just a little more political theatre. To my knowledge and recollection the Posners are not liberals they are conservative and attach his name to that op-ed makes me believe that Neil Gorsuch is an existential threat to the country that is my second home.
My country survived a major division as to whether it should remain a single nation. It weathered the storm and our separatist movement changed Canada from a frozen banana republic into the best country in the world in which to live.
I am 69 and Canadian but my grandchildren are in their 20s and Americans. They are educated multilingual and have travelled the world. Like so many of America's children I don't believe they could live in a country ruled by the McConnells and Gorsuchs. I think it is time to stop worrying about walls with Mexico and think about the establishment of internal borders. There is and always will be purple Americas but it seems to me red and blue America needs some of Robert Frost's fences that make good neighbours.
My country survived a major division as to whether it should remain a single nation. It weathered the storm and our separatist movement changed Canada from a frozen banana republic into the best country in the world in which to live.
I am 69 and Canadian but my grandchildren are in their 20s and Americans. They are educated multilingual and have travelled the world. Like so many of America's children I don't believe they could live in a country ruled by the McConnells and Gorsuchs. I think it is time to stop worrying about walls with Mexico and think about the establishment of internal borders. There is and always will be purple Americas but it seems to me red and blue America needs some of Robert Frost's fences that make good neighbours.
I agree with the article and would offer two points:
In his desire for this seat, Judge Gorsuch ignored the Republicans' flouting of Senate tradition/protocol --precedents, if you will.
He turned a blind eye to the shabby treatment of Judge Garland, stepping over his friend and colleague.
Not only does this call his character into question, but it demonstrates a willingness to bend principles to arrive at a desired destination, a tendency that one hopes a jurist would judiciously self-police and avoid.
In short, Judge Gorsuch is unfit to sit.
Finally, being the first nomination after Judge Garland's mistreatment, the Democrats are on high moral ground to object, a position they would cede if they postpone a filibuster for some later nomination.
In his desire for this seat, Judge Gorsuch ignored the Republicans' flouting of Senate tradition/protocol --precedents, if you will.
He turned a blind eye to the shabby treatment of Judge Garland, stepping over his friend and colleague.
Not only does this call his character into question, but it demonstrates a willingness to bend principles to arrive at a desired destination, a tendency that one hopes a jurist would judiciously self-police and avoid.
In short, Judge Gorsuch is unfit to sit.
Finally, being the first nomination after Judge Garland's mistreatment, the Democrats are on high moral ground to object, a position they would cede if they postpone a filibuster for some later nomination.
1
"Institutionalist"? Would a Senate "institutionalist" have abdicated (suppressed) the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role in Supreme Court nominations, purporting to defer instead to the "American people"? Not a conservative one, according to the conservative icon Edmund Burke. He said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
2
When Dems bring up the wrong done to Garland, Republicans cry, "two wrongs don't make a right!"
But then in the next breath they cite Harry Reid's own 2013 "nuclear option" in defense of the GOP using it now. The naked hypocrisy of McConnell couldn't be more plain, or unsightly.
As this piece correctly points out: the Reid action and the proposed McConnell one are not comparable. Reid's came as a last resort after years of frustration. McConnell's comes as a threat against potential frustration.
McConnell himself has said "In the Senate it take 60 votes on controversial matters."
The potential confirmation of a far right judge who didn't answer any senate questions, and was nominated by a president who got crushed in the popular vote and is currently under FBI investigation for collusion with a foreign power to illegally benefit his campaign, is a "controversial matter."
But then in the next breath they cite Harry Reid's own 2013 "nuclear option" in defense of the GOP using it now. The naked hypocrisy of McConnell couldn't be more plain, or unsightly.
As this piece correctly points out: the Reid action and the proposed McConnell one are not comparable. Reid's came as a last resort after years of frustration. McConnell's comes as a threat against potential frustration.
McConnell himself has said "In the Senate it take 60 votes on controversial matters."
The potential confirmation of a far right judge who didn't answer any senate questions, and was nominated by a president who got crushed in the popular vote and is currently under FBI investigation for collusion with a foreign power to illegally benefit his campaign, is a "controversial matter."
7
I haven't heard one Republican say two wrongs don't make it right. I see liberal writers use the phrase.
You're kind of arguing with straw men here. I haven't heard ANYBODY say "Two wrongs don't make a right". For one thing, that would mean conceding that Merrick Garland was wronged, which he wasn't. The Senate has the right to withhold their consent, period. The Constitution does not guarantee nominees an up or down vote. Read it yourself.
Dems absolutely need to vote in their constituents' best interests (against Gorusch) or they will surely be voted out in the upcoming elections. This is no longer a 'gentlemen's match'. The rules have been changed and Dem senators better get on board. Playing nice will not get them anywhere. In fact it will weaken Dems and our nation severely if Dems decide to acquiesce to the strong arm tactics of McConnell et al.
McConnell and the right wing will stop at nothing to destroy civility in this country. It will, eventually, come full circle and bite them in the rear ends sooner rather than later. But Dems need to let them create that karma in their own. Or suffer the consequences!
McConnell and the right wing will stop at nothing to destroy civility in this country. It will, eventually, come full circle and bite them in the rear ends sooner rather than later. But Dems need to let them create that karma in their own. Or suffer the consequences!
4
Can't be sure, but I suspect I would recommend that Democratic Senators allow a vote on Neil Gorsuch in another ten months. First, however, have him wait just a little longer than Merrick Garland had to wait. Let the country be further educated about what a travesty was the treatmenet of Chief Judge Garland's nomination.
And if "two wrong's don't make a right," what does make things right in situations of political strong-arming like the Garland nomination? I'm still waiting to have the decision in Bush v. Gore (2000) made right. And Citizens United. And Heller. Etc.
And if "two wrong's don't make a right," what does make things right in situations of political strong-arming like the Garland nomination? I'm still waiting to have the decision in Bush v. Gore (2000) made right. And Citizens United. And Heller. Etc.
3
Democrats should be questioning whether it is proper for the repulsives to be nominating a new judge while the residing president and many of his cabinet are in question as to their involvement with a "hacked" election. Ethics, morals, the repulsives have none.
8
The policy of requiring a 2/3 vote to bring a supreme court nomination to a vote is meaningless unless if the policy is not going to be honored. Both parties should behave as if the policy doesn't exist.
Three-fifths. 60 is three-fifths of 100. Sorry.
True, but my point remains the same.
McConnell once filibustered his own bill which should tell you everything you need to know abut him. That said, it is hard to argue with the results in which even in this highly polarized environment the right wing has gained total control of Federal government and most state governments as well.
1
Elections have consequences. I'll paraphrase Obama - When the democrats start voting the way I think they should vote then then the nuclear option "will go away".
The US electorate could have punished the GOP for not voting on Garlands nomination by taking the Senate away from them (and the democrats has all the numbers going for them in 2016). They didn't. They maintained a GOP Senate and elected a GOP President.
You leftists are steeped in denial at this point about where Americans are on this issue.
The US electorate could have punished the GOP for not voting on Garlands nomination by taking the Senate away from them (and the democrats has all the numbers going for them in 2016). They didn't. They maintained a GOP Senate and elected a GOP President.
You leftists are steeped in denial at this point about where Americans are on this issue.
4
It's my understanding that not enough senate seats were up for grabs in 2016 that would have resulted in a democratic majority, even if they won them all. That said, the dems did pick up a few seats, so I don't see this as a denial on issues as they stand at all. They are starting to gain back seats lost in 2010.
Anyone who pretends to know where Americans stand on any issue is delusional.
Russian propaganda in conressional elections, and an UNBELIEVABLE war against HRC, also with Putin's urging, allowed this disgraceful historic failure in the American democratic process.
Fool us once, but never twice. Enjoy the last month or so of this hellbound shiztwad as President. Kushner in charge of China, Mexico, and Israel-Palestine realtions? What a joke....a very tragic one, only making Putin and ISIS giggle with delight.
Fool us once, but never twice. Enjoy the last month or so of this hellbound shiztwad as President. Kushner in charge of China, Mexico, and Israel-Palestine realtions? What a joke....a very tragic one, only making Putin and ISIS giggle with delight.
Nice try. But given that Jentleson was the former Deputy Chief of Staff to Reid, it's pretty clear he's trying to "gaslight" readers. Mcconnell is a proud and long-time believer in the Senate as the "world's greatest deliberative body". But after the debacle on Obamacare, there's just no way the GOP will accept a defeat on Gorsuch. Moreover, the schism in the GOP (between far right and moderates) simply is unlikely to repeat itself on Gorsuch. Conservativfes know the lion they had in Scalia and see Gorsuch as a worthy heir. Dems ought to save their firepower for another fight. If they fillibuster and lose (either due to lack of votes or the nuclear option), it will make them look as impotent as the GOP did on Obamacare. And it will give Trump a much needed win.
The picture that Jentleson tries to paint of liberals giving Gorsuch an honest look is simply disingenuous. Dems have half their caucus up for election in 2018. For most of them, there is no way they could vote for Gorsuch without risking a primary attack from their left. The only Dems likely to support Gorsuch are those Dems from conservative states - of which there are quite a few.
And regarding the fillibuster as some kind of retribution for the lack of hearing for Garland, I have three words for Dems - Get over it ! Even if you had hearings, it's impossible that a GOP majority in the Senate would bless a change in the majority on the court for the first time in 40 years.
The picture that Jentleson tries to paint of liberals giving Gorsuch an honest look is simply disingenuous. Dems have half their caucus up for election in 2018. For most of them, there is no way they could vote for Gorsuch without risking a primary attack from their left. The only Dems likely to support Gorsuch are those Dems from conservative states - of which there are quite a few.
And regarding the fillibuster as some kind of retribution for the lack of hearing for Garland, I have three words for Dems - Get over it ! Even if you had hearings, it's impossible that a GOP majority in the Senate would bless a change in the majority on the court for the first time in 40 years.
5
Dems problem is they can't "get over it". Theyre going nuts, just like the end-of world-chicken little scenarios the Times is famous for now.
Supreme Court nominations have never required 60 votes. A simple majority is what is required for confirmation. If one party decides to block a vote, it is by filibustering. That takes 60 votes to overcome. Merrick Garland deserved an up or down vote. So does this man.
5
Arguments about how this candidate deserves this and other candidates don't are totally subjective, and nonsensical by nature. The Senate has the right to refuse their consent, period. As long as they don't violate the Constitution or their own rules, then it makes no difference what you think someone deserves.
Because of obstructionist Democrats, McConnell will obviously invoke the nuclear option to put Gorsuch on the court. At the same time, he should up the ante, and invoke the nuclear option for legislation as well.
Partisan warfare has gridlocked our government. Killing the filibuster for legislation will allow the peoples business to get done, and government to function.
Partisan warfare has gridlocked our government. Killing the filibuster for legislation will allow the peoples business to get done, and government to function.
4
The partisan warfare that gridlocked the government was initiated by the GOP in 2009 on the evening of Obama's inauguration, when McConnell and the GOP leaders vowed to block every Obama initiative no matter what its substance. They refused repeatedly to work with Obama and rebuffed every overture to do so. Their refusal to consider Merrick Garland last year was the culmination of this strategy.
They only start calling it partisan warfare when we fight back.
They only start calling it partisan warfare when we fight back.
1
Well, the Times' rationalization is that it's okay for Reid because he waited longer to pull the trigger than McConnell will. What they fail to grasp is that Reid opened that can of worms for everyone.
1
Bravo for your insight and temperment
1
As a poker player I can honestly say that the Dems have the habit of over playing their hand. Harry Reid did it big time by cutting back the 60 vote rule. Now Schumer is about to over play his hand. Putting the Republicans in a position where they are being forced to change the 60 vote rule to a simple majority will, in future court battles, come back to haunt the Dems. Trump could easily have two more court vacancies to fill. If he elects to appoint judges recommended by the Federalist Sociery the court will be set as a conservative institution for a generation at a minimum.
The Dems would be wiser to not filibuster Gorsuch and keep their powder dry for a potential future nominee who deserves to be filibustered.
The Dems would be wiser to not filibuster Gorsuch and keep their powder dry for a potential future nominee who deserves to be filibustered.
6
Let's not be disingenuous, OK? If the Democrats dispense with the filibuster and let Gorsuch's nomination go to a vote in the full Senate, you know and I know that we'll be hearing the same argument when and if Trump gets to nominate another Justice. The Republicans' unprecedented year-long blocking of Garland's nomination proved that the confirmation process is no longer governed by any semblance of principle, but is rather driven by raw power politics. The Republicans held the seat open, clearly and unmistakably, because they wanted to hold onto a majority that would continue to treat massive political contributions as speech and look the other way at voting rights violations.
Gustavo, you make an interesting point about over-playing a hand. And you may tactically be correct! That said, running the US government is not a poker game, where you hide your cards and act deceptively. The people who are governed want transparency whenever possible. Trump is a poker player and a master of deception. He may know how to 'sweeten his own pot' with a bluff, as he did on speaking of not liking the deal/impact, of the Paris Climate Accords on the US interests. I hope our elected officials, on both sides of the isle, do not stoop to his level.
In addition, in my opinion Neil Gorsuch IS the guy for which you keep your powder dry. He may be a wise justice, an scholarly interpreter of the Constitution, but ask Judge Garland about timing. Either both should be confirmed by a politically expedient Agreement or neither confirmed. Have another set of Senate Confirmation Hearings for Garland and see who can get the confirmation votes now!
In addition, in my opinion Neil Gorsuch IS the guy for which you keep your powder dry. He may be a wise justice, an scholarly interpreter of the Constitution, but ask Judge Garland about timing. Either both should be confirmed by a politically expedient Agreement or neither confirmed. Have another set of Senate Confirmation Hearings for Garland and see who can get the confirmation votes now!
Given that all judicial groups who have scored Justices on how much to the Right or Left their previous decisions and speeches are put Gorsuch to the right of Scalia, with only the woeful Justice Thomas further Right, Dems should take their stand on principle. Even if you lose, if you vote for principle, you'll have the comfort that your vote was morally correct, & there still will be new battles to be fought. If the establishment Dems cave on Gorsuch, the Democratic base is going to be even more disillusioned with our cowardly leaders who lack any sense of a moral compass and any core of ideals and beliefs. If Dems don't filibuster and don't capture the Senate in 2018 because of ambivalence in the base, but save it for the next appointee, as you suggested, McConnell will just use the nuclear option then, and Dems will lose all of the fights as long as the Senate stays at least 50 Republicans. If Dems man & woman up, filibuster & lose, they will at least not be driving their own grassroots away in 2018. Who knows, if that happens, Dems may well take back the Senate & can reinstate the filibuster, shoving it right into McConnell's face.
Why not change all the rules?? Why not have 8 justices at all times. That would help stem the tide of partisanship on the court. Why not have term limits? No one should serve a lifetime position in an age when news moves faster than time, and the court moves at the same pace as when Paul Revere spread the news .This is not a criticism
of the court, but our world is changing faster than we can even comprehend, and our laws written so long ago bear little resemblance to the 1700s.
of the court, but our world is changing faster than we can even comprehend, and our laws written so long ago bear little resemblance to the 1700s.
13
Your ideas are an entirely different issue, and so not really relevant to this discussion.
you need a breaking tie vote on the court
If Ginsburg retires in next election year, Trump can't replace her unless he's re-elected. But that'll be harder to argue if Democrats have already had their payback by trying to filibuster Gorsuch. So maybe save the payback.
3
Ilya, as fair as that might seem, do you honestly believe that McConnell and Republicans would honor the so-called "Biden-rule" if that were to occur? They would quite shamelessly -- no, gleefully -- ram an ultra-conservative judge through the Senate to replace Ginsburg or any other liberal. Even if the nomination and vote all had to take place on January 19, 2021, with a Democrat-President-elect waiting to be sworn in the next day.
In this political environment, I guarantee you that Ginsburg will not voluntarily step down if Trump is the president. I cannot imagine her even considering that...
"They would quite shamelessly -- no, gleefully -- ram an ultra-conservative judge through the Senate to replace Ginsburg" -- and filibustering Gorsuch prevents that how?
As usual, The NYT uses a far left writer--- no less than the Deputy Chief of Staff for Harry Reid---to say why Harry's actions...which directly lead to this moment were somehow different, and not a clear precedent for McMcConnell. It would almost be a caricature...if it wasn't so tragic
10
You and your GOP Thug Allies are the Real Tragedy for America...why don't y'all just leave...or better "self-terminate" as one of your nominees once said.
Anyone suggesting that the Dems save their filibuster for the next justice appointment need to up their medication. It is true that if the Repubs use the nuclear option they will have the votes for Gorsuch. That will also be true on the next appointment and the next. It appears that only Repubs are allowed to block appointments or use the tools of the Senate. Better to trigger the nuclear option now and work toward taking the Senate in 18.
130
If Democrats show that filibuster is used with care (i.e. not on _every_ Trump nomination), Republicans won't have a case for ending it. Democrats' case in 2013 was that Republicans are indiscriminately filibustering Obama's every appointment.
The hard working Senator Jon Tester (MT) announced his no vote Sunday evening, despite the barrage of local TV advertising pressure to vote yes.
Thank you Senator Tester for your profile in courage.
Thank you Senator Tester for your profile in courage.
20
Shrug. Just another nail in the coffin of the "United" States.
5
The Democrats should not vote for the appointment of Gorsuch in revenge for the Republicans' treatment of Judge Garland; they resist because of his total lack of compassion for his total lack of empathy. His true nature is demonstrated in part by his dissent in the case of the freezing truck driver. Although he disagreed with majority opinion, he was not required to write a dissenting opinion. That he took that action to let people know that laws are more important than people reveals his essential cruelty.
But even more important than that case are the memos he wrote approving the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture during the GW Bush administration. His total disregard of humanity as demonstrated in those memos indicates a much more egrisous attitude toward the humanity of others,
His defense that he was doing that work as attorney, rather than a judge, is fatuous. An attorney has no duty to endorse his clients' plans if they would require inhumane treatment greater than the crime of running a puppy mill.
Golly, Gee, Senators; any of you who believe in justice should reject this person, regardless of your party. Holding to party loyalty in the face of Gorsuch's disregard of human life is holding that the words of a statute are more important than the people to whom they apply.
But even more important than that case are the memos he wrote approving the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture during the GW Bush administration. His total disregard of humanity as demonstrated in those memos indicates a much more egrisous attitude toward the humanity of others,
His defense that he was doing that work as attorney, rather than a judge, is fatuous. An attorney has no duty to endorse his clients' plans if they would require inhumane treatment greater than the crime of running a puppy mill.
Golly, Gee, Senators; any of you who believe in justice should reject this person, regardless of your party. Holding to party loyalty in the face of Gorsuch's disregard of human life is holding that the words of a statute are more important than the people to whom they apply.
115
So if not gorsuch who? Do you think Trump will nominate someone more palatable to the Democrats if gorsuch fails? Or do you think they can block every nomination for the next four years?
8
Why not? It's the same tactic the Republicans chose.
So Schumer and Co. and still in a snit because their nom wasn't picked. Boo Hoo. Chuck must be suffering from memory loss. He forgets what he did in 2007 and Dubya's pick for the Supreme court. Schumer thought it best that it could wait until the new POTUS came into office thus leading the way for Obama and his nom. Apparently Schumer doesn't like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Hypocritical much Chuck?
7
Queens Girl wrote "So Schumer and Co. ...forgets what he did in 2007 and Dubya's pick for the Supreme court. Schumer thought it best that it could wait until the new POTUS came into office thus leading the way for Obama and his nom".
What nonsense, there was no Supreme Court vacancy in 2007. More "Fake News" from Breitbart?
What nonsense, there was no Supreme Court vacancy in 2007. More "Fake News" from Breitbart?
Dubya had no nomination to make in 2007...who are you referring to?
Bravo, Queensgirl, well said!
1
In his first term Obama wasted YEARS trying to work with the GOP.
He kept cutting down his ambitions. This was called
"Negotiating against himself".
A total waste of time. Let the republicans do what they do now, and use it against them in 2018.
He kept cutting down his ambitions. This was called
"Negotiating against himself".
A total waste of time. Let the republicans do what they do now, and use it against them in 2018.
12
From day 1, the tyrant Obama ran around proclaiming, "I won!" and never once even tried to work with the GOP, despite Republican attempts to work with him
1
That's the fiction Obama has sold.
1
Tirgger it, Mitch. Just blow the whole thing up. After all, nothing in the Constitution says 60 votes.
7
"If Senator McConnell blows up Senate rules…" Good one. I think Harry Reid already did that.
7
Gorsuch's arrogance in the clips I saw from his hearings came across as arrogant as Peyton Cabot Harrison, President Bartlett's initial choice for a Supreme Court appointment. Bartlett said 'No" to Harrison and went with Mendoza, and we need a Supreme Court Justice who is not out to work with Bannon to undo many of the administrative regulations, whose importance we have come to accept.
4
The implied threat from Republicans is this: we will to nuclear to get Gorsuch in now. If that happens, just wait and see what you get for the next Republican SCOTUS nominee-he (it will surely be a white male) will make Scalia look like he is from San Francisco....
Many Repubicans were fine with the prospect of the court being eight for four years should HRC get elected. I think it is perfectly reasonable to deny and delay Trump's nominations until his Russian problem is cleared up.
Many Repubicans were fine with the prospect of the court being eight for four years should HRC get elected. I think it is perfectly reasonable to deny and delay Trump's nominations until his Russian problem is cleared up.
9
When a kid says I'm gonna take MY ball and go home to get his way, his selfishness is evident. We have a House full of selfish kids in Washington. They don't want to play ball, they just want to keep others from playing. Meanwhile, Americans sit on the sidelines waiting for their respective teams to get on with the game and actually accomplish something.
5
Great op-ed! Sums up exactly what I think about this issue. McConnell is a hypocrite!
11
When I hear Addison Mitchell McConnell, Jr. unctuous Southern drawl I imagine the rise and return of Confederate States of America stalwarts like Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, Alexander Stephens, Nathan Forest and Judah Benjamin. Then there are the Dixie Kings Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III and Harold Watson "Trey" Gowdy, III.
Who won the Civil War?
Calling attention to what the Senate does about it's inane filibuster rule gives these clowns too much credit and credence. Instead of a nuclear trigger finger we should be talking about McConnell going to strike a match.
Process procedure and regular order shift according to the partisan political party occupying the White House and in majority in the Senate. The so-called greatest deliberative body in the world is a hypocritical horror house of lords and ladies.
Who won the Civil War?
Calling attention to what the Senate does about it's inane filibuster rule gives these clowns too much credit and credence. Instead of a nuclear trigger finger we should be talking about McConnell going to strike a match.
Process procedure and regular order shift according to the partisan political party occupying the White House and in majority in the Senate. The so-called greatest deliberative body in the world is a hypocritical horror house of lords and ladies.
6
"Who won the Civil War?"
The North due to the indispensable contributions by two southerners – Lincoln and George H. Thomas, the most successful general on either side
The North due to the indispensable contributions by two southerners – Lincoln and George H. Thomas, the most successful general on either side
I believe the Democrats were on the losing side of that civil war too.
Ahhh yes. Harry Reid former senior strategic adviser thinks Senator Reid was principled in invoking the nuclear option and Senator McConnell doing the same would not be principled. It is absurd the New York Times publishes these completely partisan OpEd pieces.
7
That's why they are labelled "opinion" pieces and not news...
Uhm, what is it about OpEd that's so hard to understand. OPINION. One should expect partisan points of view. That NYT publishes opinion pieces from those actively involved is not absurd, it's part of the rational, deliberate discussion that should be taking place, but rarely does.
So many liberals here who are suffering from memory loss where SCOTUS is concerned. I mean all you need to do is Google Schumer and 2007 Supreme court nominee.
I'll save you the effort since so many of you are calling McConnell a hypocrite. Look no further than your own party.
http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-cou....
I'll save you the effort since so many of you are calling McConnell a hypocrite. Look no further than your own party.
http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-cou....
5
I read the politico article you cited in your comment. There is a huge difference between Sen. Schumer saying that he and other Democrats should block President Bush's nominees and flat out refusing to have a hearing on Judge Garland's nomination. Justice Scalia died during President Obama's presidency and there is absolutely no excuse for Republicans refusing to hold a hearing on Judge Garland's nomination. If they wanted to vote no because they disagreed with his views or his record as a judge, that's fine. The way Sen. McConnell and the other Republicans handled the matter is disgusting and it won't be forgotten for a long time.
“... many senators who knew that Judge Gorsuch would rule in a way they wouldn’t like on every major issue they care about.”
THIS is why “progressives” ought never be permitted anywhere near the judiciary: they don’t understand – indeed, they expressly, vehemently reject – the job description.
Results, always RESULTS!! The left simply doesn’t care about what the law actually is. Leftists, instead, demand that judges arrive at Politically Correct results. If the left wants judges to arrive at results leftists like, pass laws to enact that policy. Problem solved.
Scalia was NOT a “right winger”, except to the extent that reading the English language is a conservative position. He followed the law, no matter where the results took him.
To the left, that’s anathema, as the law sometimes lets corporations, “polluters”, etc., win. The law doesn’t always compel leftist results – the opinions of the four leftist politicians on the SCOTUS, esp. RBG, to the contrary notwithstanding. Leftists believe the judiciary exists to impose “progressive” policy when they can’t get it through Congress.
Alas, the left expressly rejects the rule of law; it wants black-robed politicians who always arrive at the “right” conclusions, the actual language of the law be damned.
We saw where that leads just last week in Venezuela, with politically motivated, results obsessed courts complicit in tyranny. THAT is the inevitable legacy of leftism; when only results matter, the rule of law is doomed.
THIS is why “progressives” ought never be permitted anywhere near the judiciary: they don’t understand – indeed, they expressly, vehemently reject – the job description.
Results, always RESULTS!! The left simply doesn’t care about what the law actually is. Leftists, instead, demand that judges arrive at Politically Correct results. If the left wants judges to arrive at results leftists like, pass laws to enact that policy. Problem solved.
Scalia was NOT a “right winger”, except to the extent that reading the English language is a conservative position. He followed the law, no matter where the results took him.
To the left, that’s anathema, as the law sometimes lets corporations, “polluters”, etc., win. The law doesn’t always compel leftist results – the opinions of the four leftist politicians on the SCOTUS, esp. RBG, to the contrary notwithstanding. Leftists believe the judiciary exists to impose “progressive” policy when they can’t get it through Congress.
Alas, the left expressly rejects the rule of law; it wants black-robed politicians who always arrive at the “right” conclusions, the actual language of the law be damned.
We saw where that leads just last week in Venezuela, with politically motivated, results obsessed courts complicit in tyranny. THAT is the inevitable legacy of leftism; when only results matter, the rule of law is doomed.
3
"Leftists"? "Progressives" Dismissing an opinion only because it was written by Justice Ginsberg? Such divisiveness is not appropriate for reasoned, dispassionate discussions of important legal principles. It's not a child ballgame with one side against another.
And comparing our system to the deterioration of already unstable Venezuela, and hair-on-fire cries of tyranny only serve the purposes of our enemy, the KGB- to de-legitimizse all our democratic institutions. Our balance of power works just fine, and the Executive still needs to seek advice and consent of the legislative body.
And comparing our system to the deterioration of already unstable Venezuela, and hair-on-fire cries of tyranny only serve the purposes of our enemy, the KGB- to de-legitimizse all our democratic institutions. Our balance of power works just fine, and the Executive still needs to seek advice and consent of the legislative body.
Of course Scalia was right-wing. And corrupt. Please remember that he didn't pay for the airline ticket to the Texas hunting ranch where he died. He also did not pay for the stay at said ranch.
Bravo!
1
So you are saying it was ok when Harry Read went nuclear but its not ok when the party you disagree with does it? I guess you failed logic, if they even offer logic at whatever bastion of liberalism you attended? Are you so self absorbed that you can't even step back long enough to see how self defeating your argument is? Are the times editors so hopelessly partisan that they can't recognize a intellectually bankrupt argument?
6
Did you not read the article? Are you so partisan that you didn't notice the author addressing all the things you are complaining about? That a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind?
Fundamentally this is McConnell and Republicans saying to Democrats, "give us this Justice, or we'll just take it from you." Like a street thug, saying "give me your wallet or I'll just beat it out of you."
And McConnell and the Republicans will repeat the same line for the next one up, if given the opportunity. They have made that perfectly clear from their behavior. This is their "payoff" for derogating their Constitutional obligations regarding the nomination of Merrick Garland, and their quid pro quo for abiding Trump.
So what is the incentive for Democrats not to stand up and filibuster now?
And McConnell and the Republicans will repeat the same line for the next one up, if given the opportunity. They have made that perfectly clear from their behavior. This is their "payoff" for derogating their Constitutional obligations regarding the nomination of Merrick Garland, and their quid pro quo for abiding Trump.
So what is the incentive for Democrats not to stand up and filibuster now?
8
Mitch McConnell totally creeps me out. There's something so entirely weird about him in general. How would you like to be his next door neighbor? Nope.
11
Finally someon taking to task this seditious, mean spirited little man. McConnell should have been banned from comment shows after his 2008 statement to block a President. And we know why! He's a racist . What else can you surmise? For 8 years and 500 filibusters. This is called obstruction 'bigly'. And now he smirks. Man should be in jail.
7
The spurious cry of Racist!
And you probably wonder why many Americans practically automatically dismiss claims of racism these days...
And you probably wonder why many Americans practically automatically dismiss claims of racism these days...
1
My plea to Democratic Senators: stop being a swarm of spineless jellyfish. Hatred of Obama was cultivated so assiduously with voters and ran so deeply in the previous administration that Mitch McConnell wouldn't even allow Merrick Garland the courtesy, repeat, the simple, human courtesy of a hearing. And Merrick Garland was considered by both Parties to be as centrist, and qualified, as you can get. The whole thing was disgusting. McConnell sneered and laughed at you then, and he's doing it now while he schemes his way into blaming the whole mess on you.
Get some spine and use your brains, unless you Democrats are secretly supportive of this subversive movement to "deconstruct the administrative state," you know, what normal people would phrase as "destroying the Government of the United States of America." If that's what you want, hey, go ahead and vote for Neil Gorsuch. He's your guy! You'll be sitting around all day figuring out regulations that knowledgeable professionals at your Federal Agencies should be deciding as a matter of course. Have fun!
Force the Republicans to "go nuclear," then explain to the American people what's really happening in this country. You gave Gorsuch a hearing, and his evasiveness showed such disrespect for both you and the process it's astonishing. Now a few Democrats are apparently willing to approve him because, well, things could be worse. Hopeless.
Block this nomination.
Get some spine and use your brains, unless you Democrats are secretly supportive of this subversive movement to "deconstruct the administrative state," you know, what normal people would phrase as "destroying the Government of the United States of America." If that's what you want, hey, go ahead and vote for Neil Gorsuch. He's your guy! You'll be sitting around all day figuring out regulations that knowledgeable professionals at your Federal Agencies should be deciding as a matter of course. Have fun!
Force the Republicans to "go nuclear," then explain to the American people what's really happening in this country. You gave Gorsuch a hearing, and his evasiveness showed such disrespect for both you and the process it's astonishing. Now a few Democrats are apparently willing to approve him because, well, things could be worse. Hopeless.
Block this nomination.
18
Why would the NYT advocate for blocking a clearly qualified SCOTUS nominee just because the Republicans did? That is emblematic of everything wrog with American politics and why out of frustration people turned to Trump to shake things up.
2
You mean just like Harry Reid did?
Funny stuff!
Funny stuff!
6
And Chuck Schumer.
Laughable.
The left epitomizes Hypocrisy at it's zenith.
Laughable.
The left epitomizes Hypocrisy at it's zenith.
Good ole gerrymandered Idaho, adjunct province to Utah.
For Mitch McConnell to call himself an "institutionalist" is for me to call myself an athlete. Both fantasies are absurd on the face of it. I am the institutionalist; Mitch McConnell is the athlete!
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
4
Harry nuked it already...
6
Ok for Reid to push the nuclear button, but not McConnell. Again NYT's, your bias / agenda is showing.
5
NO " kidding ", Sherlock. No confirmation for a STOLEN seat. Let's wait for the Russians to weigh in. Right, Donald???
5
The best way to confuse the voters about the first-ever Senate filibuster of a Supreme Court nomination i to complain about other people employing the Democratic Party's Senate trick of reducing the standard for judicial nominations to a simple majority.
Only WE get to use THAT trick, Republicans. You didn't as permission o use our cool things! No, no, no! you have to ASK us first!
Only WE get to use THAT trick, Republicans. You didn't as permission o use our cool things! No, no, no! you have to ASK us first!
4
QUOTE: "he will be exposed as the radical that he truly is."
I SAID: ... ... And that gets us .... what ... ...?
I SAID: ... ... And that gets us .... what ... ...?
1
McConnell is in a class by himself when it comes to Republican partisanship and hypocrisy. With a straight face he blames Democrats for not cooperating on the Gorsuch nomination.
McConnell is politically evil. He did his best to destroy the Obama presidency. He's bad for the Republican party and bad for America. He's utterly vile.
McConnell is politically evil. He did his best to destroy the Obama presidency. He's bad for the Republican party and bad for America. He's utterly vile.
16
The Democrats" "principled opposition to Judge Gorsuch"? Since when is "tit for tat" a principle? Gorsuch would be a shoo-in if Democrats weren't taking revenge for the non-review of Merrick Garland's nomination last year.
6
Gorsuch would be waiting for a nomination -- perhaps for some considerable time -- if the unprincipled "non-review of Merrick Garland's nomination last year" had not taken place.
Chief Judge Garland's nomination should have been a "shoo-in," to quote you, and then perhaps -- accepting the legitimacy of #45% election -- Judge Gorsuch's nomination for the NEXT vacancy might be a "shoo-in."
Chief Judge Garland's nomination should have been a "shoo-in," to quote you, and then perhaps -- accepting the legitimacy of #45% election -- Judge Gorsuch's nomination for the NEXT vacancy might be a "shoo-in."
2
"Tit for tat" is a principle embraced by our current president, as evidenced in his daily tweets.
Tit for tat? Ah, you're not paying attention.
1
McConnell will undoubtedly use the nuclear option if enough Democrat votes can't be bought to override a filibuster. How would it be any less unscrupulous and underhanded than refusing to allow a vote on Garland?
7
If McConnell intends to end the filibuster on Supreme court nominees then, de facto, we really have no filibuster rule, is a weak suggestion: FINO (filibuster in name only).
If that's the case, Democrats should force McConnell to play his hand which everyone can see anyway and reveal himself for the partisan anti-institutionalist that he is. Democrats will get their turnabout soon enough.
If that's the case, Democrats should force McConnell to play his hand which everyone can see anyway and reveal himself for the partisan anti-institutionalist that he is. Democrats will get their turnabout soon enough.
8
Democrats know nothing about strategy or standing together; the GOP has already picked-off 3 with more to go.
5
The Republicans had lost about 40 when they threw in the towel on their 7-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act with something better.
1
Politics used to be an exercise in negotiation, cooperation and collegiality. Now, Donna, as you so accurately point out, it's about "standing together," partisanship, falling in line, abdicating good government for dysfunction. The GOP is an old, wealthy white man's party that is dying out, and these are its death throes.
The Democrats should show courage and vote their principals. This is not the time for politics as usual.
5
He perpetrates all of these outrages on behalf of "the American People", but he just can't ever quite get that smirk off his face. And why would he? Things have been going pretty well for him so far.
7
Thank you, Senator Reid. You're gonna make this easy for the Republicans. Only those who are intellectually dishonest will whine about the Republicans going nuclear.
8
Only those who are intellectually dishonest fail to remember that this man should not have had a hearing at all.... unless the nuclear option had obliterated the man who was nominated first.
How can you read this article and still say something like that? Is this yet another situation of a Republican saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts"?
Pretty ironic comment considering Merrick Garland, don't you think?
Thank you for this article that does a good job f exposing the galling hypocrisy of Mitch Mcconnell. This man should only be remembered for the damage done to this nation.
Unfortunately, there were no comments open in the article about the Trump administration wealth. The glaring figure in that article was the wealth of Mrs. Chao, the wife of Mitch Mcconnell, who is worth between 11 and 40 million dollars. I'm sorry, how do lifetime federal employees attain that kind of wealth? I beg the NYT for an article on that fact.
Unfortunately, there were no comments open in the article about the Trump administration wealth. The glaring figure in that article was the wealth of Mrs. Chao, the wife of Mitch Mcconnell, who is worth between 11 and 40 million dollars. I'm sorry, how do lifetime federal employees attain that kind of wealth? I beg the NYT for an article on that fact.
22
You want galling hypocrisy look no further than Chuck Schumer in 2007 and a Supreme Court nom.
4
McConnell has a lot of nerve referring to congressional Democrats as "my friends". Friends don't treat each other the way McConnell has treated Democrats. He has treated Democrats, in fact, as his enemy, obstructing everything simply because Democrats, excuse me, his friends originated the bill. I sure wouldn't be friends with someone like that for long.
A friend would respect the Constitution and the president's right to nominate someone for the SC justice and then do his or her job and hold hearings. A friend would acknowledge that the candidate from the other party won 3 million more votes from the American people and act accordingly, namely reach out with an act of good faith and perhaps suggest the president re-nominate Merrick Garland, a nominee for whom even Republicans had in that past had only praise.
You are no friend of Democrats, Mitch. You're more like the mean girl who goes around calling someone her best friend and then cyber bullying her.
You're a mean one, Mr. McConnell. Congress, and therefore the country, would be hugely improved if Kentucky would send this guy packing.
A friend would respect the Constitution and the president's right to nominate someone for the SC justice and then do his or her job and hold hearings. A friend would acknowledge that the candidate from the other party won 3 million more votes from the American people and act accordingly, namely reach out with an act of good faith and perhaps suggest the president re-nominate Merrick Garland, a nominee for whom even Republicans had in that past had only praise.
You are no friend of Democrats, Mitch. You're more like the mean girl who goes around calling someone her best friend and then cyber bullying her.
You're a mean one, Mr. McConnell. Congress, and therefore the country, would be hugely improved if Kentucky would send this guy packing.
10
You just tried that, remember?
It went poorly.
It went poorly.
1
If they go nuclear, they should consider the then real possibility of L Warren's supergreen, atheist, transgender, socialist judge.
3
I often disagree with NYT's editorial board, but I rarely find them to be this hypocritical.
Democrats attempted to appoint the most ideaological slate of justices in US history; Republicans filibustered again and again. You can say that justifies Harry Reid's going nuclear, but the fact is, he must take responsibility for overturning 125 years of Senate tradition. Once you break the crust to take that first slice of pice, the rest follows easily. "The Republicans weren't being reasonable" is no excuse--a filibuster by definition is not reasonable.
It's also hypocritical to claim the Dems gave Gorsuch a fair hearing. More than half said up front that they would never vote for a Republican appointee for a "stolen seat," and they talked of filibuster before they even knew who the candidate was.
As for Gorsuch himself, he is a well-qualified justice who is very well-regarded on both sides. He testified for three days before a hostile audience trying, not to probe for the truth, but to trip him up. They failed, but you want him disqualified because he seemed smug and evasive? Didn't you praise Hillary for her "grace under fire" at the Benghazi hearings? They were much more smug and evasive than Gorsuch's testimony.
Shame on you, NYT hypocrites.
Democrats attempted to appoint the most ideaological slate of justices in US history; Republicans filibustered again and again. You can say that justifies Harry Reid's going nuclear, but the fact is, he must take responsibility for overturning 125 years of Senate tradition. Once you break the crust to take that first slice of pice, the rest follows easily. "The Republicans weren't being reasonable" is no excuse--a filibuster by definition is not reasonable.
It's also hypocritical to claim the Dems gave Gorsuch a fair hearing. More than half said up front that they would never vote for a Republican appointee for a "stolen seat," and they talked of filibuster before they even knew who the candidate was.
As for Gorsuch himself, he is a well-qualified justice who is very well-regarded on both sides. He testified for three days before a hostile audience trying, not to probe for the truth, but to trip him up. They failed, but you want him disqualified because he seemed smug and evasive? Didn't you praise Hillary for her "grace under fire" at the Benghazi hearings? They were much more smug and evasive than Gorsuch's testimony.
Shame on you, NYT hypocrites.
8
Gorsuch may be reasonably qualified but you don't seem to get the extent of how McConnell acted with impunity on behalf of the Republican party which is supported by a monstrous alternate universe of policy shop propaganda.
Look no further than Jim DeMint for the daily sound bites published across the GOP mouthpiece spectrum. It's an enormous negative influence on our society and culture because it takes advantage of human nature. That is the GOP business model.
Follow the money. Will the Dems be able to right the ship?
Look no further than Jim DeMint for the daily sound bites published across the GOP mouthpiece spectrum. It's an enormous negative influence on our society and culture because it takes advantage of human nature. That is the GOP business model.
Follow the money. Will the Dems be able to right the ship?
1
Judge Gorsuch received a much fairer hearing than did Judge Garland.
Garland should have had confirmation hearings.
Gorsuch faces a higher standard because of it.
The higher standard is two-fold.
Garland was qualified and centrist.
That's the bar: quality and centrism
Gorsuch is qualified and right-wing.
Half-way is not enough.
If Gorsuch was unqualified and centrist, the same objection would hold.
Politics is compromise. Obama compromised with Garland. Republicans turned it down.
Trump didn't compromise with Gorsuch.
If you move halfway to me, and I turn you down, then make an offer that doesn't move to you at all, why should you accept?
Democrats can't capitulate.
Gorsuch faces a higher standard because of it.
The higher standard is two-fold.
Garland was qualified and centrist.
That's the bar: quality and centrism
Gorsuch is qualified and right-wing.
Half-way is not enough.
If Gorsuch was unqualified and centrist, the same objection would hold.
Politics is compromise. Obama compromised with Garland. Republicans turned it down.
Trump didn't compromise with Gorsuch.
If you move halfway to me, and I turn you down, then make an offer that doesn't move to you at all, why should you accept?
Democrats can't capitulate.
178
When it comes to Supreme Court nominees, the only thing the GOP cares about is abortion and religion. At this point, only right wing judges are willing to pull back abortion rights despite Casey v. Planned Parenthood/Roe v. Wade.
This is all about abortion--I don't think Democrats quite understand the extent to which the GOP panders to anti-abortion/anti-gay sentiment in their bases. Their base would never, ever be satisfied with a centrist Supreme Court justice. It's anti-abortion or nothing as far as they are concerned.
It's sick. Justice Gorsuch pretended like he was above politics when the only reason the Republicans insist upon him is because of petty, political nonsense like being anti-abortion.
This is all about abortion--I don't think Democrats quite understand the extent to which the GOP panders to anti-abortion/anti-gay sentiment in their bases. Their base would never, ever be satisfied with a centrist Supreme Court justice. It's anti-abortion or nothing as far as they are concerned.
It's sick. Justice Gorsuch pretended like he was above politics when the only reason the Republicans insist upon him is because of petty, political nonsense like being anti-abortion.
Excellent observation!
Crocodile tears from Harry Reid's protege? Spare me. The Democrats' stand against Gorsuch is anything but principled, unless that principle is stubbornness.
2
Harry Reid's former chief of staff. Probably his idea to avoid the filibuster in the first place.
This article is trash and makes it sound like the Dems are weak. From the outset Dems were opposed to anyone Trump named...because of the treatment of Garland. That's politics and appropriate. Just have the balls to stand and say that and not make it sound like they have some 'principled opposition' to Gorsuch's positions.
This article is trash and makes it sound like the Dems are weak. From the outset Dems were opposed to anyone Trump named...because of the treatment of Garland. That's politics and appropriate. Just have the balls to stand and say that and not make it sound like they have some 'principled opposition' to Gorsuch's positions.
Is interesting that the democrats are against the very thing they did to get obama's nominations through congress. What a bunch of hyprocrites. If they would of had a SC justice come up when they had the majority, they would of done the exact same thing.
1
I didn't write or submit this. I must have a twin?
Richard (with the eagle): You might want to complain to the NYT tech support about this. They shouldn't be allowing people to use an identical name with an identical location. Whether intentional or a deliberate attempt to spoof someone.
Harry Reid blew apart the 60 majority rule with the nuclear option and don't remember any Democrat complaining about it.
2
This piece is laughable. Somehow, McConnell is a "radical" for invoking the nuclear option, while the Democrats were perfectly reasonable to do so in 2013. Give me a break. The hypocrisy of both parties is unbearable.
Amazed that Judge Korsuch's obvious contempt during the hearings for fellow lawyer Senator Amy Klobachar and her colleague from Hawaii has not been addressed. Such misogyny should not be rewarded with a lifetime appointment.
Keep the court at eight until the Russian connections are fully examined.
Keep the court at eight until the Russian connections are fully examined.
4
People conveniently forget that Reid, Schumer, and Biden all publicly stated that a sitting President in his last year of office would get no SCOTUS pick past them. The partisanship that pervades all conversations today has become tiresome and, of course, extremely non-productive. So much hate and hypocrisy and such lies...it is truly sad.
2
@ Howiseeit, don't confuse the left with facts, it taxes their brains. All here suffer from some sort of collective memory loss and don't remember as far back as 2007 and what Schumer did. Aren't they supposed to be the smartest people in the room? At least that's what they tell the rest of us.
1
The Republicans are being rewarded for going against the constitution.
4
It's a senate rule. It's not a constitutional provision. That's how democrats got away with doing the same thing.
Did you have a problem with that when Harry Reid, a Democrat did that?
Thought so.
Thought so.
The worst part is that he denied Judge Garland a chance to be heard, to be able to use it as red meat during the election, that could be good to win elections, but not governing. That requires long term view, that winning a battle can cause you to lose a war... In the meantime the Country pays the price for his short-sightedness and Mr McConnell has nothing to show for it.
3
How can a man of such moral turpitude as tRump nominate anyone, not even dog catcher, much less a Supreme Court Judge without national outrage? We, as a nation, have forfeited our right to be called a moral beacon for the world by even allowing tRump to get anywhere near the White House.
Where is the sometimes imperfect, but mostly the place that stood for decency and fair-play, America? The beacon we once shone on the world is sadly dimmed.
We were supposed to choose representatives to guide us, now we have "representatives" that scam us, and at times downright rob us; we were robbed of a Supreme Court Judge nominated by a two-term sitting president by a venal group of men with a selfish agenda.
Where is your sense of morality and fighting spirit, America, in allowing scum like Mich McConnell (let's also not forget to include tRump and the venal Republican Party) to hold us hostage?
Where is the sometimes imperfect, but mostly the place that stood for decency and fair-play, America? The beacon we once shone on the world is sadly dimmed.
We were supposed to choose representatives to guide us, now we have "representatives" that scam us, and at times downright rob us; we were robbed of a Supreme Court Judge nominated by a two-term sitting president by a venal group of men with a selfish agenda.
Where is your sense of morality and fighting spirit, America, in allowing scum like Mich McConnell (let's also not forget to include tRump and the venal Republican Party) to hold us hostage?
5
The fallacy of this article and the Democrats talking points is EVERYONE know that their opposition to Gorsuch is not principled or legitimate but nothing more than partisan pandering to loudest voices on the extreme left.
After years of labeling anyone who disagrees with liberal orthodoxy as racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic, etc, claims that Gorsuch is outside the mainstream, hyper-conservative and extremist just fall on deaf ears when heard by anyone (Republicans and Independents) that do not reside in the liberal/progressive bubble.
Democrats will lose this battle and will set the stage for the next Trump SC nominee to be also approved with a simple majority.
After years of labeling anyone who disagrees with liberal orthodoxy as racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic, etc, claims that Gorsuch is outside the mainstream, hyper-conservative and extremist just fall on deaf ears when heard by anyone (Republicans and Independents) that do not reside in the liberal/progressive bubble.
Democrats will lose this battle and will set the stage for the next Trump SC nominee to be also approved with a simple majority.
3
A perfectly fine argument for the Democrat and Independent US Senators to pass on this nominee and hope for a more suitable alternative here in the 21st century.
Ever since President Clinton was elected in '92 repubs have to attempted to show that anyone other than a republican president residing in the White House is simply illegitimate. Their irresponsible and treasonous behavior during President Obama's tenure displayed what I still believe to be their un-doing as a truly cohesive, organized party; despite what too many voters, with the heavy handed assistance of Fox News, display at election time. The nixed appointment of Judge Garland will keep any progression of this nation from moving forward at a steady pace and we'll ALL be worse off because of it. Let's face it... because just as in 2000, a sizable minority of less-educated, unsophisticated voters thought a change was needed from an unexciting, yet solidly improved state of this nation thanks to two, two-term Democratic Executives in Chief, proved to be a huge step backwards for this nation. And it happened twice!
Democrats have won 4 of th last 5 elections and yet they only get to serve 2 terms? Not to mention th gerry-manderred districts around th country! Something's got to give; and not just in the Supreme Court!
Ever since President Clinton was elected in '92 repubs have to attempted to show that anyone other than a republican president residing in the White House is simply illegitimate. Their irresponsible and treasonous behavior during President Obama's tenure displayed what I still believe to be their un-doing as a truly cohesive, organized party; despite what too many voters, with the heavy handed assistance of Fox News, display at election time. The nixed appointment of Judge Garland will keep any progression of this nation from moving forward at a steady pace and we'll ALL be worse off because of it. Let's face it... because just as in 2000, a sizable minority of less-educated, unsophisticated voters thought a change was needed from an unexciting, yet solidly improved state of this nation thanks to two, two-term Democratic Executives in Chief, proved to be a huge step backwards for this nation. And it happened twice!
Democrats have won 4 of th last 5 elections and yet they only get to serve 2 terms? Not to mention th gerry-manderred districts around th country! Something's got to give; and not just in the Supreme Court!
5
it's not a matter of "if" mitch mcconnell subverts standard congressional practice to ensure neil gorsuch becomes a supreme court judge, mcconnell had already done that last year when he refused to accept merrick garland. thus, nobody should be surprised by what this snake does in the name of party. he, alone, has created the chasm of partisanship that has torn this country apart. he is a third-world despot.
3
I don't remember Kagan or Sotomayor having any problems getting confirmed when it was obvious that they were very left wing. They weren't "main stream" but that was OK with the left. Hypocrisy on part of the Dems, but hey, that's politics. Time to reread "The Prince".
5
The Left doesn't know the meaning of the word. They have turned into a bunch of whining children who don't get their way. And Many here suffer from short term memory loss. Sad really.
1
Nor were Scalia or Thomas or Alito or Roberts. Things have changed, especially with the unprecedented obstruction of Garland.
This who started it piece is as pointless as it is adolescent. The real issue is how are we going to restore civility, dignity and principle to our Government. This is bigger than Gorsuch and the Democrats will not improve the situation by their opposition to him.
Mitch McConnell is a text book hypocrite. For years the only principal he stood for was opposition to President Obama's reelection and then his agenda. He single handedly denied Garland even a hearing on confirmation to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding his patent qualifications for at least a hearing if not the Supreme Court seat itself. Despicable!
Since Trump's election he suddenly evokes matters of principal in connection with cabinet appointment and now Gorsuch confirmation hearings. McConnell's only guiding principle, like Trump and the Republican party as a whole, is maintaining power. The rest is window dressing.
The problem is that the Democratic party is equally unprincipled. The party selected a flawed Presidential candidate in Hilary Clinton who was unable to advance a principled message or agenda and whose behaviors were successfully described as unprincipled and hypocritical as the Republican Party.
Gorsuch will be confirmed one way or another. Historically he would have earned a consensus nod because of his plain qualifications as a jurist. Many less qualified individuals have easily been confirmed. The rest of this is just bad reality theater.
Mitch McConnell is a text book hypocrite. For years the only principal he stood for was opposition to President Obama's reelection and then his agenda. He single handedly denied Garland even a hearing on confirmation to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding his patent qualifications for at least a hearing if not the Supreme Court seat itself. Despicable!
Since Trump's election he suddenly evokes matters of principal in connection with cabinet appointment and now Gorsuch confirmation hearings. McConnell's only guiding principle, like Trump and the Republican party as a whole, is maintaining power. The rest is window dressing.
The problem is that the Democratic party is equally unprincipled. The party selected a flawed Presidential candidate in Hilary Clinton who was unable to advance a principled message or agenda and whose behaviors were successfully described as unprincipled and hypocritical as the Republican Party.
Gorsuch will be confirmed one way or another. Historically he would have earned a consensus nod because of his plain qualifications as a jurist. Many less qualified individuals have easily been confirmed. The rest of this is just bad reality theater.
2
Senator McConnell will go down in history as the architect of the destruction of the Senate as the greatest deliberative body in our country.
8
The precedent has been set, and by the Democrats for both the Garland delay, and the breaking of any filibuster. Live with it.
3
Explain hoe the Democrats "set a precedent" for refusing to consider a Presidential nomination to SCOTUS. Never happened.
It might be that the minority leader, or allied strategic thinkers, is making the calculation that if the Republicans abolish the filibuster for the
Supreme Court, the device is gone forever, that Trump is an extremely radical and unpopular president who is vulnerable to losing in 2020, and that his Democratic successor (assuming that Trump is not successfully primaried by Kasich or another Republican) would then have a free hand to make several appointments to the court. McConnell is smart enough to know that the GOP will not always control the Senate, and perhaps is calculating that even so, it is worth losing many future nominees to get this one through. He might be right, in the long run: that is, there is no advantage to either party if the vote is always to be a simple majority. For the Democrats, however, it is hard to see what the short-term advantage is in defeating Gorsuch. Does Mr. Jentleson think that Trump would then nominate a liberal, or a moderate? Of course he won't. He'll find another Bork or Alito. It must be that Mr. Jentleson thinks the Democrats should block the filling of the "Scalia seat" for the length of this presidency. But how is that less radical than what the Republicans did in the Garland case?
Supreme Court, the device is gone forever, that Trump is an extremely radical and unpopular president who is vulnerable to losing in 2020, and that his Democratic successor (assuming that Trump is not successfully primaried by Kasich or another Republican) would then have a free hand to make several appointments to the court. McConnell is smart enough to know that the GOP will not always control the Senate, and perhaps is calculating that even so, it is worth losing many future nominees to get this one through. He might be right, in the long run: that is, there is no advantage to either party if the vote is always to be a simple majority. For the Democrats, however, it is hard to see what the short-term advantage is in defeating Gorsuch. Does Mr. Jentleson think that Trump would then nominate a liberal, or a moderate? Of course he won't. He'll find another Bork or Alito. It must be that Mr. Jentleson thinks the Democrats should block the filling of the "Scalia seat" for the length of this presidency. But how is that less radical than what the Republicans did in the Garland case?
1
This is exactly the kind of dumb Reid-think that put the Democrats where they are today in the Senate and in the country at large! In essence the issue is replacing a conservative justice with another conservative justice. If the Democrats block the confirmation, McConnell will go nuclear and Gorsuch goes to the court. But then what? There is a reasonable chance that another court vacancy will occur under Trump, so what will happen then? The Republicans will resurrect Robert Bork just to stick it to the Democrats and the Reidites will be helpless to do anything! And the country will be in a REAL fix!
Gorsuch is eminently qualified, he is a brilliant legal mind, and is in the American mainstream, but he should not be confirmed because America is not a nation of laws, freedom, and democracy, it is a nation of limitless power for Democrats. Gotcha.
Mr. McConnell is a man who puts Party above country, willing to lie (OK dissemble for those of you of a more tolerant bent), to achieve his ends and to renege on promises made.
There was a story that if the Democrats went along with Gorsuch then McConnell would not change the filibuster rule when the next SC nomination came along.
I do not believe he would keep his word. I urge the Democrats to force his hand.
As for those 3 Democrats looking to save their seats - I urge them to look beyond their own comfort.
There was a story that if the Democrats went along with Gorsuch then McConnell would not change the filibuster rule when the next SC nomination came along.
I do not believe he would keep his word. I urge the Democrats to force his hand.
As for those 3 Democrats looking to save their seats - I urge them to look beyond their own comfort.
3
Glad to see that the article explains why the Democrats used the nuclear option. Too many people think Reid did it on a whim.
2
McConnell is determined to handcuff Americans to his extremist policies for decades.
He knows his policies and judicial choices will not appeal to the majority of Americans, so he must oppress voters, and now must cram an extremist Supreme Court Justice down our throats.
He needs to be added to the list of: Dangerous Government Officials Determined to Undermine Our Democracy.
He knows his policies and judicial choices will not appeal to the majority of Americans, so he must oppress voters, and now must cram an extremist Supreme Court Justice down our throats.
He needs to be added to the list of: Dangerous Government Officials Determined to Undermine Our Democracy.
2
No Trump supporter, but the Democrats eliminate the filibuster when they are the majority in the Senate and it was justified.
The Republicans do the same as the Senate majority party and it is a travesty.
And people say that the national media is not biased towards the left.
The Democrats let the genie out of the bottle.
The Republicans do the same as the Senate majority party and it is a travesty.
And people say that the national media is not biased towards the left.
The Democrats let the genie out of the bottle.
2
I completely disagree with this. It's time to return comity and dignity to the Senate. Senators Schumer and Mitchell should make the following agreement: Democrats will allow a smooth appointment of Judge Gorsuch to SOTUS. Neither party will change the rules on filibustering Supreme Court nominations for the next twelve years (three presidential cycles).
In 2013 (not so long ago), Senate Democrats were fearful that Republicans would filibuster against President Obama's appointments to lower federal courts. Senator Warren (D., MA) delivered an impassioned attack on the expected filibuster. Now, I suspect, she and other Senate Liberals will attempt to filibuster Judge Gorsuch.
Another case of hunting with hounds and running with hares. Double-dealing is not the most effective way of ensuring the legitimacy of elected legislatures.
Another case of hunting with hounds and running with hares. Double-dealing is not the most effective way of ensuring the legitimacy of elected legislatures.
The Democrats are barely fighting back. McConnell is a lifeless creature endorsed by other lifeless creatures. As long the Democratic Party refuses to win races against powerful Republicans, or, at least, predict and prepare for the darkest behaviors of wrong men in power, we are destined to follow our nation into obscurity. There is no other way. Prior to Trump, I cared deeply about the justices on the Supreme Court. Now, I find myself just caring about the next day.
2
First, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. Second, there is Nuclear Option precedence: In 2013, Democratic Leader Harry Reed pulled the trigger regarding Federal Court nominees (and other Presidential appointees), but excluded the Supreme Court. Seems to me that what the Democrats started is coming back to haunt them. Mr. Jentleson, of all people, knew the risks the Democrats were taking in 2013.
By the thinking in the first 3 paragraphs the Government shut down during the Obama Administration was the fault of the Democrats because they would not negotiate with the minority; because the Republican minority held to their principals. Talk about 1984 double speak! This is double plus good.
1
To what end? Speaker Ryan threatens his Party that he'll work with others, as American Democracy is founded, unless they alone can manage one Party rule. Is this the low point of partisanship or the beginning of the final fall for the “Great Experiment”? Yes, Senate Majority Leader McConnell will do anything to keep his position, the country be damned, but do any with forethought wish to be a part of it? The next leaders of the country will save it be putting the rules we removed for Greed & Pride back into place and, if necessary, forcing us to work together again.
Some may act reprehensively, but we do not need to follow. There is a higher road.
Some may act reprehensively, but we do not need to follow. There is a higher road.
1
This article is a pile of steaming hypocrisy. It was the Dem Progs who opened the door and removed the filibuster on lower court nominations. It was the Dem Progs who did an end around the filibuster on Obamacare, a huge change in the health insurance and provider industry, and turned it to a "budget reconciliation" bill. The Progs opened the door and the nuclear option is the logical response to Prog pettiness and hypocrisy in the Senate.
And what if the Republicans don't go nuclear now, let Gorsuch go, and wait until the next on Bannon's (I mean, Trump's) list is nominated? My understanding is the list of potential nominees only gets worse. There is no winning for the Dems, here. Only harm-reduction.
The hypocrisy of Senator McConnell is sickeningly familiar.
It's suddenly an urgent matter to fill the vacant seat on the SCOTUS, however just a few months ago, under the last administration, McConnell publicly declared that the American people deserved to weigh in on choosing a nominee by delaying the vote until a new president was elected. You can bet that had the Democrat won, McConnell would still be holding the same obstructionist party line and refusing to bring the confirmation vote to the floor.
How come McConnell embraced the practice of filibustering so frequently under the previous president's tenure? Is it possible that McConnell's motivations are not a function of principle, but rather politics? Is there anything in his history to suggest his interests lie with lobbyists and wealthy donors instead of his constituents? Inconceivable!
Mitch is the biggest swamp monster in Washington. Luckily for him, the White House needs him to stay where he is because their incompetence demands sympathetic, experienced idealogues in Congress.
The rest of us aren't that desperate. We will not let you get away with this treason.
It's suddenly an urgent matter to fill the vacant seat on the SCOTUS, however just a few months ago, under the last administration, McConnell publicly declared that the American people deserved to weigh in on choosing a nominee by delaying the vote until a new president was elected. You can bet that had the Democrat won, McConnell would still be holding the same obstructionist party line and refusing to bring the confirmation vote to the floor.
How come McConnell embraced the practice of filibustering so frequently under the previous president's tenure? Is it possible that McConnell's motivations are not a function of principle, but rather politics? Is there anything in his history to suggest his interests lie with lobbyists and wealthy donors instead of his constituents? Inconceivable!
Mitch is the biggest swamp monster in Washington. Luckily for him, the White House needs him to stay where he is because their incompetence demands sympathetic, experienced idealogues in Congress.
The rest of us aren't that desperate. We will not let you get away with this treason.
4
Mitch McConnell has received the kid glove treatment in the NYTs for far too long. He is the exact opposite of how he is generally portrayed here.
Made to appear a man of principal when examined with clear eyes it takes little effort to see that everything he does is situational triangulation. The man has no integrity at all, yet the press keeps giving him a free pass.
Made to appear a man of principal when examined with clear eyes it takes little effort to see that everything he does is situational triangulation. The man has no integrity at all, yet the press keeps giving him a free pass.
4
Democrats must resist, in any way they can, a nomination from a president whose likely a traitor, and if not that, has certainly put traitors in the White House. It's not complicated. Ya don't let traitors nominate supreme court justices. Ya don't let traitors do anything.
The Republicans resisted everything Mr Obama did, apparently because he was black and they knew it would play well with their voters.
Clearly, being a traitor is a much better justification for resistance than that!
The Republicans resisted everything Mr Obama did, apparently because he was black and they knew it would play well with their voters.
Clearly, being a traitor is a much better justification for resistance than that!
6
Nominating Gorsuch is yet another brilliant move by President Trump! He has a brilliant legal mind, is firmly in America's mainstream, and received the highest rating from the ABA. There is no credible reason to oppose his nomination. The treasonous Democrats are reduced to holding their breath and stomping their feet in yet another childish temper tantrum. Thankfully, Sen McConnell will restore the rule of law to a process perverted by the lawless fascist Democrats
I agree 100% with the point of this article. There are no words foul enough to describe Mitch McConnell except that he like other Republican politicians have been a scourge, no a plague on the American political system. The Democrats are no worse off if "Reptilian McConnell" (He looks like a turtle and acts like a snake) changes the senate rules. And, there may just be enough Republican senators who cherish the historical significance of the senate to defeat the change.
1
Obama himself told us the American People would have their say after he violated the Biden Doctrine to nominate the far-left extremist Garland to the Court. We the American People did have our say, we gave President Trump a landslide mandate and both houses of Congress to drain the swamp. He elected President Trump, despite the media's constant and shameful lies, despite Obama spying on him, despite Hillary and Obama collaborating with a foreign government (Mexico) to flood America with illegal aliens to steal the election for Hillary. Nevertheless, he persisted and won!! As usual, the Democrats are against the American People and on the wrong side of history
Dems already undid Senate rules. Reid owns it. Gorsuch will be confirmed. Get over it. Move on.
The only solution to the Republican's refusal to operate under Constitutional mandates, you know, the old "advise and consent" order, is to vote them out of office. Period. Without doing that we will be forced to watch as wave after wave of judges to fill lower court openings (that have been left intentionally vacant until now, to the point of hindering the delivery of justice) are filled with right wing ideologue judges who will spend the next twenty years minimizing and destroying what civil rights and economic rights are left to citizens. If you want justice you need to vote for a party that is not in hock or in bed with the richest of America's rich businesses. If you think democracy can't fail here, you are wrong: it already is.
1
This is another outrage foisted on America by the congressional republicans. Democrats should reject Gorsuch. If the republicans want to destroy the last semblance of tradition and decorum in the senate as they've done in the house, let them. Anyway, there is no assurance that the republicans wouldn't change the rules at any time in the future to get their way, democracy be damned. Just remember: What comes around go around.
1
If the Democrats don't use it, the filibuster has no value. Republicans will simply hang the threat of doing away with the filibuster rule as aSsword of Damocles every time a crucial vote comes up.
1
The nation will be better served once this old, ugly relic is put out to pasture.
1
Democrats must take principled stands as the Republican party and its disgraceful Donald Trump wing have no principles. Make no mistake about Gorsuch, he will be no friend to the little guy or the working men and women of this country. He will be the new American Oligarchy's best friend on the Supreme Court.
2
Look at how thin the margin of victory was for Trump in so many key states. Many Americans did not vote for Trump and the Republican way of things. The Democrats may be in the wilderness now, but they will not get back to power by playing "me too" to the Republican Party. The Democratic Party needs to show they stand for an alternative, rather than a weaker, watered down version, of the Republican Party.
1
I respect Senators Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchineel for crossing the aisle to support such an honorable candidate as Judge Gorsych. I heard Judge Gorsuch speak 3years ago, and was impressed by his integrity and adherence to Constitutional principles. The entire faculty of our Law School has raved about him since. We need a principled candidate like him at this time. I'm also thinking that if he is confirmed, which would be wonderful.....in a future election down the road, do you think he would pronounce his opinions publicly on "who to vote" for like Justice Ginsberg blatantly did? I doubt it, to his dignified credit.
Republicans did not filibuster Obama's Supreme Court nominees, even though they were hard left. The democrats refused to play nicely with the Trump supreme nominee, so republicans have no choice, but to implement the Reid option, and get rid if the filibuster.
I hope nobody is believing this column. It is the Democrats who are causing this, period. 60 votes has never been the rule for Supreme Court justices. Two current justices did not get 60 votes. And never in our history has a party filibustered a nominee to the court. Democrats are setting a horrible new precedent here, and will destroy the Senate in the process.
For further proof this column is a lie, look at who wrote it, a former chief of staff to Harry Reid, the most dishonest Senator in history.
For further proof this column is a lie, look at who wrote it, a former chief of staff to Harry Reid, the most dishonest Senator in history.
1
There has never been a filibuster of nominee? Really? What would you call what the Republicans did to Merrick Garland? I call that the mother of all filibusters - not even allowing hearings.
Democrats are opposed to Gorsuch because Mitch McConnell killed President Obama's legitimate opportunity to appoint a judge to the high court. Otherwise Gorsuch would be a shoe in.
I'd shed no tears if McConnell got hit by a train today, but this is politics, the crippling brand perfected by both parties in the last few decades. Pathetic.
Where are the Mansfields and Fulbrights in the U.S. Senate? There are none, not even one.
I'd shed no tears if McConnell got hit by a train today, but this is politics, the crippling brand perfected by both parties in the last few decades. Pathetic.
Where are the Mansfields and Fulbrights in the U.S. Senate? There are none, not even one.
1
McConnell with his scorched earth partisan policy from the moment Obama took office has almost single-handedly destroyed the functioning of Congress. The GOP has become a party of few words: No...No...No... and tax cuts for the wealthy.
The present fact that the GOP is reluctant to fully investigate Trump's ties with Russia by NOT asking for his financial and tax information is a clear dereliction of the Constitutionally mandated job of oversight over the Exec.
So what if we have a President publicly branded as a liar, so what if we have a President clearly unable to fulfill the duties of his office...McConnell defies his oath of office by giving loyalty to Party over Nation--and threatening the other members of his Party if they don't follow.
The present fact that the GOP is reluctant to fully investigate Trump's ties with Russia by NOT asking for his financial and tax information is a clear dereliction of the Constitutionally mandated job of oversight over the Exec.
So what if we have a President publicly branded as a liar, so what if we have a President clearly unable to fulfill the duties of his office...McConnell defies his oath of office by giving loyalty to Party over Nation--and threatening the other members of his Party if they don't follow.
3
Senators are not required to do their job. They are not required to attend. They are not required to vote, even if present. They can be impeached for high crimes, but not for being lazy or asleep or obstinate for political reasons. They can be a disgrace to the job and still be Majority Leader.
The biggest problem with the Two-Party system is not that it under-represents the diversity of political views we have. It is that each party sometimes works to turn it into a One-Party system by crushing the other party instead of working across the aisle. If McConnell cannot get his way as a Gentlemen from Kentucky, then he obstructs when in the minority and changes the rules this time. He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.
The biggest problem with the Two-Party system is not that it under-represents the diversity of political views we have. It is that each party sometimes works to turn it into a One-Party system by crushing the other party instead of working across the aisle. If McConnell cannot get his way as a Gentlemen from Kentucky, then he obstructs when in the minority and changes the rules this time. He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.
3
This is laughable. Whether McConnell does this or not the precedent was set by the hateful Harry Reid. His senate packed the federal courts after he did this.
It's clear democrats didn't play by the rules then and obviously if the roles were reversed democrats would do the same now.
I understand democrats are panicking ove the likelihood the SCOTUS could lean more conservative now that they lost control. But conservative here means hesitation to make law from the bench. The Constitution to democrats is not a foundational document by which laws are judged but a hazy erasable suggestion that can be changed by political persuasion.
Everything now is political which is the basis for our pending destruction.
It's clear democrats didn't play by the rules then and obviously if the roles were reversed democrats would do the same now.
I understand democrats are panicking ove the likelihood the SCOTUS could lean more conservative now that they lost control. But conservative here means hesitation to make law from the bench. The Constitution to democrats is not a foundational document by which laws are judged but a hazy erasable suggestion that can be changed by political persuasion.
Everything now is political which is the basis for our pending destruction.
2
Blaming Harry Reid is absurd. McConnell was arrogant enough to actually go on record to say that his number one priority was to destroy Obama. Spare us your lecture on the constitution.
Conservatives make law from the bench all the time. Citizens United and D.C. v Heller overturned longstanding precedents to fundamentally alter the interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that liberal judges are the only activist judges is a comfortable lie conservatives tell themselves. Everything is political.
GOP should note that going nuclear may come back to haunt them. Given Trump's unpopularity & the policies that he and the Congress have espoused, the Senate may flip blue sooner rather than later. Think 2010
45
25 Dems are up for Senate election in 2018 compared to just 7 for Repubs. That includes Dems in 10 states that Trump won including several by double digits. It is far more likely that Republicans will expand their majority in 2018 rather than watch it shrink.
2
Yes, we can check with Harry Reid - he's the one currently being haunted by his unprecedented attack on minority rights in 2013. Trump's unpopularity is primarily with those whom he was already unpopular - a closer look at the numbers suggest Trump's approval ratings with Republicans remains very high and since Democrats tend not to vote in large numbers in off-cycle elections, their chances of taking the Senate in 2018 are virtually nil (but not impossible) given that factor along with the seats up for re-election. The real battle will be in 2020, but at that point there's apt to be another two to four seats on the Supreme Court that will be filled by new justices.
Thanks Harry for clearing the way and making what seemed like political suicide something very achievable!
Thanks Harry for clearing the way and making what seemed like political suicide something very achievable!
1
I would agree with that analysis in general Princeton 2015, but on the other hand I have been a witness to Trump's behavior as POTUS over the past 70 days...
The Republicans denied Merrick Garland a hearing for 11 months because they said Obama was a lame duck President. Well how do we know that Trump is going to last 11 months before he is impeached?
9
It's simple. If the previous invocation of the stupidly named Nuclear Option was Reid's fault, then the coming invocation is McConnell's fault. No amount of spin can possibly change that.
1
We should stop referring to Repugnicans as "Conservatives." They are radical ideologues intent on destroying our democracy.
3
Every single move made by Senator McTurtle is calculated directly toward his next helping of turtle chow. He's only really content to munch while his turtledefecater is actively aimed at American Citizens.
1
Stumbling Down The Road To One Party Rule
Filibustering Gorduch is nothing compared to leaving rules that necessitates bipartisanship. If the GOP changes the rules it is time to rethink America and democratic ideas.
Filibustering Gorduch is nothing compared to leaving rules that necessitates bipartisanship. If the GOP changes the rules it is time to rethink America and democratic ideas.
Actually this country is a republic, or was. That's the purpose for the super majority senate rule. In a republic the minority has a voice and it is respected. In a Democracy 51% rules. That's why our founders avoided a democracy like the plague.
The Republicans already exerted a de facto filibuster when they refused to give Merrick Garland a vote - so they can hardly complain if Democrats elect not to support Gorsuch after at least giving him the courtesy of hearings and a vote. Inevitably the nuclear option will help Democrats longer term as they are traditionally the party of conciliation and have been stymied by not having a working partner in decades. They will no longer feel compelled to compromise and work with Republicans (as they did, for example, throughout the year-long ACA hearings and negotiations in 2010) when the Anti-Trump backlash inevitably expresses itself in coming elections.
4
As a former Republican, this is why I re-registered as "independent" rather than as a Democrat when the Republican party decided that moderates were unwelcome. The Democrats need to develop a spine. I have no doubt that the proper course of action is to call McConnell's bluff.
4
If President Obama was sincere when he previously identified income inequality as the number one (1) issue of our time than it is his opportunity to re-enter the public sphere to assert that Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court will primarily institutionalize income inequality in this country for decades.
Obama the citizen must use his political capital, his moral authority in this time of Trump to be the statesman our people of America and the world desperately cry out for.
If Obama does not seek this "moment" and allows Gorsuch's approval without comment, it will give further argument that Obama is but a tool in the quasi oligarchical political and financial attempted coup that is happening now in real time in our world.
Obama the citizen must use his political capital, his moral authority in this time of Trump to be the statesman our people of America and the world desperately cry out for.
If Obama does not seek this "moment" and allows Gorsuch's approval without comment, it will give further argument that Obama is but a tool in the quasi oligarchical political and financial attempted coup that is happening now in real time in our world.
1
if only the author's reasoned analysis were one that could be easily digested by the corpus of America. To his point, McConnell has skillfully positioned the Republican efforts as necessary due to democratic opposition. I really don't recall the Dems employing similar tactics in 2013 - frankly, I don't remember much coverage of their invocation of this nuclear option at all. so despite the ostensibly reasonable grounds for suggesting that Dems should be treated differently in this situation, the fact of the matter is all that any Republican need so is point to 2013 and say the Dems did it first and the people will only see it as fair play. it's great to have high minded thinkers espousing principled arguments- pretty sure that's exactly what was done leading up to the election. seems like it's time to change our tactics.
if we know McConnell will foist Gorsuch on us, why not instruct 8 members to vote for and the rest abstain? use it to pivot the position of the Dems from the new party of no to one that is extending the olive branch? maybe it will start to change opinions of moderate republicans. maybe it won't, maybe it will make the progressives really angry to give an inch. who knows. what we do know is our rational approach lost us the presidency. something needs to change or how can we, in our supreme rationality, expect a different outcome?
if we know McConnell will foist Gorsuch on us, why not instruct 8 members to vote for and the rest abstain? use it to pivot the position of the Dems from the new party of no to one that is extending the olive branch? maybe it will start to change opinions of moderate republicans. maybe it won't, maybe it will make the progressives really angry to give an inch. who knows. what we do know is our rational approach lost us the presidency. something needs to change or how can we, in our supreme rationality, expect a different outcome?
1
Two wrongs don't make a right, but that axiom doesn't apply here. Using another metaphor, it is long past for Democrats to keep turning the other cheek. When does one keep taking the bullying being dished out in shovel loads by Republicans and do nothing about it?
President Obama did this his entire eight year term, even going so far in his final days during the transition period to be a good steward of the ship of State. President Obama took the example of George W. Bush. Bush and his team, Obama repeatedly noted, were most gracious and professional in making the passing of one administration to the next go smoothly. That was President Obama's goal, and he pulled it off with his usual aplomb, a class act to the very end, as bitter as it may have been to hand the reigns of power over to such a dolt.
Despite that, how has President Obama been rewarded? Unlike Obama, who began his tenure with the nation on a financial precipice, and two foreign entanglements to deal with, he did not begin by casting blame immediately on his predecessor. But not Trump, who in short order, told the nation, "I inherited a mess!". Yes, the odious Trump had the gall to say that. Then came another false bombshell. President Obama had his "wires tapped".
So when Mitch the Turtle may be forced to pull the nuclear trigger, and Dems are being reminded about this "two wrongs" nonsense, I think every Dem should take umbrage. Dems. it's about time.
DD
Manhattan
President Obama did this his entire eight year term, even going so far in his final days during the transition period to be a good steward of the ship of State. President Obama took the example of George W. Bush. Bush and his team, Obama repeatedly noted, were most gracious and professional in making the passing of one administration to the next go smoothly. That was President Obama's goal, and he pulled it off with his usual aplomb, a class act to the very end, as bitter as it may have been to hand the reigns of power over to such a dolt.
Despite that, how has President Obama been rewarded? Unlike Obama, who began his tenure with the nation on a financial precipice, and two foreign entanglements to deal with, he did not begin by casting blame immediately on his predecessor. But not Trump, who in short order, told the nation, "I inherited a mess!". Yes, the odious Trump had the gall to say that. Then came another false bombshell. President Obama had his "wires tapped".
So when Mitch the Turtle may be forced to pull the nuclear trigger, and Dems are being reminded about this "two wrongs" nonsense, I think every Dem should take umbrage. Dems. it's about time.
DD
Manhattan
9
I agree totally!
It makes no sense to lower the bar even more by getting down in the mud with McConnell and the animals. Obama's example, from beginning to end, should be our shining star, a lighthouse lamp to help us navigate the next - few or many - years. All need to rise to the occasion of the new era in our democracy. The world is watching. Dems have taken kicks in the gut, but we are not groveling in the mud. Bernie is another great example. There are many more coming up that we haven't heard of yet. And -- We need the popular vote back.
-kate
VT
-kate
VT
1
Dear Kate:
I hear your sentiments. I don't care for mudslinging either. I abhor it. I abhor war too, but sometimes, especially when being confronted by bullies, which Trump most definitely is, one must confront being fired on by returning fire.
When I speak of confrontation, I do mean to do so with appropriate responses measured to fit the target. When one is confronted by the likes of a Ryan or McConnell, meaning in a more formulaic wonky way, then one responds accordingly. But with Trump, there are moments when decorum may be more relaxed to suit this childish tweeter in chief. Trump's outright outlandish lies need a much harsher rebuke. Yes, I know, that sounds like mud to me too. Well, when one is finally reduced to the level of barbaric displays, there leaves no alternative open except all-out war. Trump's action, even though most of them are enacted out of pure ignorance, are still as harmful as if unleashed by some knowing dictator. The results are the same. And we the people exercising our rights which have long been dormant, need to be revitalized.
DD
Manhattan
I hear your sentiments. I don't care for mudslinging either. I abhor it. I abhor war too, but sometimes, especially when being confronted by bullies, which Trump most definitely is, one must confront being fired on by returning fire.
When I speak of confrontation, I do mean to do so with appropriate responses measured to fit the target. When one is confronted by the likes of a Ryan or McConnell, meaning in a more formulaic wonky way, then one responds accordingly. But with Trump, there are moments when decorum may be more relaxed to suit this childish tweeter in chief. Trump's outright outlandish lies need a much harsher rebuke. Yes, I know, that sounds like mud to me too. Well, when one is finally reduced to the level of barbaric displays, there leaves no alternative open except all-out war. Trump's action, even though most of them are enacted out of pure ignorance, are still as harmful as if unleashed by some knowing dictator. The results are the same. And we the people exercising our rights which have long been dormant, need to be revitalized.
DD
Manhattan
1
As much as we rail about Donald Trump's mendacity it's been abundantly clear for many years that Mitch McConnell is at least as dishonest, albeit far more talented in his presentation. Whereas Trump shows up in a clown costume, honking his horn and spraying people with a seltzer bottle, McConnell dons a 3 piece suit, a pouch-mouthed gravitas and sincere disbelief at the bad actors in the opposition. But measuring the content and depth of the hypocrisy, dishonesty and deception practiced by both men reveals little difference between them.
This is the man who proclaimed his single goal to be the absolute obstruction of everything Obama, regardless of merit, and who now bemoans the unconscionable obstruction of the Democrats. The man who said there would be absolutely no hearings or vote on the Merrick Garland nomination, but who know demands that Democrats treat Republican nominees the same as Obama nominees.
There are countless more examples of this man's unabashed hypocrisy, and this threat to invoke the nuclear option and blaming the Democrats for his actions is just the latest. The only thing that can compare to the benefit of impeaching Donald Trump would be the disposition of Mitch McConnell.
This is the man who proclaimed his single goal to be the absolute obstruction of everything Obama, regardless of merit, and who now bemoans the unconscionable obstruction of the Democrats. The man who said there would be absolutely no hearings or vote on the Merrick Garland nomination, but who know demands that Democrats treat Republican nominees the same as Obama nominees.
There are countless more examples of this man's unabashed hypocrisy, and this threat to invoke the nuclear option and blaming the Democrats for his actions is just the latest. The only thing that can compare to the benefit of impeaching Donald Trump would be the disposition of Mitch McConnell.
12
Let's call the "nuclear option" what it really is--gerrymandering of the Senate vote. Piece by insidious piece, our constitutional democracy is being dismantled.
8
Initiated by the Democrats who could not act in a bipartisan way on anything during the Obama Administration.
If they had been more adult, this would not be an issue.
If they had been more adult, this would not be an issue.
I don't think that McConnell is a radical. I think that he is the perfect example of a senator who puts 'the party' first and the country a distant second (if that).
8
As did Harry Reid by that logic.
I like Gorsuch; I'm teaching one of his cases in class today. Garland would've made a fine Justice, with whom I would've often disagreed.
With that out of the way, I don't get the Democrats' "plan" here. What is the value of blaming the nuclear option on McConnell? A year ago, one might reasonably have believed that voters concerned over a vacancy, or supportive of Obama's prerogative as President, would punish GOP obstruction at the polls. This belief surely dissipated during the 2016 election, as Democrats failed to turn this into a winning issue. I can think of a few interpretations of that reality, but we may safely exclude, (c) "the country strongly agreed with the Democrats about the GOP's SCOTUS hardball tactics."
I'm not saying that the Democrats would be unjustified in tit-for-tat. I'm saying that there is no plausible path that leaves them better off for doing so. As argued elsewhere, they can have Gorsuch on the Court with the filibuster in their pocket for another day, or they can have him without it. Maybe that pocket charm would not turn out to be useful (Trump might nominate equally fit candidates. But if the nuclear option is triggered, the utility drops to zero.
Also, the Garland experience counsels skepticism that the public will punish the GOP for going nuclear. If McConnell wasn't "exposed for the radical he is" over Garland, why would he finally be unmasked by setting in motion an inarguably legitimate procedure for changing Senate rules?
With that out of the way, I don't get the Democrats' "plan" here. What is the value of blaming the nuclear option on McConnell? A year ago, one might reasonably have believed that voters concerned over a vacancy, or supportive of Obama's prerogative as President, would punish GOP obstruction at the polls. This belief surely dissipated during the 2016 election, as Democrats failed to turn this into a winning issue. I can think of a few interpretations of that reality, but we may safely exclude, (c) "the country strongly agreed with the Democrats about the GOP's SCOTUS hardball tactics."
I'm not saying that the Democrats would be unjustified in tit-for-tat. I'm saying that there is no plausible path that leaves them better off for doing so. As argued elsewhere, they can have Gorsuch on the Court with the filibuster in their pocket for another day, or they can have him without it. Maybe that pocket charm would not turn out to be useful (Trump might nominate equally fit candidates. But if the nuclear option is triggered, the utility drops to zero.
Also, the Garland experience counsels skepticism that the public will punish the GOP for going nuclear. If McConnell wasn't "exposed for the radical he is" over Garland, why would he finally be unmasked by setting in motion an inarguably legitimate procedure for changing Senate rules?
7
The answer is simple, professor: From a long term perspective, it's better to have a spine than not have one. If Democrats go along with McConnell after what that snake did to Garland, Republicans will know no bounds on their treachery. Get it?
1
The only hope this country has, is for the relatively sane people still left become fearful enough and angry enough to never, ever, ever miss voting again, sort of like hard-core republicans are. The current mission of the Democratic party is to build, foster and nurture that fear and anger. This just has not been the case in the past, but it must be the case now. We look at Trump and the Republican party with fear, revulsion for everything they stand for, and great anger that they could amass so much power without even a majority of those who voted behind them, let alone a majority of the country.
the Republicans have already exercised the nuclear option when they refused to even give Obama's nominee a hearing. They would never have given any Clinton nominees a hearing either. They will stop at nothing to get what they want.
This just shows that those we elected feel the rage we feel, just as Republicans are constantly stoking the fear and rage of their constituents, though they have little to fear (nobodies takin away their guns, there are no death panels, etc.)
Since we have ALOT to fear, you'd think it'd be easier, but it ain't. You sound reasonable, but you should know we're at war here.
You cannot respect an enemy that does not respect you.
the Republicans have already exercised the nuclear option when they refused to even give Obama's nominee a hearing. They would never have given any Clinton nominees a hearing either. They will stop at nothing to get what they want.
This just shows that those we elected feel the rage we feel, just as Republicans are constantly stoking the fear and rage of their constituents, though they have little to fear (nobodies takin away their guns, there are no death panels, etc.)
Since we have ALOT to fear, you'd think it'd be easier, but it ain't. You sound reasonable, but you should know we're at war here.
You cannot respect an enemy that does not respect you.
2
Over the years, liberals have experienced far more harm than good from the filibuster. It is essentially a tool of racist bigotry. We will be better off without it.
21
I laugh hysterically at the hypocrisy of both parties. All would be better served if they took a sober look at reality.
And that reality is that there is no longer any comity between the parties, or within the parties themselves. And it'll never come back.
So simple majorities will be the norm. The filibuster is on life support.
And that reality is that there is no longer any comity between the parties, or within the parties themselves. And it'll never come back.
So simple majorities will be the norm. The filibuster is on life support.
18
Mitch McConnell is a political sociopath. He has no empathy for his victims and has a contempt for rules that make things work and are fair.
13
Democrats are will within their rights to oppose and filibuster. McConnell refused to bring the nomination of Merrick Garland to the floor for a vote (he would have gotten at least 80 votes) because Obama was in his last year of his presidency. Well.....Trump in under FBI investigation for treasonous acts. Accordingly, he should not be able to nominate anyone to the US Supreme Court until the cloud is lifted. If McConnell wants to make his own rules regarding a Democratic nominee, he must now live with the circumstances he created.
10
Nuclear or not it doesn't matter. Gorsuch will be nominated and the SCOTUS will move on. If and when Democrats hold the majority in the Senate will they re-install the 60 vote majorities across the board? What are they willing to give up to get a different nominee? Health care? Tax reform? As a minority party you have to give to get. The public no longer cares about traditional rules. They want results.
1
McConnell's brand of unethical nepotistic conservatism is an affront to our unity as a nation.
The lowest level federal toilet cleaners go through a more thorough background investigation than any of his presidents close advisors and McConnell backs the push through 100% partisan.
He's a sick man.
The lowest level federal toilet cleaners go through a more thorough background investigation than any of his presidents close advisors and McConnell backs the push through 100% partisan.
He's a sick man.
4
Sorry, Reunlicans had confirmed more Obama judges at time in his presidency than Democrats had
Confirmed under George Bush. They voted for judges whose decisions they new they would not support. Judge Gorsuch was every bit as up front on his decision making than Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Be honest NYT. This is about the judicial wars started by Democrats with Robert Bork, which you supported and payback is a...well...you know what it is.
Confirmed under George Bush. They voted for judges whose decisions they new they would not support. Judge Gorsuch was every bit as up front on his decision making than Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Be honest NYT. This is about the judicial wars started by Democrats with Robert Bork, which you supported and payback is a...well...you know what it is.
1
"reasonable Democratic opposition"
Right. Because Democrats like, say, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, and Dianne Feinstein, only ever "reasonably" grill nominees by asking them whether they will do their best to oppose the legally elected POTUS. Because it's reasonable to ask that question of anyone the POTUS nominates.
Democrats are politicians, and partisan, and because their preferred candidate lost the election in 2016, they will act like partisans only, to make trouble for the candidate who won. They're behaving like the emotionally deranged children they claimed the Rs were acting like by refusing to hold hearings for ex-POTUS Obama's SCOTUS nominee.
Democrats will never believe the Supreme Court is balanced so long as one non-Socialist justice sits there. To borrow a phrase from "Linda" - Democrats are the biggest threat to American Freedom and Individual Rights.
Right. Because Democrats like, say, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, and Dianne Feinstein, only ever "reasonably" grill nominees by asking them whether they will do their best to oppose the legally elected POTUS. Because it's reasonable to ask that question of anyone the POTUS nominates.
Democrats are politicians, and partisan, and because their preferred candidate lost the election in 2016, they will act like partisans only, to make trouble for the candidate who won. They're behaving like the emotionally deranged children they claimed the Rs were acting like by refusing to hold hearings for ex-POTUS Obama's SCOTUS nominee.
Democrats will never believe the Supreme Court is balanced so long as one non-Socialist justice sits there. To borrow a phrase from "Linda" - Democrats are the biggest threat to American Freedom and Individual Rights.
5
There is no reasonable, rational opposition to Gorsuch
1
I keep hearing how the Dems shouldn't "waste" the filibuster now- that if there's another SCOTUS opening rebuffing this nominee will ensure a more far right nominee then and that's the swing seat. What makes anyone think that wouldn't be the case anyway? I am supposed to believe that letting an illegitimate President fill a stolen seat now will result in a reasonable nominee later? Absurd. They would still nominate a right wing idealogue and remove the filibuster then, so let them own it now and vote your principles. All we can hope is that Kennedy and RBG eat their Wheaties and take their vitamins and make it through until after this administration slips away.
6
Memo to Trump:
Want to change the ENTIRE DIALOGUE about yourself as President?
Nominate Gorsuch and Garland as a package!
Want to change the ENTIRE DIALOGUE about yourself as President?
Nominate Gorsuch and Garland as a package!
2
America is behind the Hon. Gorsuch and is repulsed by the childish antics of the Democrats. Schumer has invented a new law- by edict, without a vote!-demanding that Supreme Court nominees receive 60 votes. Schumer has taken the nation hostage, save us Sen McConnell!!
3
Where was your outrage when Merrick Garland didn't get a hearing a YEAR before the election? Oh, right.
Childish antics. You mean like McConnell and several other Republicans not scheduling a vote for Garland to fill a vacancy on the District Court because they didn't think it should be filled, and then not allowing a vote on his Supreme Court nomination?
Ah yes. Let's win at any cost. Let's destroy all hope of compromise. Let's Bork this guy, but good.
OK things are polarized. This isn't helping.
OK things are polarized. This isn't helping.
2
Bork would have been a disaster on the Supreme Court and it was a good thing he was kept off the Court. If the Democrats had shown nerve in opposing Justice Thomas we would not have gone through the Anita Hill debacle and have kept and incompetent off the High Court.
This judge deserves a vote. He has clearly shown he will follow the law and was confirmed 99 to 0 last time. It is clear,that if Judge Roberts, Alito , Thomas or Scalia were up for a vote today they would all be filibustered.
Too bad the Times has lost any objectivity.
Too bad the Times has lost any objectivity.
3
They haven't lost their objectivity. The Republicans have pushed forward ideologues who lie about following the law.
2
He does deserve a vote....right after the vote for Merrick Garland.
2
I don't see how voting against Gorsuch's confirmation will help the Democrats. Many Americans want to see a functioning government. One that doesn't solely consist of two parties crying "but...they started it!"
I would be more understanding of this filibuster if anyone thought it would lead to a more qualified, or preferable SCOTUS nominee -- but that doesn't seem to the case here. Democrats: is Gorsuch really the hill worth dying on? It's a battle that can't be won, and perhaps -- in this case -- shouldn't be.
I would be more understanding of this filibuster if anyone thought it would lead to a more qualified, or preferable SCOTUS nominee -- but that doesn't seem to the case here. Democrats: is Gorsuch really the hill worth dying on? It's a battle that can't be won, and perhaps -- in this case -- shouldn't be.
18
Democrats should not capitulate to the extremist Republicans and nobody is going to die on a hill because of it.
Actually, what counts is whether Judge Gorsuch gets confirmed. The Democrats acquiescing, resisting of actively supporting this will be a subject for historians or pundits to analyze and discuss. If enough Democrats break rank and enter into a devil's bargain to save their seats in 2018, Gorsuch becomes an Asociate Justice. If the GOP breaks with tradition and forces through the confirmation, he still gets a seat on the benches of the Supreme Court. And the net result will be the same. What's the point of this article?
The real problem is more structural than concerns about a single nominee.
It would not take a Constitutional amendment to change the Supreme Court as it is currently constructed.
The will to do this is all that is lacking.
The Supreme Court is the most political of the 3 branches--you can predict with 95% accuracy how each justice will vote on any case on the basis of a single paragraph description of that case--if the case has any social or political content.
That is more uniform than you can predict how a single Senator will vote on any given issue because he has various constituents who will force him to bend his conservative or liberal bent now and then.
Give each President two appointments per 4 year term to the Court. Allow only the 9 most recently appointed justices to vote on cases.
This would bring the Court into harmony with the prevailing political environment and it would finally recognize the truth nobody is willing to admit: Justices are not calling balls and strikes impartially. They are making up a new strike zone every time based on who the batter is.
It would not take a Constitutional amendment to change the Supreme Court as it is currently constructed.
The will to do this is all that is lacking.
The Supreme Court is the most political of the 3 branches--you can predict with 95% accuracy how each justice will vote on any case on the basis of a single paragraph description of that case--if the case has any social or political content.
That is more uniform than you can predict how a single Senator will vote on any given issue because he has various constituents who will force him to bend his conservative or liberal bent now and then.
Give each President two appointments per 4 year term to the Court. Allow only the 9 most recently appointed justices to vote on cases.
This would bring the Court into harmony with the prevailing political environment and it would finally recognize the truth nobody is willing to admit: Justices are not calling balls and strikes impartially. They are making up a new strike zone every time based on who the batter is.
1
Final paragraph, final sentence: "exposed?" That is not saying the Mona Lisa will finally be "exposed" as a great painting. Senator McConnell is without peer or parallel in the fouling of the gears of government since he became first Minority Leader and then Majority Leader in the Senate.
4
The options here are limited. Either the Republican party -- as it currently exists -- will disappear, or this nation is going to descent into the pseudo-fascist oligarchy which the "Freedom" Caucus dreams about. ("Freedom" as used by those guys means the freedom of the privileged to do exactly what they like to the less-privileged.) Right now, it could go either way.
If the first happens, then the rules don't matter in the long term. Democrats, and whatever succeeds the Republicans, will control future appoints and the filibuster option will be irrelevant. If the second happens, then the Supreme Court itself will become irrelevant and the rules don't matter at all.
Either way, the best option is to fight the Gorsuch "appointment" tooth and nail.
If the first happens, then the rules don't matter in the long term. Democrats, and whatever succeeds the Republicans, will control future appoints and the filibuster option will be irrelevant. If the second happens, then the Supreme Court itself will become irrelevant and the rules don't matter at all.
Either way, the best option is to fight the Gorsuch "appointment" tooth and nail.
2
It's clear from reading these comments, Congress is a reflection of its constituents. We have a country that is based on accusations and faux idealism; if one side believes it, it is honest and right--if the other side believes it, it is wrong and destructive. There is no longer even a pretense of honest debate and discourse. American has the government it deserves.
A pox on both their houses.
A pox on both their houses.
3
Mitch McConnell has just one goal and that is the accumulation of Republican power. As long as Donald Trump does his bidding, McConnell will endure Trump and all the baggage and chaos he brings. The Supreme Court is one of the biggest prizes and nothing is going to stop McConnell from getting a healthy majority of like minded right wing ideologues who offer such pseudo legal philosophical nonsense as "originalism", "strict constructionism"etc. Trump was given a list of twenty acceptable nominees to the Supreme Court by the Republican leadership through one of its think tanks. You can be certain he never heard of these potential nominees, did not know who they were, what there judicial philosophy and approach was, what there rulings had been etc. He not only did not know but did not care. For the Democrats there is only one option and that is to become the majority in 2018. This is no time for pontificating about principle but plotting the politics. With so many Democratic Senators up for re-election it promises to be an uphill battle. But that is the job. Losing the majority in 2018 is not an option as such a loss would more likely than not place the Supreme Court in the hands of right wing extremists for decades.
5
This is all meaningless. It is now clear a president cannot appoint a justice without having a majority in the Senate. Those are the new rules. The real test for Democrats will come if they ever get a Senate majority. Will they stand strong and refuse to confirm a Republican appointment? I hope so, otherwise the courts will be conservative forever.
4
This is not new. The super majority for approval of various presidential appointments was put in place long ago. You see America was once a true republic as the founders intended since they knew the history of true democracies. The super majority came about to allow the minority some input in determining these approvals. That's what a republic is. A system that allows minority power. A democracy simply requires 51% which leaves a huge (49%) minority with no voice but elected by the citizenry. Democrats have been dismantling our republic in favor of a democracy for years.
Though now it appears they favor a socialist system.
Though now it appears they favor a socialist system.
The longer that the GOP maintains its attachment to Donald Trump'splummeting star, the drier their party's future appears o be getting. How many Trump-voters are realizing that he trying to take their newly-acquire health career away. Followed by Medicaid, Medicare and, while he's at it, Social Security. And, that includes Social Security Disability, as well.
What else has Donald done? Nothing! No0w, as more and more of them power seems to be mysteriously not in the hands of the Cabinet Officers and Agency Heads. Certainly not in the hands of Jared and Ivanka, the people who will never truly understand the multitude of roles that Donald has assigned them. And of course, Donald never touches anything, where recrimination can bite him.
So, if the GOP continues to lounge on the Good Ship Trumptanic, assuming that that iceberg is just a mirage, caused by Global WarNing, that had best not throw their weight around. If the GOP grabs for the Nuclear Option now--and they continue to ride Trump's coattails under, they will surely regret it!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
What else has Donald done? Nothing! No0w, as more and more of them power seems to be mysteriously not in the hands of the Cabinet Officers and Agency Heads. Certainly not in the hands of Jared and Ivanka, the people who will never truly understand the multitude of roles that Donald has assigned them. And of course, Donald never touches anything, where recrimination can bite him.
So, if the GOP continues to lounge on the Good Ship Trumptanic, assuming that that iceberg is just a mirage, caused by Global WarNing, that had best not throw their weight around. If the GOP grabs for the Nuclear Option now--and they continue to ride Trump's coattails under, they will surely regret it!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
"Rather than accept Democrats’ opposition as legitimate, Senator McConnell is dead set on escalation."
Nothing new here. McConnell has been dead set on the "my way, or the highway" approach for many, many years. He can force the issue here to put a Citizens United corporate judge on the court. Maybe McConnell's strings are being pulled to do that. Maybe he's just power-mad.
But what is very clear is that the welfare of the country is not a priority.
It 's too bad the Dems are unable to get their point across to the public to "change the candidate, not the rules". One would hope the GOP could be labeled correctly as destructive, again. How is it that McConnell can prove more persuasive that Schumer?
Somehow the sales job on Gorsuch being the perfectly impeccable candidate is the prevalent view of this man, despite that he ruled a truck driver should freeze to death if his company told him to, and that he supports the Citizens United decision, and sees nothing wrong with the perversion of government by dark money.
Nothing new here. McConnell has been dead set on the "my way, or the highway" approach for many, many years. He can force the issue here to put a Citizens United corporate judge on the court. Maybe McConnell's strings are being pulled to do that. Maybe he's just power-mad.
But what is very clear is that the welfare of the country is not a priority.
It 's too bad the Dems are unable to get their point across to the public to "change the candidate, not the rules". One would hope the GOP could be labeled correctly as destructive, again. How is it that McConnell can prove more persuasive that Schumer?
Somehow the sales job on Gorsuch being the perfectly impeccable candidate is the prevalent view of this man, despite that he ruled a truck driver should freeze to death if his company told him to, and that he supports the Citizens United decision, and sees nothing wrong with the perversion of government by dark money.
7
Democrats must filibuster this extremist choice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
President Obama nominated a moderate to the Supreme Court in his term of office, yet his nominee was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.
Senator McCain said he would attempt to filibuster any and all of President Clinton's nominees to the court regardless of qualifications.
The Supreme Court can and has operated with less than 9 jurists. Given the hyper-partisanship surrounding the Court, only candidates that earn bipartisan support should be nominated until a party has a filibuster proof majority.
If the Senate wants to give up the filibuster over this, so be it. That cuts both ways.
The worst outcome is to appoint another young right wing partisan to the Court, followed by more to come.
Let's first investigate the legitimacy of the last Presidential election before we appoint his nominees to lifelong positions on the Supreme Court.
President Obama nominated a moderate to the Supreme Court in his term of office, yet his nominee was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.
Senator McCain said he would attempt to filibuster any and all of President Clinton's nominees to the court regardless of qualifications.
The Supreme Court can and has operated with less than 9 jurists. Given the hyper-partisanship surrounding the Court, only candidates that earn bipartisan support should be nominated until a party has a filibuster proof majority.
If the Senate wants to give up the filibuster over this, so be it. That cuts both ways.
The worst outcome is to appoint another young right wing partisan to the Court, followed by more to come.
Let's first investigate the legitimacy of the last Presidential election before we appoint his nominees to lifelong positions on the Supreme Court.
13
I hardly believe Sota Mayor or Kagan are moderate. Merrick would have sided with them each time. Trump now has the opportunity to balance the court.
Roberts is supposed to be conservative but he twisted himself into a pretzel to validate the ACA. It's more likely a conservative can be moderate when the situation demands it than a liberal.
Roberts is supposed to be conservative but he twisted himself into a pretzel to validate the ACA. It's more likely a conservative can be moderate when the situation demands it than a liberal.
LOL! Investigate the legitimacy of the last election? With what evidence? Where is it? Obama himself said the Russian fantasy had no impact and he ought to know since his White House was illegally disseminating classified surveillance of the Trump campaign after unmasking Americans; also illegal. His intelligence leaders also testified there is no evidence. This is merely a scam on a very large scale.
I understand the extreme disappointment. Obama was transforming America into a socialist system and democrats knew if they could get 8 more years they could complete that transformation. But the people rebelled against it. During his arrogant presidency democrats lost almost 1000 seats in state legislatures and republican governors not outnumber democrats by close to 60/30. That's why they lost the national election and if they continue their blatant lies they will lose again. Note the speech by the DNC chairman last week, or should I say screech.
I understand the extreme disappointment. Obama was transforming America into a socialist system and democrats knew if they could get 8 more years they could complete that transformation. But the people rebelled against it. During his arrogant presidency democrats lost almost 1000 seats in state legislatures and republican governors not outnumber democrats by close to 60/30. That's why they lost the national election and if they continue their blatant lies they will lose again. Note the speech by the DNC chairman last week, or should I say screech.
This is absolutely foolish, idiocy.
The Democrats need to go back and read Machiavelli and everyone else who every studied competition and power: action should be taken only if it brings tangible benefit; if you are going to lose, get as much as you can, surrender, move on, and regroup and rebuild to fight another day.
The Democrats will win nothing in this exercise other than blowing up the Senate.
The idea that Trump is going to sit down with Democrats to come up with an alternative to the current nominee is as laughable a fantasy as Trump fixing all the stuff his fans believe he will.
The Republicans had the power to stop Obama's nominee and they did it. The Democrats lost the election with an abysmally bad candidate, and here we are.
The Democrats need to go back and read Machiavelli and everyone else who every studied competition and power: action should be taken only if it brings tangible benefit; if you are going to lose, get as much as you can, surrender, move on, and regroup and rebuild to fight another day.
The Democrats will win nothing in this exercise other than blowing up the Senate.
The idea that Trump is going to sit down with Democrats to come up with an alternative to the current nominee is as laughable a fantasy as Trump fixing all the stuff his fans believe he will.
The Republicans had the power to stop Obama's nominee and they did it. The Democrats lost the election with an abysmally bad candidate, and here we are.
I am almost certain that McConnell with do the wrong thing (the nuclear option), and I am equally certain that he will blame the Democrats. He will pay lip service to the institution and to decorum, while totally ignoring that he was the one who essentially stole the lick in the first place by refusing a heading for Justice Garland.
Sorry, Toots. You cannot have it both ways. The Democrats must call his bluff.
Sorry, Toots. You cannot have it both ways. The Democrats must call his bluff.
1
Adam Jentleson is almost as big of a liar as his boss Harry Reid.
The gist of his argument is that when we went nuclar it was OK but now it's not.
Harry Reid was the mother of some of the biggest whoppers ever told in politics. And never mention is that the first politician to say that in the last year of a Presidency a Sumpreme Court nomination should be left for the next President.
That was Joe Biden talking.
Democrats are lying desperate people these days. They know less about the truth than Trump. I didn't think that was possible.
The gist of his argument is that when we went nuclar it was OK but now it's not.
Harry Reid was the mother of some of the biggest whoppers ever told in politics. And never mention is that the first politician to say that in the last year of a Presidency a Sumpreme Court nomination should be left for the next President.
That was Joe Biden talking.
Democrats are lying desperate people these days. They know less about the truth than Trump. I didn't think that was possible.
1
Not only did Democrats initiate the strategy of filibustering Appelate Court nominees under Bush, historically unprecedented, but then outlawed the filibuster for other than Supremes when Obama was president, and during the 2016 election, Hillary's VP Partner Kaine along with other Democrat Senators said that if Hillary won and Republicans tried to block her Supreme nominee, the Dems would end the right to filibuster. So from beginning to end, Dems have been the ones manipulating the filibuster issue so only they would be able to seat judges unencumbered. Now the Dem crybabies and their mouthpiece NYT wail about McConnell ending the Supreme filibuster. Only the dummies who revere the Times could possibly fall for this nonsense.
2
If Gorsuch fails, we should be prepared for some monumental whining by the Republicans about the actions of the Democrats in defeating his nomination. All that while overlooking their shabby, unconstitutional treatment of Merrick Garland. Anyway, we don't need another Scalia on the court.
1
If judge Gorsuch's nomination is lawful, then the constitution has has been changed to the effect that the Senate, not the President, chooses the Supreme Court nominees.
Seems like the handling of Judge Garland's nomination already has already addressed your point very clearly.
It's already Ben changed by the darling of casinos, Reid.
Excellent appraisal of a ruthless hypocrite, a rigid ideologue intent in continuing to subvert whatever little decency , and civics, is left. The democratic party must stand firm in denouncing his 'malpractice' (dereliction of duty), and hopefully send him packing when his current term ends; he is a disgrace.
1
The fact that this horrid man represents the state where I live gives me heartburn everyday. What about us? What I see are our streets flooded with drugs, crime, with jobs dwindling and people who can get out leaving. One site that I believe is reliable showed that in the state of Kentucky 2014 data, 16.8% of people overall suffer from food insecurity. http://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2014/overall/kentucky
Mr. McConnell sees a Supreme court swayed by him and the Republican Party as another notch in his belt. In 2018, vote, everyone, and get the focus back to real problems, jobs, drugs and hunger.
Mr. McConnell sees a Supreme court swayed by him and the Republican Party as another notch in his belt. In 2018, vote, everyone, and get the focus back to real problems, jobs, drugs and hunger.
2
Hurrah! Both of my CT Senators have announced their decision to oppose Judge Gorsuch. For me personally, with three special ed. children whose IEPs have been ignored and their "merely de minimis" educations assigned to poorly qualified and low-paid aides, I rejoiced to hear of the Supreme Court's 8-0 ruling against Gorsuch's decision.
From a tactical point of view, Democrats should give Mitch McConnell and the GOP a taste of their own medicine. To filibuster this appointment is their right according to Senate rules, not a second wrong.
Further, I also believe McConnell and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary committee should be sanctioned for violating the Constitution by denying Obama's appointee Merrick Garland even the courtesy of a hearing, not to mention their advice and consent.
From a tactical point of view, Democrats should give Mitch McConnell and the GOP a taste of their own medicine. To filibuster this appointment is their right according to Senate rules, not a second wrong.
Further, I also believe McConnell and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary committee should be sanctioned for violating the Constitution by denying Obama's appointee Merrick Garland even the courtesy of a hearing, not to mention their advice and consent.
3
Totally agree. Democrats must show some backbone on this. Republicans behave (rules, what rules?) as if their actions are critical for the country and tragically when in power their ideas caus pain and suffering for Americans. Damage the country (Great Recession in 2008).
2
The Nytimes decision to give Adam Jentleson, a frm Deputy Chief of Staff to the notoriously partisan Harry Reid and now a Senior Adviser to the Center for American Progress Action Fund - a similarly notorious hard left organization the voice of the Nytimes during this critical week demonstrates just how far left the Times has become. For Democrats to fall on their sword for a qualified nominee is nothing short of stupid. In frustration, the Democrats would only serve Republican objectives by providing the Republicans a clear path to nominating a far more right wing conservative nominee next time up. 20 Democratic Senators or nearly have of the Democrats are up for re-election in two years versus 8 Republicans. 10 Dems are in vulnerable states. It's more than conceivable that the Republicans will control the Senate for the four years of the Trump Presidency. Only far left, pitchfork politicians who think like the Steve Bannons on the left would opt for testing the nuclear button.
1
A vicious bunch of thugs. So callous. So full of hate. Spewing misery and fear. This herd of Republicans will go down in history as would/be destroyers of a once-great nation. We need some national soul-searching the figure out how not to allow this to happen again.
I was happy to see that President Obama is going to turn his attention and considerable gifts to end the gerrymandering that enabled this bunch of low-lifes to take over our country, Bebe ficiaries of the bloodless coup carried out by the republican Supreme Court. Easy to see why this nomination of one of their own makes them willing to rip this country open.
I was happy to see that President Obama is going to turn his attention and considerable gifts to end the gerrymandering that enabled this bunch of low-lifes to take over our country, Bebe ficiaries of the bloodless coup carried out by the republican Supreme Court. Easy to see why this nomination of one of their own makes them willing to rip this country open.
What nonsense. Were the situation reversed, this column would be praising Reid for doing to Supreme Court nominations what he did to Appelate Court nominations - going nuclear. Trump has no obligation to put forward a Justice that the Democrats like. Unless the Democrats think Gorsuch is unqualified (doubtful) they should allow a vote and vote nay.
No, this whole affair is a temper tantrum about Garland. I find it hypocritical that both Biden and Schumer are on the record saying that Presidents should not nominate Justices in their last year in officr, but are now whining about it. Nevermind that the last time a Justice was confirmed to the Supreme Court in the last year of a Predudent's term was 1940.
No, this whole affair is a temper tantrum about Garland. I find it hypocritical that both Biden and Schumer are on the record saying that Presidents should not nominate Justices in their last year in officr, but are now whining about it. Nevermind that the last time a Justice was confirmed to the Supreme Court in the last year of a Predudent's term was 1940.
2
Elimination of the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations would be good for Democrats. For too long Democratic appointments to the Supreme Court were constrained by the 60 vote rule resulting in appointments not necessarily in the mold of C.J. Warren, J. Brennan, J. Black, J. Douglas or others. If the filibuster rule is eliminated then a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress could successfully confirm nominees more in the mold of these proponents of civil rights and civil liberties and adherents of popular government.
1
We're essentially two countries now despite having one constitution. The red states, slave owners, and the blue states, people struggling with their consciences. Slavery was not clearly resolved in our constitution and we all (or some of us) know why.
Not much has changed since the civil war. Let's split into two countries. We'll both move faster to where we want to get.
Not much has changed since the civil war. Let's split into two countries. We'll both move faster to where we want to get.
The slave states were Democrat controlled. Slavery was resolved in the Constitution. I just wanted to clear up those two obvious errors in your post.
and Lincoln is one republican i would have voted for. I was speaking somewhat metaphorically. In case you haven't noticed a lot of blacks still get shot for trying to escape. Granted in the north too.
The whole process of nominating and confirming SCOTUS justices has become a political football. We get super-partisan judges because the stakes are too high: a lifetime appointment which arrives randomly on the death of another justice. Hence the McConnell gambit of 2016 and now his threat in 2017. The filibuster is part of the problem.
We should amend the Constitution to remove the gamesmanship and politics from this process. To wit:
1. Justices are nominated for 18 year terms, with 1 term expiring every 2 years. Justices may serve multiple terms if renominated and successfully re-confirmed.
2. Presidential appointments (of all kinds) must be voted on within, say 120 days, else they stand as confirmed.
3. Votes in the Senate (and House for that matter) are to be majority only, except where constitutionally mandated otherwise.
4. A vote in the Senate (and House) must be taken on any matter where at least 25% of the chambers members petition the chair.
With these changes, each president gets to nominate 2 judges. Court-packing is eliminated. Justices must be accountable for the their work on the court and stand for re-appointment after a sufficiently long term of service to establish their record. The McConnell gambit is gone, and so is the filibuster.
This is the Federal Accountability Amendment, a non-partisan approach that returns power to the voters who elect the president and Senate in the first place. It also holds them accountable for doing their job.
We should amend the Constitution to remove the gamesmanship and politics from this process. To wit:
1. Justices are nominated for 18 year terms, with 1 term expiring every 2 years. Justices may serve multiple terms if renominated and successfully re-confirmed.
2. Presidential appointments (of all kinds) must be voted on within, say 120 days, else they stand as confirmed.
3. Votes in the Senate (and House for that matter) are to be majority only, except where constitutionally mandated otherwise.
4. A vote in the Senate (and House) must be taken on any matter where at least 25% of the chambers members petition the chair.
With these changes, each president gets to nominate 2 judges. Court-packing is eliminated. Justices must be accountable for the their work on the court and stand for re-appointment after a sufficiently long term of service to establish their record. The McConnell gambit is gone, and so is the filibuster.
This is the Federal Accountability Amendment, a non-partisan approach that returns power to the voters who elect the president and Senate in the first place. It also holds them accountable for doing their job.
1
It must be mentioned that this administration is at the moment under investigation by the FBI to see if some of its members colluded with a hostile foreign power to tilt the election to Mr. Trump. Until this investigation has been concluded, and its findings made public, no nominee for the Supreme Court should be considered.
The actual legitimacy of Mr. Trump as president is currently being called into question. That's not a partisan matter, but a matter of national security. For Senator McConnell to "go nuclear" under the present circumstance merely confirms what his conduct for the last eight years has already made clear: he is a Republican first, and an American second.
The actual legitimacy of Mr. Trump as president is currently being called into question. That's not a partisan matter, but a matter of national security. For Senator McConnell to "go nuclear" under the present circumstance merely confirms what his conduct for the last eight years has already made clear: he is a Republican first, and an American second.
3
At this point, the filibuster is serving no one well and should be eliminated - and not just for Supreme Court nominations but legislation as well. The hijacking of both parties by their most extreme elements has presented a situation where no meaningful nomination or legislation will be able to pass muster in the Senate without a super majority, which is highly unlikely for either party in the foreseeable future.
If Mrs. Clinton had become President, it's likely that Mr. Schumer would be the Majority Leader as well and at this very minute putting the finishing touches on a vote to eliminate the filibuster in the face of Republican opposition. We're past the point of no return, and in order for government to function again, we need to enable the majority parties to pursue their agendas. When those agendas fall short, then we can effect change at the ballot box.
If Mrs. Clinton had become President, it's likely that Mr. Schumer would be the Majority Leader as well and at this very minute putting the finishing touches on a vote to eliminate the filibuster in the face of Republican opposition. We're past the point of no return, and in order for government to function again, we need to enable the majority parties to pursue their agendas. When those agendas fall short, then we can effect change at the ballot box.
1
Mr. Jentleson obviously cares little about accountability. The Times would have served its subscribers better to provide two opinions, one pro and one con. There is nothing "principled" in these objections. Every stated objection of "favoring big corporations" over "the little guy" isn't based on an actual reading of the decisions. It is nothing but lazy Senator's parroting DNC talking points designed to smear a jurist. The day of probitive, informative, questions and answers for Supreme Court nominees died when the Democrats, led by the late Sen. Kennedy, ruined the process by denying an otherwise extremely qualified candidate, Judge Robert Bork. He was forthright in his differences of opinion and legal analysis with Sen. Kennedy, but for reasons purely political he was denied a seat. The country would have been better served had the debate been conducted and Judge Bork seated, even if Sen. Kennedy disagreed with him politically. Henceforth, we have reduced the number and quality of our nominees, and indeed our public discourse, to favor candidates with non-controversial opinions and a willingness to "smugly" dodge the questions of the Judiciary Committee. Gorsuch is no different in this regard. Are we nominating thoughtful and courageous Jurists or merely rewarding the plain vanilla supporters of each party? Were we not better served when we had an open and transparent discussion of legal interpretations of the Constitution? Give me debate and reason back.
2
There is nothing honorable or respectable about McConnell. Mendacity and obfuscation are that individuals favorite weapons. Every single action he takes should be opposed. This generations Strom Thurmond should not be allowed the outsized importance he's taken on.
1
Preceding Reid's change in 2013, roughly half (!) of all filibustered nominees occurred between 2009 and 2013. He did it in reaction to unprecedented obstructionism by the GOP. McConnell hopes we forget the chain of events, which preceded the strange refusal to even consider Obama's nominee for this very same seat.
This is a stolen seat. The Dems should stop letting themselves be repeatedly rolled.
This is a stolen seat. The Dems should stop letting themselves be repeatedly rolled.
2
The only reason one would want an end to the filibuster is so that we can use it against the GOP. This can have no long term result other than a circular repetition of beat downs by one party over the other that would result in endless problems for both sides.
And if anyone did not notice: the Democrats are still all about rich person's country club politics; there has been ZERO effort to register voters on a door to door basis such that we could win mid-terms and following elections and make a rules change benefit us. This is of course because if all the little people were registered, they'd likely kick ancient has-beens like Nancy Pelosi to the curb. Retaining power is more important to the Pelosis of the Democrat party than is doing well by our people, the evidence of that is the torpedoing of Sanders, who would have beaten Trump.
Gorsuch is qualified, there is nothing to gain and much to lose with a symbolic effort to prevent his nomination.
And if anyone did not notice: the Democrats are still all about rich person's country club politics; there has been ZERO effort to register voters on a door to door basis such that we could win mid-terms and following elections and make a rules change benefit us. This is of course because if all the little people were registered, they'd likely kick ancient has-beens like Nancy Pelosi to the curb. Retaining power is more important to the Pelosis of the Democrat party than is doing well by our people, the evidence of that is the torpedoing of Sanders, who would have beaten Trump.
Gorsuch is qualified, there is nothing to gain and much to lose with a symbolic effort to prevent his nomination.
Gorsuch is NOT qualified to rule for our citizens. "Frozen Trucker" decision: even if it means death, the corporation is always right. We do not want this man on the court.
1
McConnell and Schumer are two political animals cut from the same cloth and neither deserves the title of "Leader". They came about such a title because they raised a lot of money for their caucus members. Although in Washington that means everything, in the rest of the country, such activity does not a leader make. Leaders have vision. Leaders lead by example. These two are the antithesis of leaders.
1
Schumer is in a position he is forced into--the only power the Dems have is to say No. McConnell CHOSE to do this for the past 9 years. (Yes, they are both politicians--money plays way too big a role all around).
Conservatives have long used the filibuster to block advancement of government policy, much more so than have liberals. The Democrats may as well filibuster, because if McConnell goes nuclear his conservatives will have more to lose in the long run. It's a way the Democrats may salvage some long-term gain from the current situation.
3
Besides several years of obstruction at the expense of the country, McConnell undermined democracy when he failed to give Garland a full hearing and vote. Now, when he wants what he wants, he insists on a higher standard. I learned long ago not to become an accomplice to such people, instead making sure they own it and are held accountable. McConnell chooses to undermine the confidence and credibility of those on the Supreme Court to attain his goal. While there's nothing that can be done to change him, voting against Gorsuch is the honorable thing to do. Even if he gets on the court through the immoral behavior of McConnell, he'll be there because of a manipulation of long-standing tradition. Maybe, just maybe, that'll compel Gorsuch to find service to the country paramount over the personal ideological goals his supporters expect him to pursue.
4
Bad actors like McConnell--and sometimes good ones too--play hard in our political system, pushing it to the breaking point as appears to be the case now in the Senate.
When that happens, clearly there's a lot of smoke and some wreckage, but the opportunity also surfaces to improve government.
Today, lamentably, the prospects of actually seizing that opportunity seem remote...not because of partisan vitriol, but because one party (guess which one!) is on a holy mission to dissolve government rather than improve it. This is not a hostile characterization of what's happening, it's simply what they say they're doing.
In such circumstances, how does it make sense to leave control of the rules of play to the party bent on destroying the game?
Though the irony is supreme, this is how we actively tear down our institutions in the way bemoaned by Justice Clarence Thomas.
When that happens, clearly there's a lot of smoke and some wreckage, but the opportunity also surfaces to improve government.
Today, lamentably, the prospects of actually seizing that opportunity seem remote...not because of partisan vitriol, but because one party (guess which one!) is on a holy mission to dissolve government rather than improve it. This is not a hostile characterization of what's happening, it's simply what they say they're doing.
In such circumstances, how does it make sense to leave control of the rules of play to the party bent on destroying the game?
Though the irony is supreme, this is how we actively tear down our institutions in the way bemoaned by Justice Clarence Thomas.
2
More so than any other person in the Republican Party, Mitch McConnell has carried the flag of partisanship beyond all sense of fairness. Who can forget his most memorable comment just days (or hours?) after President Obama was sworn in for his first term: My job is to make sure President Obama is not elected for a second term.
What should have been pointed out in the article is that when the democrats invoked the nuclear option, it was to fill over a 120 federal judgeships that remained vacant because of McConnell's effort to thwart appointments by a Democratic President. And his refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing put an exclamation point on these actions, as well.
What should have been pointed out in the article is that when the democrats invoked the nuclear option, it was to fill over a 120 federal judgeships that remained vacant because of McConnell's effort to thwart appointments by a Democratic President. And his refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing put an exclamation point on these actions, as well.
9
Make them use the nuclear option or they will win every major vote by threatening to use it. The filibuster is an undemocratic rule, anyhow. Gorsuch may be reasoned and thoughtful but so was Merrick Garland and the Republicans had no problem blocking him.
Gorsuch's philosophy is too far to the right for him to serve on the Supreme Court. We can tell by his decisions. Scalia severely damaged the country by giving us Citizens United. We cannot let Gorsuch get confirmed. We don't need any more conservative justices.
Gorsuch's philosophy is too far to the right for him to serve on the Supreme Court. We can tell by his decisions. Scalia severely damaged the country by giving us Citizens United. We cannot let Gorsuch get confirmed. We don't need any more conservative justices.
Mitch McConnell, is a genius. He did nothing illegal, and he exposed the flaws in the Constitution of how elected officials should behave. Clearly the Constitution should say explicitly the last day in a Presidential term a Supreme Court judge can be nominated. (It doesn't) Mitch McConnell exploited that omission.
McConnell uses, without any reservation, every legal means to further his parties agenda. It's contemptible but not illegal. The Constitution should be amended. The Congress in power can block, really, any nominee of an opposite party using any lame excuse. It never says that Congress should act in an honorable way.
Yes, let's all think about it. McConnell is a legislative genius, and the Constitution is a flawed instrument written by slave owners. We could fix it, but because of McConnell, and people like him, it will never happen.
McConnell uses, without any reservation, every legal means to further his parties agenda. It's contemptible but not illegal. The Constitution should be amended. The Congress in power can block, really, any nominee of an opposite party using any lame excuse. It never says that Congress should act in an honorable way.
Yes, let's all think about it. McConnell is a legislative genius, and the Constitution is a flawed instrument written by slave owners. We could fix it, but because of McConnell, and people like him, it will never happen.
39
Never say never. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ;-)
The Kentucky, which has continued to inflict McConnell on the nation, has a total population of just under 4.5 million, or about half that of New York City. Yet he single-handedly virtually controls the federal government. We call that democracy. I call it absurd.
21
We are still paying for the compromises of our Constitution, 230 years later. Tiny red states send 2 gun-toting bible-thumping senators each to the senate, the same as California. So the Senate will never look like the population until Global Warming turns the Redneck Riviera into a sea, or Kentucky wakes up to the fact that it is the biggest beneficiary of Obamacare on the planet, even if its citizens still don't know that the ACA is the official name for it.
Sentiments that no doubt will be changed when the same post is occupied by a Senator from NC, or NY.
The argument that Democrats should hold their fire and not use the filibuster this time so to save it for the next nominee does not hold water given McConnell's total disregard for appearances. If McConnell is willing to use the nuclear option now nothing will prevent him from using the nuclear option next time. Schumer, as minority leader, needs to articulate in detail the reasons why he supports a filibuster and then let McConnell take the plunge. May as well be now rather than with the next nominee.
19
The three Democratic Senators that approved this Radical Conservative Justice, represent States that voted for Trump.The Democrats would rather have them reelected than lose these three Senate seats.As President Johnson said, “It’s nothing personal ,It’s just Politics.The Republicans have us by our reproductive organs.
6
Gorsuch is a "Radical Conservative Justice"? Get a grip there, Ultraliberal.
dennis,
Let me put it another way.Gorsuch is a reactionary theocrat , like Saclia, & like Scalia will make his decisions based on his religion , not the constitution.
Let me put it another way.Gorsuch is a reactionary theocrat , like Saclia, & like Scalia will make his decisions based on his religion , not the constitution.
1
Senator McConnell and his party have forgotten that politics is the art of compromise with the goal of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. History will show his and his party's behavior and ethics to be dishonorable, disgraceful and mean spirited.
For what shall it profit {them}, if (they) gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of (their) soul?
For what shall it profit {them}, if (they) gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of (their) soul?
2
Let he without sin cast the first stone. Harry Reid? C'mon man? Hows his real estate by the highway to nowhere in Nevada doing?
It was not Russia, Comey the private email server or Benghazi that gave the election to Trump but Mitch McConnell who saw that conservatives, primarily anti-abortion Evangelicals and Catholics, would vote for anyone, no matter how bad they might be in other ways, who would appoint a Supreme Court Justice who was likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and support so-called "religious liberty" and other conservative causes. As despicable as McConnell's behavior was and continues to be, I have to give him credit. He was the one who put Trump in the White House. That he would blame Democrats for his own bad behavior is the least of his transgressions.
2
Another "big man" fallacy of the kind that elects the Donald Trumps and Barack Obama's of this world.
It is very simple. McConnell and the 2016 Republican senate majority made their ruling, which was unconstitutional by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, by not considering President Obama's nominee Judge Garland. Now McConnell can't expect the Democratic minority to just say we want to play nice and go along with your political game. McConnell began this round of political Russian roulette and the Republicans in the senate will have their turn at objecting to the nuclear option if they remove the filibuster. Judge Gorsuch should be filibustered, because he was nominated for Judge Garlands seat on the Supreme Court. McConnell started this and he will be responsible for the consequences.
6
The nuclear option might prove to be a temporary thorn in the side of Democrats, but it would be far more of fatal self-inflicted wound for the party of Lincoln. Eventually an unimpeded pendulum will swing to the left, and when it does it is obvious from the opinions in Garland v. Gorsuch that those who would prefer to storm the Bastille will instead be content to inflict casualties in the voting booth when the time comes.
5
Of course, by the time that the pendulum swings back to the Left it is quite possible that the Right will have placed 6-7 judges on the Court. Elections have consequences (I recall someone said that quite recently - 2008, I believe) and this one will be felt for a very long time.
1
Well, the Dems will have the opportunity to fix things in about 30-40 years when Roberts, Gorsuch, and Thomas leave the bench
1
McConnell has already exercised the so-called nuclear option, simply by making the threat. What will ensue will be nothing more than theatre.
9
McConnell hopes people haven't been paying attention.
6
To most of us in America, McConnell has lost any shred of credibility. His eight year personal and destructive vendetta against a twice popularly elected president qualifies him for the most despicable Republican in Congress--quite a feat with so many possible candidates!
17
Mitch Mcconnell has always been a narrow minded, self centered and a extremely parochial political hack. He introduced the word uncivil into the senate lexicon and fostered a partisan split that changed the senate forever.
For a person that refused to sit in the same room as a democratic senator prior to apprear before a tv show he is one of the most undemocratic, insular republican politicians. His everlasting legacy will be the destruction of civil discourse within American politics burdened by implementing policies facilitating his obeisance to his 1% political masters.
For a person that refused to sit in the same room as a democratic senator prior to apprear before a tv show he is one of the most undemocratic, insular republican politicians. His everlasting legacy will be the destruction of civil discourse within American politics burdened by implementing policies facilitating his obeisance to his 1% political masters.
17
We should call the Democratic effort to block the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for what it is, a “naked attempt to nullify the results of the last Presidential election.” After all, that’s what Senator Elizabeth Warren called Republican efforts to block Democratic judicial nominees in 2013.
1
"We should call the Democratic effort to block the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for what it is, a “naked attempt to nullify the results of the last Presidential election.” .....Merrick Garland, a highly qualified moderate, was not even given a hearing by the Republican Senate, an act which was almost certainly a violation of the Constitution; and it very definitely and effectively denied a duly elected President the right to appoint a member of the Supreme Court. Now let's have a conversation on how we should best correct that obviously partisan Republican violation and move forward.
I do not know about Judge Garland's qualifications, but I totally agree that he should have received a hearing. The partisanship and hypocrisy exhibited by many Democrats and Republicans since 2008 is a disgrace and is inconsistent with the values that made this country great.
I wish I had some ideas on how to change this. As it stands right now, I am supporting the "No Labels" effort (www.nolabels.org), which is trying to organize middle-of-the-road Democrats and Republicans to solve real problems. My hope is that this effort might pull together like-minded centrists who are unhappy with the current climate of extreme partisanship and hypocrisy.
I wish I had some ideas on how to change this. As it stands right now, I am supporting the "No Labels" effort (www.nolabels.org), which is trying to organize middle-of-the-road Democrats and Republicans to solve real problems. My hope is that this effort might pull together like-minded centrists who are unhappy with the current climate of extreme partisanship and hypocrisy.
If you can't filibuster a nominee who hasn't answered your questions without "forcing" the majority party to go nuclear, then the filibuster has been eliminated already.
Gorsuch's nomination should not be allowed to come to a vote for 293 days -- the amount of time Garland had to wait before his nomination expired without a vote at all.
Gorsuch's nomination should not be allowed to come to a vote for 293 days -- the amount of time Garland had to wait before his nomination expired without a vote at all.
7
I believe the Democrats, for once, must do something other than another one of those "Don't-do-that-again" responses they've been doing for years. McConnell violated norms when he would not let a sitting President's pick for the SCOTUS even have a hearing, much less a vote. For years, Democrats have been bringing knives to political gunfights, trusting in process in dealing with a Republican opposition which, at least since Gingrich, is bent on destroying people rather than compromise.
Regardless whether or not McConnell invokes the nuclear option, he might finally learn that what goes around comes around and that his ham-fisted strategy of making a permanent "Scalia seat" on the court has enormous political costs.
It is true that Harry Reid started it but he was careful to leave the SCOTUS alone. Reid had no other option in order to fill lower court seats, since McConnell had declared the GOP would pass no Presidential picks for district and appellate courts. That's no way to be a legislator.
Regardless whether or not McConnell invokes the nuclear option, he might finally learn that what goes around comes around and that his ham-fisted strategy of making a permanent "Scalia seat" on the court has enormous political costs.
It is true that Harry Reid started it but he was careful to leave the SCOTUS alone. Reid had no other option in order to fill lower court seats, since McConnell had declared the GOP would pass no Presidential picks for district and appellate courts. That's no way to be a legislator.
2
Democratic Senators should embrace the courage of their convictions and respect the constituents who put them into office rather than bow their heads to this vituperative, little man who, after all, is merely 1 of 2 Senators from a state ranking 26th in population. Why should he hold this power over the rest of the country?
6
No president under investigation by the FBI and Congress for suspected collusion with a hostile foreign power should be allowed to pick a Supreme Court justice while these investigations are in progress. And Congress has no right to consider such nominations while the investigations are in progress. Leaving aside that this seat on the court should have been filled by the previous president, and that this nominee is so far right of the mainstream one of his rulings favored a corporation over a trucker at risk of freezing to death. And if Mitch MCConnell invokes the nuclear option Gorsuch will be forever stained by occupying a "stolen seat" on the Supreme Court.
6
Call me partisan, but I believe there is a nominee who deserves a hearing and an "up or down" vote ahead of Gorsuch, and that is Merrick Garland. If the Republicans want to bring him up and vote him down, fine. But he was legitimately nominated and illegitimately denied a hearing and vote.
5
More felonious behavior from Mitch McConnell and the Republicans.
4
It's discouraging to read so many comments proposing that democrats try to make a deal with republicans in the house or senate. Bargaining from a position of weakness when the other party has broken all the "rules" designed to facilitate bipartisan compromise and have expressed contempt for them is a foundation of sand. We now need to be the party of "No". With perhaps rare exception, democrats need to resist, not participate. Thankfully the number of democrat politicians in name only is so much lower - they never kept faith with the rest of us.
3
As much as I loathe MM and his tactics, he perfected what Gingrich attempted, the disruption of any democratic agenda , I have to admit his way of ( not) governing has been a success. I fear he will be successful in his use of the nuclear option and blaming the democrats for the obstruction.
His tactics have worked well all through the Obama years and he probably see's no reason to change.
The Republicans - MM particularly - robbed a seat on the Supreme Court without much cost to them, indeed they now have all three housed of government. They have succeeded in clearing the path to the destruction of the Nation's soul as we ( democrats, liberals and progressives ) know it. Why should he change now?
Trump, McConnell, Pence, and Ryan - dystopian visons for a dystopian world - and they are succeeding in it. Slowly and methodically to the detriment of America.
His tactics have worked well all through the Obama years and he probably see's no reason to change.
The Republicans - MM particularly - robbed a seat on the Supreme Court without much cost to them, indeed they now have all three housed of government. They have succeeded in clearing the path to the destruction of the Nation's soul as we ( democrats, liberals and progressives ) know it. Why should he change now?
Trump, McConnell, Pence, and Ryan - dystopian visons for a dystopian world - and they are succeeding in it. Slowly and methodically to the detriment of America.
5
Garland was nominated by Obama on March 3, 2016 and his nomination expired 293 days later - almost a year - the longest nomination without action on record.
The definition of a lame duck President is one who sits after the election (Nov. 9, 2016) until the inauguration of the newly elected President (Jan 20, 2017).
In early March, President Obama was the clear choice of the people, firmly in the early stretch of the fourth year of his second four year term, which he won soundly by the clear popular vote. He held all the rights and responsibilities, one of which was to fill any vacancies in the SC occurring during his Presidency.
Scalia died February 13, 2016 and after a reasonable time, Obama named a moderate centrist, not a screaming liberal, to take his place.
Republicans labeled Obama a "lame duck", and no longer the "people's choice" treated Garland reprehensibly - not even opening their office doors to have a one on one meeting with him - literally leaving him in the hallway - a respected and eminently qualified jurist, every bit as much as Gorsuch.
And the party was so craven as to say, McCain even, when they thought Hillary would win, that even if she were the "people's choice" at the ballot box they would never have a vote for any nominee put forth by a Democratic President - name and qualifications unknown - sedition in action.
That is the backdrop - in case you forgot - against which they cry partisanship at Democrats for not voting for their candidate.
The definition of a lame duck President is one who sits after the election (Nov. 9, 2016) until the inauguration of the newly elected President (Jan 20, 2017).
In early March, President Obama was the clear choice of the people, firmly in the early stretch of the fourth year of his second four year term, which he won soundly by the clear popular vote. He held all the rights and responsibilities, one of which was to fill any vacancies in the SC occurring during his Presidency.
Scalia died February 13, 2016 and after a reasonable time, Obama named a moderate centrist, not a screaming liberal, to take his place.
Republicans labeled Obama a "lame duck", and no longer the "people's choice" treated Garland reprehensibly - not even opening their office doors to have a one on one meeting with him - literally leaving him in the hallway - a respected and eminently qualified jurist, every bit as much as Gorsuch.
And the party was so craven as to say, McCain even, when they thought Hillary would win, that even if she were the "people's choice" at the ballot box they would never have a vote for any nominee put forth by a Democratic President - name and qualifications unknown - sedition in action.
That is the backdrop - in case you forgot - against which they cry partisanship at Democrats for not voting for their candidate.
10
I am SO tired of Mitchell McConnell's victim mentality, as well as his ability to get supporters to buy into it. For a man who has no ethics or morals, and has taken the low road these past nine years, and has proudly been the poster child (not man) for the nonproductive Party of No for 10+ years it takes an incredible lot of nerve, deception and arrogance to blame Democrats if the Republican Party changes long standing rules to get a wolf in sheep's clothing candidate like Gorsuch confirmed as a new justice. The Citizen's United will become even more destructive to our democracy (such as it is now) and people's personal rights will be replaced by corporate rights, after all, corporations are just people.
Mitch reminds me of the person who was on trial for murdering his parents, and then threw himself at the mercy of the court by claiming he was an orphan. McConnell brought this impass upon himself by singlehandedly blocking any consideration of equally qualified Garland, so what this incident does for me is to cement my belief that Mitch is a sniveling weasel who has NO right to be the majority leader.
Mitch reminds me of the person who was on trial for murdering his parents, and then threw himself at the mercy of the court by claiming he was an orphan. McConnell brought this impass upon himself by singlehandedly blocking any consideration of equally qualified Garland, so what this incident does for me is to cement my belief that Mitch is a sniveling weasel who has NO right to be the majority leader.
4
I don't care how qualified and reasonable Judge Gorsuch is - THIS IS A STOLEN SUPREME COURT SEAT. Democrats should boycott the entire process.
Trump is NOT my president, and Gorsuch will NOT be a legitimate Supreme Court Justice.
Trump is NOT my president, and Gorsuch will NOT be a legitimate Supreme Court Justice.
4
100% agree.
Let them be nuclear.
They broke the tradition last year and now they own all of it.
Let them be nuclear.
They broke the tradition last year and now they own all of it.
3
The Democrats will cave, they always have, they always will. Until the Bernie Sanders - Elizabeth Warren wing of the party take full control nothing will change. Corporatist interests and big money still control the Democrats, and most senator's only care about their own self-interest, re-election. If you expect the Democratic Senate to grow a spine don't hold your breath.
2
The seat wasn't Scalia's, nor is it McConnell's. It's a stolen one, one that was President Obama's to fill. Due to McConnell's game playing he didn't to fill it. I hope the Democrat filibuster and keep Trump's pick off the bench. One because of his ruling on the frozen trucker case and two because it is a stolen seat.
6
McConnell is a radical and a hypocrite and a liar, and that is no secret. However, the nuclear option requires only a majority vote to be effected. Do three Republicans have the courage to vote against it, not because they favor Gorsuch but because they simply are in favor of retaining the 60 vote requirement? McConnell is no doubt the leader, but if there are not three Republicans with such courage, then all of them are radicals and hypocrites and liars.
3
Congress is a deeply divided body.
We have the Tea Party and its heirs on the right, the ultra liberal "progressives on the left , and the moderates of both parties stuck in the middle.
With each set to vote on their segments beliefs to the exclusion of whatever the other segments are going to do then what's left to the party in power is to push it most generally acceptable views, within their own party, down the throats of the other side.
How did Justices Ginsberg, Thomas, Allito, Soto Mayor, & Scalia get nominated each having strong diverse opinions from the right and the left?
Crossover votes existed to nominate each of them but time and crossover voting have moved on. Republicans voted "Never Obama" with Garland and now Democrats are voting "never Trump" with Gorsuch. Each side brings up a rule or understanding of the Senate that can't be violated and then proceeds to violate it.
Even within each party one faction will block the efforts of another faction. This is no way to govern.
This op-ed piece is more fuel to the fire consuming our gov't. Will 8 reasonable Democrats understand that the governing requires compromise?
Democrats say repubs blocked Garland, I'm justified in blocking Gorsuch even if he is qualified. Each action evokes an equal and opposite reaction.
What if the action was compromise? Might not the equal reaction by the other side be compromise? I think not since no side will start the compromise yields compromise action.
We have the Tea Party and its heirs on the right, the ultra liberal "progressives on the left , and the moderates of both parties stuck in the middle.
With each set to vote on their segments beliefs to the exclusion of whatever the other segments are going to do then what's left to the party in power is to push it most generally acceptable views, within their own party, down the throats of the other side.
How did Justices Ginsberg, Thomas, Allito, Soto Mayor, & Scalia get nominated each having strong diverse opinions from the right and the left?
Crossover votes existed to nominate each of them but time and crossover voting have moved on. Republicans voted "Never Obama" with Garland and now Democrats are voting "never Trump" with Gorsuch. Each side brings up a rule or understanding of the Senate that can't be violated and then proceeds to violate it.
Even within each party one faction will block the efforts of another faction. This is no way to govern.
This op-ed piece is more fuel to the fire consuming our gov't. Will 8 reasonable Democrats understand that the governing requires compromise?
Democrats say repubs blocked Garland, I'm justified in blocking Gorsuch even if he is qualified. Each action evokes an equal and opposite reaction.
What if the action was compromise? Might not the equal reaction by the other side be compromise? I think not since no side will start the compromise yields compromise action.
As Republicans get "exposed" again and again, what kind of victory is this? They keep winning time after time using scorched earth tactics and eventually the impression must begin to grow that they are basically seizing government for good. You don't think they already have a plan to win in 2018? Enough voter suppression, enough gerrymandering, enough changing of the rules, enough gaming the system, enough out and out cheating, enough one-sided Supreme Court decisions, and they will win and win, again and again. Someone somewhere sometime must realize this is full-scale war. Soon it will take something pretty drastic to oust the Republicans.
How do Republicans have the nerve to threaten the nuclear option for Gorsuch's confirmation when they gleefully sat on Garland's? Irony is not just dead, it seems to be extinct.
2
one thing that has happened because of this ruckus is that "nuclear" is, at last. being pronounced correctly...
and...wait a minute!
didn't all this nuclear blather originate with democrats, who've actually dropped a few on executive appointments and lower court hearings?
and...wait a minute!
didn't all this nuclear blather originate with democrats, who've actually dropped a few on executive appointments and lower court hearings?
Harry Reid started this when he had the rules changed. Now the Republicans want to finish what he started. What is the problem? Politics and hypocrisy. Let's be done with the filibuster once and for all.
"Harry Reid started this when he had the rules changed"....How many times can Republicans use the filibuster to block judicial appointments before you consider it to be an abuse? At least in this case the Democrats have a legitimate argument that the prior Merrick Garland appointment was not dealt with in accordance to the Constitution.
I say McConnell should let the dems filibuster for two weeks, maybe longer. Let all of America watch as the crybabies in the senate pout and show their true colors. The democrats truly are in the wilderness. Why help them out by forcing their hand on Gorsuch?
How about they filibuster for 11 months, which is how long the Republicans denied the Constitutional requirement to give a hearing to Merrick Garland, who by any measure was a judicial moderate.
I was marveling at the lopsided and partisan hyperbole of this piece until I saw the author worked for Harry Reid.
1
I could not disagree with judge Gorsuch on most
issues, but he is eminently qualified, both in terms of education,experience and temperament,
to serve on the Supreme Court.
what are the odds of this president giving us any
better of a nominee?
what was done to judge Garland was a disgrace,
but this is not the judge on whom to seek revenge.
issues, but he is eminently qualified, both in terms of education,experience and temperament,
to serve on the Supreme Court.
what are the odds of this president giving us any
better of a nominee?
what was done to judge Garland was a disgrace,
but this is not the judge on whom to seek revenge.
4
the first line should read :I could not disagree more with judge Gorsuch....
Mitch McConnell's history is clear: He is a partisan of the worst order. Just take a look back at history when in 2008, the country and the world was facing economic collapse on a scale that would exceed the Great Depression of the 1930s. What did he do? Well, he decided to play SUPREME OBSTRUCTIONIST to the newly elected president, Barack Obama at a critical time when the nation desperately needed an "all hands on deck" type of cooperation to avoid a total collapse of our financial institutions on a worldwide scale.
He is a "Party First" and "Country Second" type of politician.
He is a "Party First" and "Country Second" type of politician.
3
Mr. Jentleson, you write, "If Senator McConnell blows up Senate rules to jam through President Trump’s nominee, he will be exposed as the radical that he truly is." The exposure has already taken place. He may be a Republican hero but in actuality, he is deplorable. His in-your-face attack of President Obama has earned him the scorn and probably well deserved hate of many Americans.
His departure from politics can't happen soon enough.
His departure from politics can't happen soon enough.
3
McConnell pretending to believe in institutionalism is such a joke... from his infamous declaration that he would do everything in his power to make Obama a one term president, a gambit he attempted by indeed abusing the institution he professes to cherish... to using the institution to block myriad Obama judicial and executive appointments for no cause, to the farce keeping Merrick Garland from a Senate vote for a year. There is no doubt who is abusing the institution of the Senate and that is McConnell and the republicans. The only people that can be fooled otherwise is the 35% or so of the public that mysteriously cling to their support of the Trump administration.
2
Hats off to Harry Reid for fatally wounding the traditional, obstructionist filibuster. It is now only a matter of time, perhaps this week, until the Senate follows through with Supreme Court confirmations, and eventually, legislation as well.
However, the Senate needn't abase itself to the level of the House by simply allowing confirmations and bills to be ramrodded through with a majority vote via the Reid Rule. A middle ground would be to require 60% for immediate passage. Any confirmation or bill that had less support on the first vote would, on the request of one or more dissenting Senators, be automatically tabled for say two weeks until a final, majority rule vote is taken.
Under this middle path, which I have called the "mullibuster", Senators would have extra time to mull over controversial measures off the floor. They, their staffs, journalists, and the blogosphere would have time to actually read testimonies and bills and to drum up support or opposition back home.
For details, see my recent post, "The Mullibuster Option," on The Beacon, the blog of the Independent Institute, at http://blog.independent.org/2017/03/12/the-mullibuster-option/
However, the Senate needn't abase itself to the level of the House by simply allowing confirmations and bills to be ramrodded through with a majority vote via the Reid Rule. A middle ground would be to require 60% for immediate passage. Any confirmation or bill that had less support on the first vote would, on the request of one or more dissenting Senators, be automatically tabled for say two weeks until a final, majority rule vote is taken.
Under this middle path, which I have called the "mullibuster", Senators would have extra time to mull over controversial measures off the floor. They, their staffs, journalists, and the blogosphere would have time to actually read testimonies and bills and to drum up support or opposition back home.
For details, see my recent post, "The Mullibuster Option," on The Beacon, the blog of the Independent Institute, at http://blog.independent.org/2017/03/12/the-mullibuster-option/
2
Mitch McConnell is a name that should go down in infamy in national politics. Here is a man who when the country (and the rest of the civilized world) was on the verge of near total economic collapse at the end of the infamous Bush-Cheney presidency in 2008, chose to become a complete obstructionist in the face of near total economic collapse on a worldwide scale.
Let me remind you of the specifics that were threatening a worldwide depression on a scale that we haven't seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Remember that it was McConnell and his wife, Elaine Chao, former Secretary of Labor under George W Bush, and who was the chairwoman of an important financial committee convened to provide formal acceptance of "credit derivatives" as a new and legitimate investment instrument, which would ultimately play a significant role in the near total collapse of the world's economy.
She, along with her husband, pushed hard for the formal institutionalization of "mortgage-backed securities" as an acceptable form of insurance against financial failure. This effort alone was responsible for the near total collapse of the world's financial institutions.
Remember, at the time, that just about anyone could get a mortgage, whether they could afford it or not, due to these new "mortgage-backed securities". (In the end, it was just worthless paper.)
Thank heaven that it was President Obama who guided us through this financial fog despite McConnell's obstructionist's tactics.
Let me remind you of the specifics that were threatening a worldwide depression on a scale that we haven't seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Remember that it was McConnell and his wife, Elaine Chao, former Secretary of Labor under George W Bush, and who was the chairwoman of an important financial committee convened to provide formal acceptance of "credit derivatives" as a new and legitimate investment instrument, which would ultimately play a significant role in the near total collapse of the world's economy.
She, along with her husband, pushed hard for the formal institutionalization of "mortgage-backed securities" as an acceptable form of insurance against financial failure. This effort alone was responsible for the near total collapse of the world's financial institutions.
Remember, at the time, that just about anyone could get a mortgage, whether they could afford it or not, due to these new "mortgage-backed securities". (In the end, it was just worthless paper.)
Thank heaven that it was President Obama who guided us through this financial fog despite McConnell's obstructionist's tactics.
2
I certainly hope all Democratic Senators move forward with the filibuster, otherwise the voting public will go nuclear on them in 2018 and 2020. Draining the swamp in Washington is going to take on a completely new meaning if Democrats allow this socalled Originalist judge to gain a lifetime seat on the court. Seat Garland and then we will talk.
3
I could be wrong, by why not let them have their ultra-rightwing judge this time, and save the filibuster for when the majority is on the line?
The filibuster may be dead already, but if its not, then its the only thing left to prevent one-party rule.
What is the thinking here? That Republicans are unable to govern, so it won't matter that they can steamroll the opposition?
Because who cares about who's to blame for killing the filibuster once its forever?
The filibuster may be dead already, but if its not, then its the only thing left to prevent one-party rule.
What is the thinking here? That Republicans are unable to govern, so it won't matter that they can steamroll the opposition?
Because who cares about who's to blame for killing the filibuster once its forever?
This idea of republicans doing something because the democrats or did it first, vice versa, reminds me of Monty Python and The Holy Grail, “Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who”. At some point the governing of a nation must take priority above getting even for real or imagined slights of the past. From what I’ve seen and read in the news the democrats seem to be willing to work with republicans govern.
It’s the republicans drunk on power having both Houses of Congress and the White House that can’t seem to get their act together. It’s like an out of control frat party. There is no unifying voice behind the party and everyone is arguing about what drinking game to play next. As evident from their dismal showing on the repeal and replace of the ACA. After seven years of ranting and raving about the ACA they had their chance to finally do something about it. But when it’s time for the rubber to meet the road nothing happened. It’s not as if the vote failed to pass, it’s even worse than that, the vote never actually happened.
I only hope American’s are watching and will remember this dysfunction when it comes time for re-election. The idea that there has to be a winner and a looser, and that compromise is weakness is destroying any chances that our elected officials will actually be able to govern. We have to move past the party polarization, the petty arguments and revenge seeking and work together for the betterment of the three hundred million plus Americans.
It’s the republicans drunk on power having both Houses of Congress and the White House that can’t seem to get their act together. It’s like an out of control frat party. There is no unifying voice behind the party and everyone is arguing about what drinking game to play next. As evident from their dismal showing on the repeal and replace of the ACA. After seven years of ranting and raving about the ACA they had their chance to finally do something about it. But when it’s time for the rubber to meet the road nothing happened. It’s not as if the vote failed to pass, it’s even worse than that, the vote never actually happened.
I only hope American’s are watching and will remember this dysfunction when it comes time for re-election. The idea that there has to be a winner and a looser, and that compromise is weakness is destroying any chances that our elected officials will actually be able to govern. We have to move past the party polarization, the petty arguments and revenge seeking and work together for the betterment of the three hundred million plus Americans.
1
Great piece; using the plot of Gaslight to describe modern Republican tyranny is brilliant. We don't nominate someone for office that he will hold for 40 years based on manners or tongue in cheek lies which have no basis in fact. Beyond the fact that Gorsuch has been endorsed by a man who has let the monsters in and who will be gone very soon, there is a record of evidence which clearly show Gorsuch's record on civil rights to be dismal. Democracy must be preserved. Block this nomination no matter how, where or when. For the sake of our humanity, block it.
1
A few more red state Dems backing Gorsuch, and all this is moot.
Schumer would then rather save the filibuster than defeat Gorsuch. He'll even let a few more red state Dems flip, to make 60.
Schumer would then rather save the filibuster than defeat Gorsuch. He'll even let a few more red state Dems flip, to make 60.
McConnell is the poster child for term limits in the Senate. Behind Trump, he is the most dangerous person in the US government. The good people of Kentucky would do their fellow American citizens well to run him out of office.
1
It's widely reported that the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society supplied Trump with a list of acceptable names. When Trump introduced Gorsuch he lied when he said that after reading his opinions...HA! I couldn't stop laughing at that lie. He didn't read anything because he couldn't care less.
I actually think he looked at photographs of the candidates and decided who to choose based on if they looked like a Supreme Court justice.
I truly think it was as shallow as that.
I actually think he looked at photographs of the candidates and decided who to choose based on if they looked like a Supreme Court justice.
I truly think it was as shallow as that.
Judge Gorsuch is an eminently qualified candidate for the Supreme Court.
Allowing the Democrats to obstruct his nomination on narrow, partisan grounds would mean that no nominee for the SCOTUS likely to be put forward by the Republicans would be acceptable now or in the future.
These same Democrats who recoil today in horror at the diminution of the Filibuster Rule were the same ones who voted for Harry Reid's eliminating it for nominations to the lower courts and cabinet posts in 2013.
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
Allowing the Democrats to obstruct his nomination on narrow, partisan grounds would mean that no nominee for the SCOTUS likely to be put forward by the Republicans would be acceptable now or in the future.
These same Democrats who recoil today in horror at the diminution of the Filibuster Rule were the same ones who voted for Harry Reid's eliminating it for nominations to the lower courts and cabinet posts in 2013.
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
3
Bush's judge appointments to the DC Court were blocked in Congress. Then when Obama got sworn in Reid went nuclear and the Democrats quickly packed the DC Court with four new justices. FOUR...not one like we have in SCOTUS today. The DC Court is the second highest court in the nation and it went from 6 Republicans/3 Democrats to 6R's/7D's because Obama was able to immediately pack the court with his people when he took office...with the help of the nuclear option.
Anyone complaining now about Gorsuch and thinking that somehow this isn't fair is living in their own liberal universe.
Anyone complaining now about Gorsuch and thinking that somehow this isn't fair is living in their own liberal universe.
1
Schumer should have said on Sunday shows that McConnell stands to make the SC illegitimate by letting Gorsuch sit on the court. Personally, I would not consider SC to be a legitimate body with Gorsuch on the court.
Dems have played this very bad and it is going to hurt them with the base. I am very close to leaving the Dem party. They let Republicans run over them repeatedly. Dems have not figured something out that Republicans consistently get rewarded by destroying the country. And Dems get punished for trying to save the country. Go figure.
Dems have played this very bad and it is going to hurt them with the base. I am very close to leaving the Dem party. They let Republicans run over them repeatedly. Dems have not figured something out that Republicans consistently get rewarded by destroying the country. And Dems get punished for trying to save the country. Go figure.
"Senate Republicans are attempting the same scheme on their Democratic counterparts, trying to convince them and the rest of the world that if Republicans invoke what’s known as the nuclear option to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch as a Supreme Court justice, it would be the Democrats who were responsible — not the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, the man who would pull the trigger."
Terrorists use the same line of reasoning as justification for their acts of violence. Those who engage in abuse of spouses and children also cleave to such misguided logic.
Terrorists use the same line of reasoning as justification for their acts of violence. Those who engage in abuse of spouses and children also cleave to such misguided logic.
Well said. McConnell is one of the reasons the country now enjoys a White House whose theme song is "Send in the Clowns."
There is no credible reason to oppose Gorsuch. The only reason the Democrats have taken the nation hostage is that they have declared themselves entitled to limitless power, despite the American People giving President Trump a landslide mandate to drain the swamp
A tactic of the true rulers is to divide and conquer.
Bannon's Imperfect Vessel slipped in through the back door of the Electoral "College" and thinks he's running things, while Bannon and folks like McConnell--both among the wealthiest people in the country--are busy, each in his own way, pitting Americans against each other and deconstructing the institutions of democratic government to allow the ravening rich free rein to loot America as Putin has Russia. No pesky regulations for them! The Imperfect Vessel doesn't know it yet, but he's the useful idiot and future scapegoat.
Democrats in Congress must stand united against the triumph of their evil.
Bannon's Imperfect Vessel slipped in through the back door of the Electoral "College" and thinks he's running things, while Bannon and folks like McConnell--both among the wealthiest people in the country--are busy, each in his own way, pitting Americans against each other and deconstructing the institutions of democratic government to allow the ravening rich free rein to loot America as Putin has Russia. No pesky regulations for them! The Imperfect Vessel doesn't know it yet, but he's the useful idiot and future scapegoat.
Democrats in Congress must stand united against the triumph of their evil.
2
It's not going to be so funny then the Republicans go nuclear, get Gorsuch on the court, then in the next couple years one or more of the other justices retire or die: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 84), Stephen Breyer (age 78) or Anthony Kennedy (age 80). Then the Republicans can just nominate whoever they want, basically unopposed.
As usual, the Dems shortsightedness will come back to shoot themselves in the foot.
As usual, the Dems shortsightedness will come back to shoot themselves in the foot.
1
Get out and vote in 2018 so we can regain control of Congress. That is the only way to combat this. Just because Gorsuch will most likely be confirmed is no reason to lie down like sheep. Corporations and others who like the citizens will be happy about Gorsuch joining the court, but the majority of us oppose his ascension to the court.
Gas-lighting is a term used for when a psychopath/sociopath cons a victim.
Gorsuch is an illegitimate nominee and the Democrats should oppose him whether than can win or not. There is no playing nice with McConnell or Grassley. Both are liars who have invented a false history to justify their behavior, and show no indication of changing their behavior any time in the future. Evangelicals who hope to erode Roe v Wade have sacrificed their moral authority by tolerating this false witness.
This position will forever be remembered as the Garland Seat. Any GOP senator that does not speak out in opposition to this theft should remember that when the GOP is no longer in the majority. What goes around comes around. Democrats are angry and wont forget.
Trump voters should remember that it was the GOP who put this guy in his seat when he rules in favor of corporations at the expense of the average worker. Gorsuch will outsource more jobs, suppress more incomes and reduce safety in more workplaces by virtue of his decisions than any one corporation could ever do.
This position will forever be remembered as the Garland Seat. Any GOP senator that does not speak out in opposition to this theft should remember that when the GOP is no longer in the majority. What goes around comes around. Democrats are angry and wont forget.
Trump voters should remember that it was the GOP who put this guy in his seat when he rules in favor of corporations at the expense of the average worker. Gorsuch will outsource more jobs, suppress more incomes and reduce safety in more workplaces by virtue of his decisions than any one corporation could ever do.
1
Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. What's being lost here is bipartisanship.
he is a disgusting man with a pathological penchant for maintaining double standards that depicts an unchecked need to get his way while risking the welfare of our country.
Shame on the four Democrats who are going to vote for him. They are traitors to the party and the American people.
1
The author argues at the outset that there is a "principled opposition" meaning a legitimate reason to reject the nomination. That is fallacious. As the hearings demonstrate, Judge Gorsuch is an extremely well qualified jurist.
1
I can't believe grown men and women in the Senate are engaged in such a playground squabble, and that the Times devotes time and space to report it. Such silliness is not advancing our country, helping solve any of our problems, or boosting our image around the world. Why we need a Senate is perhaps the question to ask from all this.
1
If the Democrats fold, cave in, capitulate, give up, etc. on opposition to Gorsuch, I will leave the party. Not that I'm important but it will be a last straw for me. The Dems have not really done anything since Trump's election. They can't take credit for the health care defeat. Republicans did that all by themselves. And now, the Republicans will probably get together to do their worst on health care anyway. That moment will not have lasted long. The Democrats have no power. None. Zero. They must take this stand futile though it may be. We will be able to tell how many actual Democratic senators we have as a result of this. It may turn that McConnell has a much bigger majority. Real Democrats may number only 38 or 40. It will be worse after 2018. McConnell could end up with 65 senators. The Democrats are about to be irrelevant. Maybe they already are. The Senate as a check against the House is over. As a check against corruption in the White House. . No. The swamp is muddier than ever. Simple majority will be the order of the day. Once Gorsuch is confirmed, then Trump will appoint another "Scalia" to replace a liberal justice. Democrats will not matter in any branch of the federal government. Mostly true on the state and local level, too. The whole system of checks and balances has failed us. Thanks, McConnell! What a game player you are. But who will we be as a country? Trump was right. He could shoot someone and it would not matter.
1
Time to replace Donelly. I want a whole Democrat or a whole treasonous incompetent Republican, not this half committed timid Hoosier fence sitter.
"No one should fall for Republicans’ trickery."
What trickery? Elections have consequences, as a former and future community organizer once said.
What trickery? Elections have consequences, as a former and future community organizer once said.
Remember when Democrats did the same thing a few short years ago in regard to the filibuster for all other judicial nominees? Where were you protesting then?
1
The author worked for former senate majority leader; a partisan hack. Harry Reid represented everything that was wrong in the senate. On one side of the aisle McConnell filibustered nominees, on the other side Reid refused to allow votes on any legislation that might force democratic candidates to cast a difficult vote. Criticism of McConnell is justified, but If Reid were in McConnell's position you could bet your life savings that he would be doing the exact same thing, same for the perpetually smarmy Chuck Schumer. None of them care about the American people. The greatest deliberative body in the world - haha.
If the nuclear option stops Dems from voting their conscience- then it is already being employed and to not call the not-bluff is to destroy the transparency of this process.
I say, blow up the nuclear option by forcing its use. It is a charade and should be shown to be so. 4 years from now it may be a Dem pres nominating a SC judge- let the Republicans set the precedent and make current Dems take a stand. Then their voters will know if they have the stomach to fight the war Republicans started.
I say, blow up the nuclear option by forcing its use. It is a charade and should be shown to be so. 4 years from now it may be a Dem pres nominating a SC judge- let the Republicans set the precedent and make current Dems take a stand. Then their voters will know if they have the stomach to fight the war Republicans started.
1
Not sure what this writer means by suggesting that McConnell will be "exposed" if he goes nuclear. Mitch has already been exposed as this country's greatest obstructionist. So what else is new? Gridlock continues, only this time it is continuing into full scale authoritarianism!
Sadly, voters aren't institutionalists. They didn't punish Republicans for Garland, and they elected Trump -- an institution-wrecker if there ever was one. So voters won't blame Republicans for harming the Senate's institutional moderating function by changing Senate rules. With the country's polarization they might even applaud "going nuclear": "yeah, get 'em, long-term consequences be damned ". Given all that, don't filibuster Gorsuch. Keep the filibuster for worse cases.
McConnell is often characterized as a consummate parliamentarian. Perhaps.
He is quintessentially partisan, and often petty, to boot.
When Trump chose McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, to be Secretary of Transportation, the Senator was urged to recuse himself from her confirmation hearings. He, very foolishly, refused.
It was obvious, even right away, that she would probably be overwhelmingly confirmed, with many Democrats voting yes. That turned out to be the case.
She was, after all, by Trumpian standards, highly qualified.
He's an unprincipled hack, sometimes as shameless as the president, which is really quite an awful thing to say.
He is quintessentially partisan, and often petty, to boot.
When Trump chose McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, to be Secretary of Transportation, the Senator was urged to recuse himself from her confirmation hearings. He, very foolishly, refused.
It was obvious, even right away, that she would probably be overwhelmingly confirmed, with many Democrats voting yes. That turned out to be the case.
She was, after all, by Trumpian standards, highly qualified.
He's an unprincipled hack, sometimes as shameless as the president, which is really quite an awful thing to say.
1
Let me see if I have this right. The Republicans did not want President Obama to be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia so they made up a new rule. In essence they changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game. Now the Republicans don't like it that the Democrats, playing by the existing rules, can block the Gorsuch nomination so once again the Republicans are going tho change the rules.
These guys have been gaming the system to keep their dwindling minority in power for years. They have won the popular presidential vote once since George H W Bush was elected in 1988. During the ensuing 28 years the Democrats have won 6 popular presidential elections.
The only rule that's in critical need of changing is the Electoral College.
These guys have been gaming the system to keep their dwindling minority in power for years. They have won the popular presidential vote once since George H W Bush was elected in 1988. During the ensuing 28 years the Democrats have won 6 popular presidential elections.
The only rule that's in critical need of changing is the Electoral College.
290
No, the Electoral College prevents the small states from becoming inconsequential. I am not sure New Jersey wants to be subservient to California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia , North Carolina, and Michigan. That means 20% of the states have more population than New Jersey.
No, you do not have it right. The GOP was following the rules set down by Biden and Schumer about filling a vacancy in the 4th year of a term.
"The Republicans did not want President Obama to be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice to replace Scalia so they made up a new rule." The rule you refer to of not allowing a President in his last year to put another Justice on the Court is actually the Biden rule from his identical pronouncement in 1992 when he was in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And it was affirmed by current minority leader Schumer in 2008.
"Now the Republicans don't like it that the Democrats, playing by the existing rules, can block the Gorsuch nomination so once again the Republicans are going tho change the rules." Now, I think you are talking about the fillibuster, and Reid changed this first a few years ago.
Each side can claim the other is being hypocritical. The simple fact is that neither party can claim the moral high ground. This is politics. The stakes are very high. The GOP has had the majority on the court for 40 years and they are going to do what it takes to preserve it.
"Now the Republicans don't like it that the Democrats, playing by the existing rules, can block the Gorsuch nomination so once again the Republicans are going tho change the rules." Now, I think you are talking about the fillibuster, and Reid changed this first a few years ago.
Each side can claim the other is being hypocritical. The simple fact is that neither party can claim the moral high ground. This is politics. The stakes are very high. The GOP has had the majority on the court for 40 years and they are going to do what it takes to preserve it.
If Gorsuch was not such a rabid right wing and was more moderate, he would have the 60 votes regardless of what happened with Merrick Garland.
The Dems need to take the stand- the last stand. Since we are talking about a life time appointment, we should have significant bi-partisan support for a SCOTUS nomination.
As Chuck Schumer points out- if your nominee cannot get 60 votes, then you have the wrong nominee and should nominate another person.
McConnell is a completely corrupt politician and consistently puts party before country.
He has shown it with the treatment of Merrick Garland and now he is showing it with the threat of changing the rules to satisfy his own lust for revenge on Obama for daring to get 2 terms and go out being a popular president.
Warning to McConnell and the other Senators- there will soon come a day when the Dems gain control of the Senate and then the WH. Your extreme behavior will not go unmet. You will rue the day when the Dems can ram through very progressive SCOTUS nominees with only 51 votes.
McConnell and the other GOP Senators will regret this.
The Dems need to take the stand- the last stand. Since we are talking about a life time appointment, we should have significant bi-partisan support for a SCOTUS nomination.
As Chuck Schumer points out- if your nominee cannot get 60 votes, then you have the wrong nominee and should nominate another person.
McConnell is a completely corrupt politician and consistently puts party before country.
He has shown it with the treatment of Merrick Garland and now he is showing it with the threat of changing the rules to satisfy his own lust for revenge on Obama for daring to get 2 terms and go out being a popular president.
Warning to McConnell and the other Senators- there will soon come a day when the Dems gain control of the Senate and then the WH. Your extreme behavior will not go unmet. You will rue the day when the Dems can ram through very progressive SCOTUS nominees with only 51 votes.
McConnell and the other GOP Senators will regret this.
133
And then, Marian, let's change another rule and stack the Supremes as FDR threatened to do and go after a root of a lot of this trouble - the ruling in the 1800's that recognized corporations as having the rights of 'individuals'!
If the Democrats make this their "last stand", it is likely the last stand that they will have a chance to make for at least a decade.
Schumer has the chance to poison any budding compassion for the Democrats by has performance this week.
Schumer has the chance to poison any budding compassion for the Democrats by has performance this week.
The rules will have to be made more moderate again at some point. We can all agree with the justice of an eye for an eye, but then society is left with two people who are half-blind. Even greater partisan division and payback benefits no one in the long term.
That being said, Gorsuch is not a comparable substitute for Garland and Democratic Senators should not roll over for his nomination.
That being said, Gorsuch is not a comparable substitute for Garland and Democratic Senators should not roll over for his nomination.
Nuclear options and filibusters shouldn't even be under discussion right now. There should be no scheduled vote for Gorsuch until the Russian investigation is complete. We do not even know if 45 is a legitimate president. And with that cloud hanging over his administration, no candidate should be getting a vote for a life-time appointment to anything. The Republicans are having their way in everything right now--abusing their power in every situation available to them. This nuclear option threat is just another example of it. There should be no vote--nuclear or otherwise right now.
285
Obama's IRS illegally targeted conservative groups. That's not even comparable to the rumors of Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, this is a documented fact.
Republicans are having their way now, Meg, because they won elections up and down the ranks of elected office, the presidency, both houses of Congress, governors chairs, and state legislatures.
Do you really think that insisting once again that you are right is going to change the view of The People to accept that which you are trying to sell?
Dream on, my dear, dream on.
Do you really think that insisting once again that you are right is going to change the view of The People to accept that which you are trying to sell?
Dream on, my dear, dream on.
I've always had an issue with this argument because of the logistics of it. If Trump acted in concert with Russia, and subverted the electoral process- what is the remedy? Impeachment? Then Pence is President, and there is no difference in nominee. Even if you could somehow get Pence as well (which assumes that he was either somehow involved, or the Senate just takes him out too), the best you get is Paul Ryan as President.
There is no constitutional mechanism by which you get to declare Hillary as President. There is no constitutional mechanism by which there are early elections. All outcomes result in a Republican President, and all Republican Presidents nominate someone like Gorsuch.
There is no constitutional mechanism by which you get to declare Hillary as President. There is no constitutional mechanism by which there are early elections. All outcomes result in a Republican President, and all Republican Presidents nominate someone like Gorsuch.
Mitch McConnell by his numerous actions to put his party first and the country second, has brought utter shame to himself and this country. The Supreme Court nominee and the refusal to recommend an independent counsel for the Russian interference on our election are just the latest two examples. I suspect, in his mind they ate related. I think he knows how precarious Trump's Russian situation is and wants to seat a Justice at the Supreme Court that is nominated by the R's before Trump's criminal activity is detailed. If his Presidency implodes, the R's will have no chance.
Yes, McConnell is that smarmy.
Yes, McConnell is that smarmy.
177
You got the sequence wrong. Mitch McConnell puts the country third, his party second, and Mitch McConnell first. You'd better believe he would throw his own people under the bus is it advanced the McConnell brand.
Let's not forget that it was Mitch McConnell who, on the eve of President Obama's election victory in 2008, conspired with a group of his fellow Republican Senators to obstruct and thwart any and all efforts by our new president to bring us back from the brink of near total financial collapse...Was McConnell convening this meeting to come up with a Republican response to an economy on the brink of collapse? (Remember those "mortgage-backed securities"?) No, he was being purely partisan...thinking only of the "strings of power" and not of the people and a nation about to be overwhelmed with a financial disaster that we haven't seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. That's your "Mitch McConnell" -- a power-hungry creature who would sacrifice the welfare of his own country in the pursuit of power and prestige.
220
McConnell was being racist in the guise of being partisan. And don't forget this: he is old and facing death so has nothing left to lose. Ugly, ugly man and a disgrace to this country.
1
I preferred Chuck Schumer's original explanation: Other Supreme Court nominations needed to meet the 60 vote standard, so why not Judge Gorsuch? If Mitch McConnell doesn't like it, he can go pull the trigger. I imagine many Republican Senators share the same doubts McConnell is attempting to instill in Democrats. Remember, we only need three Republican defectors and the nuclear option fails. If McConnell manages to pull it off, both parties will jump on the bull horn and start blaming the other side. The public will believe whoever they want to believe regardless.
The real failure is if Democrats back down. If the threat of a filibuster is enough for McConnell to gaslight Democrats, you can trust he'll publicly blame them for something no matter what they do. McConnell's tireless goal is a 60 vote majority. There's no reasoning with that impulse. As a Democratic Senator, understand McConnell will throw you under the bus no matter how you vote and smile as he does it. Republicans will blame Democrats for threatening a filibuster and Democrats will blame Democrats for giving up the seat. The only winning strategy is to take a principled and united stand against McConnell's anti-institutionalism. You already know his counter attack. Stand strong and be prepared to talk him down to the public.
The real failure is if Democrats back down. If the threat of a filibuster is enough for McConnell to gaslight Democrats, you can trust he'll publicly blame them for something no matter what they do. McConnell's tireless goal is a 60 vote majority. There's no reasoning with that impulse. As a Democratic Senator, understand McConnell will throw you under the bus no matter how you vote and smile as he does it. Republicans will blame Democrats for threatening a filibuster and Democrats will blame Democrats for giving up the seat. The only winning strategy is to take a principled and united stand against McConnell's anti-institutionalism. You already know his counter attack. Stand strong and be prepared to talk him down to the public.
143
"I preferred Chuck Schumer's original explanation: Other Supreme Court nominations needed to meet the 60 vote standard, so why not Judge Gorsuch?" Other than this being false - a lie perhaps - I guess it sounds nice. However, Justice Thomas was confirmed by fewer than 60 votes, and if I recall correctly, was a situation of some note and concern by many.
1
The Democrats ought to make it simple -- there will be no appointment to the Supreme Court for the next four years.
That would not really harm the Court. It started with five members, and did some of its most important work that way.
We need a new settlement among the parties. The Republicans can't get away with what they did, and then just act as if it is all normal.
That would not really harm the Court. It started with five members, and did some of its most important work that way.
We need a new settlement among the parties. The Republicans can't get away with what they did, and then just act as if it is all normal.
12
They can't. That's the consequence of losing elections and being the minority party. There is nothing in the Constitution about filibustering. The Republicans can confirm as many appointments as they get until the next election.
All the Republicans did was uphold the Biden Doctrine, which the Democrats
loved until Biden took a job working for a black man
loved until Biden took a job working for a black man
Tim Jackson -- Pure power politics pushed to its limit includes removal of those appointed by impeachment as soon as Democrats get control.
You can't go pure power all the way, and then expect not to get it back again.
That leads to total breakdown of our system. Don't do it, and it won't get done to you (and all of us).
You can't go pure power all the way, and then expect not to get it back again.
That leads to total breakdown of our system. Don't do it, and it won't get done to you (and all of us).
"The good of the nation" has never been a consideration for Mr. McConnell. And many Republicans laud him for it. Let there be no doubt who and which party is responsible for the destruction of Congress as a part of the governing structure of the U.S. Time for the electorate to rise and vote for the legislation needed to put them in charge, rather than the oligarchs, the only ones who can exercise power.
84
In a perfect US senate we would have bipartisanship we would have a strong president making his own decisions or at least have credible input when making decisions we do not have either. We know obstruction for anything Obama tried to do was McConnell's goal now when there is some doubt about the ability of Neil Gorsuch to be a fair and balanced justice there should be a bipartisan consensus. I would hope moderate republicans and democrats would encourage there senators to consider there vote very valuable not be in lock steep with the "McConnell" way of the senate.
2
We should not allow a SCOTUS appointment during a presidents last year in office.
17
we should not allow a President who is being investigated by the FBI to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
It's clear from reading these comments that there simply are two sides that cannot and will not agree about who is at fault for the current senate impasse. The struggle now is not over who is right or wrong; we will never settle that argument. From here on out the only question is who is going to get their way. In that environment there is no point for democrats to compromise or try to salvage some idea of proper decorum. republicans will do whatever they can to get their way. They don't care about decorum or tradition or even future consequences. Democrats need to remain focused on hammering the republicans until they admit defeat, because that is the game they are playing now.
9
How about a compromise: the Dems let Gorsuch go through with a committment from Trump et al. that the next vacancy (and there surely will be one) will go to Garland.
3
Why would McConnell and the Republicans do that, when they would get two ultra-conservative appointments by "going nuclear?" Too bad Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't consider resigning the day Obama was first sworn into office in 2008, because within the next 8 years it is quite likely she will retire, and her seat will flip from a strong liberal vote to an ultra-conservative majority vote.
I am okay with this agreement, but you need to include an extra condition for the nomination of Garland: it will be done by the president who is a Democrat.
i would take this deal if Garland came first...
As much as I dislike Gorsuch, as concerned as I am concerning his far right, misguided interpretations of the law, I am more concerned about the Democrat's use of the filibuster and McConnell's use of the nuclear option. My concern is this: Even if Gorsuch is farther to the right than Scalia, the balance of the Court remains as it was: 5 - 4.
Suppose the Dems filibuster, McConnell enacts the nuclear option and Gorsuch is, in the end, seated, the Dems will have gained nothing, but will have lost the filibuster. Now, suppose that Justice Ginsberg (God forbid) should die or retire -- and neither is out of the question -- the Dems will have no option but to accept whatever mess the Reps decide to support because the filibuster was bombed out of existence. We would be looking at a 6 - 3 Court.
Don't forget the long game, when trying to game the system.
Suppose the Dems filibuster, McConnell enacts the nuclear option and Gorsuch is, in the end, seated, the Dems will have gained nothing, but will have lost the filibuster. Now, suppose that Justice Ginsberg (God forbid) should die or retire -- and neither is out of the question -- the Dems will have no option but to accept whatever mess the Reps decide to support because the filibuster was bombed out of existence. We would be looking at a 6 - 3 Court.
Don't forget the long game, when trying to game the system.
1
Does anything in the Senate Republicans' recent conduct suggest that they would deliberately nominate a liberal or moderate judge just because they are replacing a liberal judge (Ginsburg)?
If the Democrats back down this time, Republicans will be just as free to push a right wing judge and go nuclear next time. The advantage to forcing them to go nuclear now is that the precedent will have been set by Republicans so that when Democrats next control the Senate, the rules will be clear. There's simply nothing to be gained tactically from the Democrats backing down.
If the Democrats back down this time, Republicans will be just as free to push a right wing judge and go nuclear next time. The advantage to forcing them to go nuclear now is that the precedent will have been set by Republicans so that when Democrats next control the Senate, the rules will be clear. There's simply nothing to be gained tactically from the Democrats backing down.
This has been going on for decades.
When Democrats controlled the Senate, the threat of a Republican filibuster has been so automatic that it was a given that 60 votes were required to pass anything -- or approve anyone.
When Republicans controlled the Senate, the threat of the nuclear option has been so automatic that Democrats have backed off and accepted that only 51 votes were required.
Democrats should end this asymmetry by calling McConnell's bluff. Whatever he chooses, nuclear option or not, the Democrats will be better off.
When Democrats controlled the Senate, the threat of a Republican filibuster has been so automatic that it was a given that 60 votes were required to pass anything -- or approve anyone.
When Republicans controlled the Senate, the threat of the nuclear option has been so automatic that Democrats have backed off and accepted that only 51 votes were required.
Democrats should end this asymmetry by calling McConnell's bluff. Whatever he chooses, nuclear option or not, the Democrats will be better off.
8
The lies and the altered environment is coming from both sides of the aisle. As long as there is block voting that will remain true.
1
Both sides? Sure, 98% from th repubs; 2%, or less, from th Dems and Independents.
The Republican failure to even go through the motions on Judge Garland (Obama only had a year left in office), and now the imminent application of the "nuclear option", completely does away with custom and protocol. It says that from here on in there are no rules. Both parties will henceforth engage in whatever pure power allows.
As regards the Supreme Court nominees specifically, we can expect those in power will consider any nominee only if and when they so choose (one year, two years left in a presidential term -- who cares, consideration is now optional), and, if a candidate is brought to a vote, the "nuclear option" will be the standard.
We are fast becoming a nation not so much of rules, laws, or even of the Constitution, but of one of getting away with whatever you can -- don't like the rules, change them. And, of course, tweet.
As regards the Supreme Court nominees specifically, we can expect those in power will consider any nominee only if and when they so choose (one year, two years left in a presidential term -- who cares, consideration is now optional), and, if a candidate is brought to a vote, the "nuclear option" will be the standard.
We are fast becoming a nation not so much of rules, laws, or even of the Constitution, but of one of getting away with whatever you can -- don't like the rules, change them. And, of course, tweet.
4
Where was your concern for custom, rules, and procedures when Obama violated the Biden Doctrine by nominating Garland?
Mitch McConnell has never exhibited any sense of comity or sincere collaboration. He successfully waged a scorched earth policy against President Obama for 8 years. McConnell now seems intent on doing the same against any Democratic pushback to his party's right wing extremism.
The trick for Chuck Schumer and the Democrats is to explain their unified opposition to the Republican big-money agenda in short soundbites. These need to resonate both with middle/rural America and the Democrats' increasingly urban base. As Trump's election proves, much of the nation's attention span seems quite limited.
The Democrats can't afford to sound long-winded or whiny if they have any prospect of wins in 2018. Those wins together with everyday folks continuing to speak out for a more equitable future may be the only hope for our democracy. Otherwise big money will continue to steamroll all of us.
The trick for Chuck Schumer and the Democrats is to explain their unified opposition to the Republican big-money agenda in short soundbites. These need to resonate both with middle/rural America and the Democrats' increasingly urban base. As Trump's election proves, much of the nation's attention span seems quite limited.
The Democrats can't afford to sound long-winded or whiny if they have any prospect of wins in 2018. Those wins together with everyday folks continuing to speak out for a more equitable future may be the only hope for our democracy. Otherwise big money will continue to steamroll all of us.
4
Democrats should take the high road on Gorsuch, who, for all his conservative views, is clearly qualified to be on the Supreme Court. McConnell disgraced himself and his party when, with a Depression looming and a popular, reasonable Democrat in the White House, he vowed to obstruct Obama on everything. Then he doubled down in refusing a hearing for Garland. Let the historic record show that it was the Republicans who descended into the mud. And let the Democrats use their "conservative" respect for tradition and doing the right thing in the midterms.
1
Absolutely. Turn the other cheek. And the other. And the other....
So endless tit-for-tat is your idea of good government?
The filibuster is a good rule to protect the minority. If McConnell denies it, he will place his party in jeopardy if the Democrats regain the Senate in 2018. If he can't get 60 votes change the nominee, not the rules.
93
Yes, a filibuster is a good rule to protect the minority. I suggest that all Federal judges appointed by Obama and approved by the Senate post Harry Reid's going nuclear on the filibuster for those judges resign. Once they have resigned, perhaps then we can discuss restoring all the filibuster options. Looks like they've got 4 days.
1
Have you seen the 2018 Senate map? Obvioulsy not...or you wouldn't have made the comment.
In watching the democrats reaction to Trumps speech to congress, it became obvious that they had absolutely no intention of working with Trump, no matter what he proposed. Efforts to delegitimize Trump by democratic leaders and mainstream media have become down right comical and I believe are now hurting them more than Trump. Neil Gorsuch is so obviously a good man and great judge that he is destroying the democratic narrative that Trump can do no good. Fun to watch!
4
Thank God the ridiculous and loathsome filibuster is about to meet its end. Just how many of the gasbag senators who support maintaining the filibuster would even have their seats if they were required to receive 60% of the votes from their constituents during their elections?
I despise the filibuster. its an abuse. and I am against everything amd anything Mitch McConnell. Harry Reid was a failure for not doing this earlier.
1
This article is spot on. Game theory dictates that when Republicans broke the rules, you punish them to the maximum extent possible. They can of course change the rules, but again, this falls on them, as you pointed out. If Republicans wanted to save face, they would nominate Merrick Garland, which will happen when the temperature in Hades descends below zero Celsius.
3
Neil Gorsuch has the personality of a Rubik's cube.
Let's structure this as a simple logic exercise.
The Party with control of the three levels of government gets to appoint their Supreme Court Nominees.
They can appoint them via super-majority or
They can change the rules and appoint them via simple majority.
The first premise renders all other premises moot and the conclusion valid and sound.
So if the nominee is going to get appointed via the nuclear option, it will rest with the Dems.
Even more deliciously - a next and way-out-there conservative nominee will pass via the amended simple majority rules with nary a Dem whimper.
Of course the Dems can always fall back on that staple of 4 year-old behavior: "He touched me first".
Unfortunately, that is hard to structure logically.
Be careful what you wish for.
The Party with control of the three levels of government gets to appoint their Supreme Court Nominees.
They can appoint them via super-majority or
They can change the rules and appoint them via simple majority.
The first premise renders all other premises moot and the conclusion valid and sound.
So if the nominee is going to get appointed via the nuclear option, it will rest with the Dems.
Even more deliciously - a next and way-out-there conservative nominee will pass via the amended simple majority rules with nary a Dem whimper.
Of course the Dems can always fall back on that staple of 4 year-old behavior: "He touched me first".
Unfortunately, that is hard to structure logically.
Be careful what you wish for.
This won't be a popular comment but the SCOTUS can't go on indefinitely without a ninth justice. If Gorsuch were to go down to defeat without the nuclear option being triggered, The Donald would simply come back with an even less acceptable nominee. Gorsuch appears to be a competent conservative (which makes him, at the very least, an improvement over the man who appointed him). Hopefully, the decisions he renders will give some of the Trump supporters in the Midwest even more of an incentive to revert back to the Democrats before our feckless leader has the opportunity to do even more damage to the bench.
4
I understand your point. I just disagree with it completely. These people are the used car salesmen of authoritarianism. Every toe hold they try to achieve in their quest to destroy our country must be fought to the fullest. And there should be no misunderstanding that this is in fact their ultimate goal, the destruction of democracy and representative government in America. Not a single one of them is actually a patriot, no matter how much they bleat that they are. None of them have the courage for patriotism, most especially not the cowardly Draft-Dodger-in-Chief. My mother has had heel spurs since before I was born and they never stopped her from running marathons or winning tennis tournaments, even deep into her 70's. All of their lies must be shouted from the rooftops. Nothing should just be allowed to happen.
Lt's not pretend the filibuster is a sacred right. The possibility of a filibuster arose because of an error in amending the Senate rules 1806. The concept of the filibuster arose in the Senate in the 1850s and the House long ago did away with it. Mitch McConnell should be applauded if he eliminates an arcane obstructionist rule in the Senate.
6
Frankly, the Democrats love the filibuster more than the Republicans. It provides right wing Democrats with a place to hide when they must choose between voting for "liberal" policies and nominees or proving themselves to be Republicans in disguise.
True and also having majority rule is not a bad thing, even if it currently works against my preferred party.
Odd. McConnell and his party have certainly made extravagant use of the filibuster to obstruct basic progress in the national interest.
If this weren't happening in real life it would be funny. The Most Uncooperative Party claims that the Democrats don't want to work with them. Yet this same party spent the last 8 years refusing to work with a duly elected president because they wanted him to be a one term president even after he'd been elected a second time. They have refused to spend money to fix our roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, airports, and other public spaces. They refused to approve or even hold hearings for court nominees and then complained about problems in the court system that they caused. They, with more than enough help from McConnell denied Obama's choice to replace Scalia a courtesy meeting and a hearing. Now they want their chosen nominee to receive the respect they denied Obama.
They cater to every whim of their corporate sponsors even if that whim hurts working Americans. They light fires and them become conflagrations with divisive speeches about race, religion, gender, and immigration status in order to enact laws that are not constitutional or, if they are, are inhumane. I am ashamed to have such people representing Americans. We ought to be more open minded than this yet with the Most Ignorant Party in charge and the Child in Chief at the head we are seeing more and more ill advised decisions carried out that are against our country's interests. The entire GOP leadership should be replaced with real human beings. Instead we have McConnell and crew sinking the ship.
They cater to every whim of their corporate sponsors even if that whim hurts working Americans. They light fires and them become conflagrations with divisive speeches about race, religion, gender, and immigration status in order to enact laws that are not constitutional or, if they are, are inhumane. I am ashamed to have such people representing Americans. We ought to be more open minded than this yet with the Most Ignorant Party in charge and the Child in Chief at the head we are seeing more and more ill advised decisions carried out that are against our country's interests. The entire GOP leadership should be replaced with real human beings. Instead we have McConnell and crew sinking the ship.
44
Refresh my memory. When was the last time democrats offered to work with Republicans on anything?
1
Exactly!
excellent well written congrats
President Obama knew his lame-duck nomination would not be considered -- it was a political act that seemed conciliatory at the time because the whole world was convinced that Clinton would win the election. McConnell bet against long odds and ended up the winner. There can be no doubt the democrats would have played the game exactly the same way if the outgoing president had been republican and had thrown out a last minute nominee. Hypocrisy is the one thing both parties have in common.
8
You are confused, RayRay: a president isn't a "lame duck" until AFTER the election of his successor, therefore, the ENTIRE Merrick Garland obstruction was a lie. McConnell was, is, and always will be a dishonest, dishonorable corporate shill, working toward the Feudal Corporate States of America.
7
Presidents duties do not end at the beginning, middle, or month before they leave office. Those duties and obligations are in full force until another president walks in the door and takes the oath of office. Obama was doing his job as POTUS. How would you have felt if we had been attacked 6 months or 6 days before Obama left office? Should he have deferred to a future president because he was in his final months?
And no, the Democrats, for all their threats, do not play the same game the GOP plays. They have tried to govern. The GOP seems to exist to fulfill the wishes of its rich corporate donors and rich campaign funders, not the citizens they are supposed to represent and protect.
And no, the Democrats, for all their threats, do not play the same game the GOP plays. They have tried to govern. The GOP seems to exist to fulfill the wishes of its rich corporate donors and rich campaign funders, not the citizens they are supposed to represent and protect.
8
Hypocrats perhaps..but weaklings like Harry Reid were a fail against really serious no holds barred McConnell
1
I'm not sure Trump should be able to nominate a supreme court justice in his last year of office.
126
Which could be this year if he is impeached and removed.
Up voted 'cause it made me laugh.
Thanks.
Thanks.
1
Lol! Good one.
1
My mother always said two wrongs do not make a right. Where, when, and at what price does all this end?
10
It ends when the republicans crash and burn the country, "for our own good".
I don’t believe anyone seriously thinks that if Mitch McConnell invokes the “nuclear option” that it properly can be blamed on Harry Reid’s earlier actions: it will be McConnell’s decision, just as it was Reid’s. Of course, if Reid HADN’T eliminated super-majority requirements for cloture and the Senate filibuster for most presidential nominees, the barriers to McConnell’s pulling of that trigger would be almost insurmountable. Harry DOES need to answer for that.
But this op-ed doubles-down on Chuck Schumer’s desperation that Trump will succeed at his agenda, in part dedicated to jump-starting a growth economy that will make American prosperity and economic mobility possible again, in part dedicated to the resolve that we create a constructionist federal bench that puts aside this revisionist and dangerous preference for using courts to decide social policy instead of legislatures. The only rational justification for Schumer’s announced intention to filibuster Gorsuch’s confirmation vote is to COMPEL the nuclear option, thereby putting almost the entirety of our governance in Republican hands – and if McConnell gets rid of the filibuster for regular legislation, as well, the entirety of our governance. Schumer must conclude that Dems’ only hope for eventual emergence from the wilderness is if Trump crashes and burns, and only the Dems are left to benefit, held blameless.
But this op-ed doubles-down on Chuck Schumer’s desperation that Trump will succeed at his agenda, in part dedicated to jump-starting a growth economy that will make American prosperity and economic mobility possible again, in part dedicated to the resolve that we create a constructionist federal bench that puts aside this revisionist and dangerous preference for using courts to decide social policy instead of legislatures. The only rational justification for Schumer’s announced intention to filibuster Gorsuch’s confirmation vote is to COMPEL the nuclear option, thereby putting almost the entirety of our governance in Republican hands – and if McConnell gets rid of the filibuster for regular legislation, as well, the entirety of our governance. Schumer must conclude that Dems’ only hope for eventual emergence from the wilderness is if Trump crashes and burns, and only the Dems are left to benefit, held blameless.
4
It’s a bad bet. Gorsuch will be confirmed, with or without the nuclear option. The federal bench clearly will be solidly constructionist within the two years Trump unquestionably has a Republican Senate backing him, and he probably has all four years -- nuclear trigger or no.
The rest of Trump’s agenda? The future is promised to nobody, but the way to productively, legitimately and honorably participate in our governance is to ENGAGE. For the Democrats to become merely the “party of no” that Republicans were for the last six of Obama’s eight years is to be LESS effective at it than Republicans, because Democrats control NOTHING at present. Nothing but a Senate filibuster that at the moment is hanging by a thread.
The rest of Trump’s agenda? The future is promised to nobody, but the way to productively, legitimately and honorably participate in our governance is to ENGAGE. For the Democrats to become merely the “party of no” that Republicans were for the last six of Obama’s eight years is to be LESS effective at it than Republicans, because Democrats control NOTHING at present. Nothing but a Senate filibuster that at the moment is hanging by a thread.
3
@Richard: Funny, I don't recall you're railing against the GOP during those eight years when it stood its obstructionist ground as the party of no. That included voting down so many of Obama's court picks that Reid had no real choice other than to trigger that nuclear option. The courts can't function without justices after all.
8
stu:
Must be age catching up with you. I posted THOUSANDS of comments railing against congressional Republicans during the Obama years.
The U.S. Supreme Court can't function as intended with eight associate justices, either -- and you're not going to get Merrick Garland. You're going to get Gorsuch.
Must be age catching up with you. I posted THOUSANDS of comments railing against congressional Republicans during the Obama years.
The U.S. Supreme Court can't function as intended with eight associate justices, either -- and you're not going to get Merrick Garland. You're going to get Gorsuch.
1
I'm reminded of the recent Oscars fiasco, and the grace with which the producer of "La La Land" handled it by giving the Oscar to the producer of "Moonlight" and graciously making it clear to all that his movie had not won and another's had.
Gorsuch should show the same grace and class and respect for the Constitution and a colleague and give his nomination to Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch should show the same grace and class and respect for the Constitution and a colleague and give his nomination to Merrick Garland.
20
Why DIDN'T Barack Obama nominate Garland when he had an EASY chance to put him on the Supreme Court? At least Garland had actually worked on court cases unlike Elena Kagan. Why didn't you contact Obama about that?
McConnell thinks Democrats are weak with no backbone. We are we are watching to see if he is right. Vote yes you will be primaried.
9
McConnell is correct. Dems have been weaklings because they believed in the now dead demigod of Congressional ...civility.
Gone !!
McConnell wins..and the pathos of Harry Reids acquiescence lives on
Gone !!
McConnell wins..and the pathos of Harry Reids acquiescence lives on
1
No they won't.
A Senator who can be intimidated is not worthy of the office, and a vote cast under that spell might as well not be cast at all. Moreover, it's a simpler matter than all of this fretting over rules. Another shallow, stillborn "originalist" is the last thing that terribly compromised Court should have to endure. The doctrine has shown itself to be nothing more than an arras with a stunningly constant dagger.
7
Gorsuch is a qualified candidate. You may not like how he has ruled in the past but to suggest his is not qualified is remarkable.
10
The way he has ruled in the past is the way you make a judgement of qualification. You can't separate the two.
1
His ruling on the frozen tucker case makes him not fit.
"Qualified" doesn't mean acceptable.
I am no fan of McConnell but the portrayal here of Gorsuch is rather extreme. He was as professional and non committal in his hearing as I would hope and expect a potential Supreme Court justice to be. The democrats, and republicans for that matter, do not deserve to be spoon fed large issue opinions based on political ideology. I applaud the independent nature of Gorsuch's hearing performance. Let his record stand for itself.
31
His past record does indeed stand for itself. That he was "professional and non-committal", shows us that he will to just what Roberts did. Say he would "call balls and strikes" until he got in, then proceed to promote a far-right ideology.
Gorsuch's record does stand for itself -- he is a right wing extremist.
His dissent in the "frozen trucker" case is particularly obnoxious, as it appears to have been an "audition" for extremist Republicans to nominate him to the Supreme Court.
Democrats in Congress received more total votes that Republicans, and the same is true of the Senate, and of the presidential vote totals.
There is no way that a right wing extremist like Gorsuch is appropriate in these circumstances. Trump should nominate a more centrist judge.
His dissent in the "frozen trucker" case is particularly obnoxious, as it appears to have been an "audition" for extremist Republicans to nominate him to the Supreme Court.
Democrats in Congress received more total votes that Republicans, and the same is true of the Senate, and of the presidential vote totals.
There is no way that a right wing extremist like Gorsuch is appropriate in these circumstances. Trump should nominate a more centrist judge.
I actually thought Gorsuch was condescending to the extreme in his hearings, but regardless, the hearings are not the only thing Senators have to judge his character (pun intended). He's been on the Appeals Court a long time and has many opinions to consider as well. His opinion in the frozen trucker case alone is enough reason to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court. The man has no empathy ... even less than Scalia.
Part of deconstructing the administrative state is destroying the culture that holds it together. President Bannon must be thrilled! If the Senate blows up over this, that is a huge victory for his cause. A dead Senate is as good as no Senate. Then the will of the people will reign supreme! That means the super rich get to do whatever they want and the rest of us have more choices, like where we want to drop dead.
23
Remember the '60s song "Come the Revolution"? Now we can sing it again, inserting the word "French."
Not a trace of irony in this.
5
And why would there be? If you're invoking Bork, let me remind you that he had a full hearing and a floor vote. And after the hearing exposed his extremism, he lost 58-42 with a significant number of GOP senators voted against him. For the Garland nomination the GOP leadership distorted process, institutions and history to keep him from getting a vote because the GOP leadership knew he would win. There is no comparison and no basis for irony, and to say so is disingenuous.
McConnell's changing the Senate rules is irrelevant compared to the illegal amendment he made to the Constitution. He gave the Majority Leader of the Senate the power to ignore the constitutional mandate for the Senate to offer advice and consent following the President's mandated nomination.
That will remain the law of the land for all time unless corrected by McConnell himself, or overturned by the Supreme Court.
That will remain the law of the land for all time unless corrected by McConnell himself, or overturned by the Supreme Court.
26
It was very bad form for Republicans to deny Merrick Garland hearings and a vote, not to mention very risky, given the high probability -- up until the last two weeks before the election -- that Hillary Clinton would be elected and replace him with someone even worse from their point of view.
However, a legal (if blatantly parliamentarian) tactic would have been to have held hearings and then put off the final vote until just after the election, just in case Clinton was somehow defeated.
However, a legal (if blatantly parliamentarian) tactic would have been to have held hearings and then put off the final vote until just after the election, just in case Clinton was somehow defeated.
Every tradition, like the filibuster rule on SC nominations, that gets thrown out the window is not coming back and is another step away from a functioning government. Maybe the Democrats should show restraint even if the Republicans don't, by allowing this confirmation and focusing on winning in 2018.
2
No need to play into McConnel's cynical game by fillibustering. Democrats should allow the vote to proceed, but should vote NO en masse. There are many reasons to oppose Gorsuch beyond revenge for the horrible treatment Garland received. He is an extremely rigid ideologue who hid his fanatic agenda by answering all questions with vague platitudes. However, his prior rulings clearly show he lacks the wisdom, compassion and common sense necessary for the job of Supreme Court Justice. His ruling against a working man who was fired because he chose to save his own life rather than risk death sitting in sub-zero weather with a trailer full of Corporate Meat was morally repugnant. If Democrats just vote NO, Gorsuch is going to come up short and will not be able to be legitimately confirmed unless McConnell forces him through by changing the senate rules. This would not be a morally neutral procedural change -- it would be cheating -- and such an act would further taint Gorsuch's questionable reputation with illegitimacy for his entire tenure should he be seated on the Supreme Court in this manner. If McConnell and Gorsuch choose to go this route, let them bear the full responsibility and public scorn for it. Democrats don't need to filibuster which will simply provide a cudgel for McConnell to beat them with politically. Just vote a principled NO.
1
Look for a midnight McConnell/Schumer deal to permit a Gorsuch confirmation vote without a cloture hurdle. Both are Senate traditionalists with deep respect for the moderating role it was formed to play, and are especially wary of the fact that barring cloture actions will mean an even more polarized, more political Supreme Court settling important policy issues that Congress can't resolve.
Maybe Mitch, famously adept at backroom dealing, could agree to force the WH to accommodate Chuck on a few borderline lower-court or U.S. attorney appointments to seal the deal. After all, the two have known since about 1:30 a.m. on Nov. 9, when the presidential and Pennsylvania senate races were called, that this day was coming. Garland aside, Chuck should take solace that it's only a thwarted Dem win and GOP save on the Court, and that the Dem wing's average age will still be lower than the GOP's.
Maybe Mitch, famously adept at backroom dealing, could agree to force the WH to accommodate Chuck on a few borderline lower-court or U.S. attorney appointments to seal the deal. After all, the two have known since about 1:30 a.m. on Nov. 9, when the presidential and Pennsylvania senate races were called, that this day was coming. Garland aside, Chuck should take solace that it's only a thwarted Dem win and GOP save on the Court, and that the Dem wing's average age will still be lower than the GOP's.
3
McConnell may well be willing, but I sense that Schumer has painted himself into a corner.
Any backtracking by Schumer on his rigidity will be a blow to his ability to keep his caucus in line for future Supreme Court nominees or for important legislative initiatives.
Any backtracking by Schumer on his rigidity will be a blow to his ability to keep his caucus in line for future Supreme Court nominees or for important legislative initiatives.
1
Gorsuch was given a hearing. However, the manipulation of questions to some farcical degree by Ted Cruz, among others, did not really divulge the extreme positions of Gorsuch. There needs to be a statutory time limit required of any Congress to hold hearings of a president's nominee. It is unfortunate that fair play has to be legislated to get Congress to cooperate. After McConnell's machinations he can hardly point fingers to the Democrats for pursuing the procedure accorded to them in this situation. Let the Democrats stand firm even though they may be over ruled.
10
Interesting...I have read a fair number of the opinions that Judge Gorsuch has written, and I see no examples of the extremist views that you are alleging.
I would suggest that almost all of what you claim to see is rooted in legislation with which your are not in agreement.
The Courts are not in the business of saving the Congress from itself or the nation from Congress.
If you want different laws, or want to repeal laws that are on the books, then I would suggest that you spend much more time on winning elections than you do in complaining about what has happened in the past.
Elections, remember, have consequences as Barack Obama once opined.
I would suggest that almost all of what you claim to see is rooted in legislation with which your are not in agreement.
The Courts are not in the business of saving the Congress from itself or the nation from Congress.
If you want different laws, or want to repeal laws that are on the books, then I would suggest that you spend much more time on winning elections than you do in complaining about what has happened in the past.
Elections, remember, have consequences as Barack Obama once opined.
1
Keeping the filibuster in place for the Supreme Court is because it's a lifetime appointment with no removal mechanism. Democrats did not "do it to" Republicans for that reason. There are principles. And there are many folks in Congress who have have shown they follow only one: the ends justify the means.
8
All federal judges are lifetime appointments.
The Democrats should reach across the aisle in the nomination process of the Gorsuch nomination, and in return get a Republican promise they will do the same for the budget.
This would show that the Democrates are above petty political bickering and at the same time present a challenge to the Republicans to conduct themselves similarly.
If the Republicans refuse, this would send a message to the public how intransigent they are.
This would show that the Democrates are above petty political bickering and at the same time present a challenge to the Republicans to conduct themselves similarly.
If the Republicans refuse, this would send a message to the public how intransigent they are.
2
Anyone who doesn't fully understand the intransigence of Republicans after eight years of Obama has been Rip Van Winkled
1
But Republicans lie: their promises are about as much to be trusted as the so-called president's tweets.
The message has been sent and received. The GOP leadership are liars, and they have no intent to play nice. Compromise is out the window, at least until McConnell and Grassley are gone. This is a knife fight.
Fact: if Democrats were in the majority and a Republican president had offered up a nominee to replace a seat vacated by a liberal in a presidential election year, Democrats would not have allowed that nominee to be confirmed. Biden and Schumer said so when the situation was that way.
Fact: Reid and Schumer were lying when he said the filibuster would stay in place for Supreme Court nominees. Reid admitted as much a month or so before the last election when he thought Clinton would win and Democrats would re-take the Senate. He predicted Democrats would nuke a Republican filibuster of a Supreme Court nomineee because "I showed them how to do it." Tim Kaine, Clinton's candidate for VP said the same thing.
Leahy of Vermont has said he will not support a filibuster which suggests Gorsuch will be approved by a majority vote without a sustained filibuster. If not, Republicans should play by the rules Democrats wrote and end any filibuster by majority vote. When you are making mincemeat of Senate rules it's not a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose which rules suit you at any given time and leave others in place because it's convenient.
The filibuster is over because Democrats killed it when they changed the rules to pack the DC Court of Appeals.
Fact: Reid and Schumer were lying when he said the filibuster would stay in place for Supreme Court nominees. Reid admitted as much a month or so before the last election when he thought Clinton would win and Democrats would re-take the Senate. He predicted Democrats would nuke a Republican filibuster of a Supreme Court nomineee because "I showed them how to do it." Tim Kaine, Clinton's candidate for VP said the same thing.
Leahy of Vermont has said he will not support a filibuster which suggests Gorsuch will be approved by a majority vote without a sustained filibuster. If not, Republicans should play by the rules Democrats wrote and end any filibuster by majority vote. When you are making mincemeat of Senate rules it's not a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose which rules suit you at any given time and leave others in place because it's convenient.
The filibuster is over because Democrats killed it when they changed the rules to pack the DC Court of Appeals.
11
You mean when the GOP filibustered every and all nominations for the Court even as the minority party? Many positions remained unfilled (National Labor relations board for instance) for Obama's entire Presidency due to GOP's intransigence for 8 years. Unfortunately we have little in the way of checks and balances now with the GOP in charge...filibuster is all that is left.
6
@ Dougal, that happened in 2007 Schumer nixed hearings on Dubya's pick because he said the nominee can wait until Obama got in as POTUS.
There was no "packing of the DC court. The court had open seats and the Democrats nominated judges to fill them. This "packing" story is just one more lie McConnell and Grassley have told. Sadly, it's not just the liar who sacrifices his integrity when easily refuted lies are told.
I couldn't agree more.
Democrats have left the field far too often in response to Republican accusations and ridicule, and in so doing have rendered themselves ineffectual as an opposition party and as a positive alternative to the Republican narrative and agenda.
Now, when there is so much for Democrats to oppose for the good of our country, is not the time for them to let Republicans get away with their usual campaign of psychological projection and blame.
They should filibuster Judge Gorsuch because it is the right thing to do for our country. This extreme, narrow-minded, bogus perpetrator of bad law known as the originalist, textualist judicial philosophy so rigidly adhered to by Judge Gorsuch, must be opposed. The issues here transcend partisan politics. This is about the health of our counry, Constitution, and political system. Should originalism/textualism ever become the prevailing judicial philosophy in the courts, not only will the Constitution die, but so will that great experiment that began in 1776.
If Republicans want to evoke the "nuclear option," that is on *their* heads.
Democrats have left the field far too often in response to Republican accusations and ridicule, and in so doing have rendered themselves ineffectual as an opposition party and as a positive alternative to the Republican narrative and agenda.
Now, when there is so much for Democrats to oppose for the good of our country, is not the time for them to let Republicans get away with their usual campaign of psychological projection and blame.
They should filibuster Judge Gorsuch because it is the right thing to do for our country. This extreme, narrow-minded, bogus perpetrator of bad law known as the originalist, textualist judicial philosophy so rigidly adhered to by Judge Gorsuch, must be opposed. The issues here transcend partisan politics. This is about the health of our counry, Constitution, and political system. Should originalism/textualism ever become the prevailing judicial philosophy in the courts, not only will the Constitution die, but so will that great experiment that began in 1776.
If Republicans want to evoke the "nuclear option," that is on *their* heads.
20
Let the republicans show their colors immediately. Regardless of merit, turn down the GOP nominee, and let the GOP go nuclear. They will at the kfirst opportunity anyway, might as well be now.
7
Democrats, conduct this thought experiment. Imagine Gorsuch in virtually the same role as Scalia for the next 30 years - turning the court ever more rightward with just his single vote. Also, imagine that he has twice the power of Scalia, because Trump will be nominating more right-wing judges in the lower federal courts than any President has been able to in 50+ years, so the Supreme Court will face an even greater hurdle of overturning rather than upholding established right-wing precedents. Does "choose your battles rationally" sound like a good plan any longer?
7
I want to understand one thing. Why do people keep voting for the McConnells, the Ryans, the Gingrichs, and all the other corrupt, hypocritical, destructive politicians who are elevated to the highest ranks? What have they done for the people? Did they bring back more federal tax dollars to the states? How can anyone trust them?
43
You do realize that as many Republicans as you can call out by name to say, how can someone vote for them, you all voted for Clinton. I'm of the opinion that there are few people who trust anyone in government. What do you think the vote for Trump was all about? People saw him as the 'outsider' who was going to change things. They may not have gotten what they thought they were getting, but,liberal values have held sway for too long. I'm sure many people want to see some adjustments in leveling off the field, so conservatives have a voice.
Not that it makes much difference, once they all get to Washington, they see themselves as untouchable and have the opportunity of a lifetime to double dip into the pie and ignore the average American.
And federal tax dollars? We don't have any money! We have debt. We're borrowing to pay bills while Congress plans more spending.
Not that it makes much difference, once they all get to Washington, they see themselves as untouchable and have the opportunity of a lifetime to double dip into the pie and ignore the average American.
And federal tax dollars? We don't have any money! We have debt. We're borrowing to pay bills while Congress plans more spending.
1
Same reason they keep voting in Schumer and Pelosi among others. Oh and Harry Reid until recently.
1
Why do they vote for destructive politicians like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.
Remember it was Harry Reid, with the support of Chuck, that used the "nuclear option" to assure that they got liberal judges seated on the bench, not the Republicans.
The Democrats have only themselves to blame.
The Cloture Rule came about in 1917 at the behest of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson when he wanted a way to get the Treaty of Versailles through a reluctant Senate.
The Democrats also used the filibuster to prevent civil rights legislation passing througout the 1930s, -40's, and -50's for their patentedly political aims.
The fury of the left, fueled by their incredible losses of political power at the state and federal levels have lead them down paths that are, and will in the future, come back to haunt them.
Don't blame Trump or the Republicans for your failures to understand the ramifications of your actions....
Remember it was Harry Reid, with the support of Chuck, that used the "nuclear option" to assure that they got liberal judges seated on the bench, not the Republicans.
The Democrats have only themselves to blame.
The Cloture Rule came about in 1917 at the behest of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson when he wanted a way to get the Treaty of Versailles through a reluctant Senate.
The Democrats also used the filibuster to prevent civil rights legislation passing througout the 1930s, -40's, and -50's for their patentedly political aims.
The fury of the left, fueled by their incredible losses of political power at the state and federal levels have lead them down paths that are, and will in the future, come back to haunt them.
Don't blame Trump or the Republicans for your failures to understand the ramifications of your actions....
2
This article is a load of rubbish. All it highlights is the double standard that the Democrats/Progressives perpetuate to justify bad behavior. It's just more rhetoric to support obstruction to anything Republican. Also it just emphasizes the short term thinking that the Democrats have demonstrated during the last 2 administrations. Notice it's all about them. If I did know better Chuck Schumer could of wrote this.
18
So it was acceptable to not even have a hearing about Merrick Garland for an entire year? But if the Democrats exercise their legal option to vote no for Gorsch that is outrageous? That's what's called a double standard. The Republicans have exhibited bad behavior throughout the Obama administration. The team with the hypocritical double standard is the Republicans. But being a Republican means never having to say you're sorry, right?
In what universe do you dwell? Republicans have done zero for the people they profess to serve. Democrats have demonstrated service to the people time and time again. Republicans have a long track record of fascism, of serving none but the oligarchy as they threaten mainstays like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid...they have waged war against the people. We need no further evidence.
1
The seat is stolen and should remain empty. We can get along with 8 justices just fine. If Trump withdraws this and re-nominates Judge Garland we can talk. Until then, no.
132
David, please see what Chuck Schumer did in 2007 with George W. Bush's pick for SCOTUS. Schumer forgot and so did all you liberals. Collective amnesia?
Garland is over and done with.
Garland is over and done with.
Once again, "both sides do it" just isn't a satisfactory argument, and I'm so glad not to read it here. It took 500 filibusters for Reid to go nuclear. For McConnell, it takes 1. Some pundits argue that Democrats should "save" the filibuster for when they "really need" it (um, like, now). But if McConnell is going nuclear on the first filibuster, what's the point of saving it? It's an opposition tool that will never work for Democrats. Republicans have already worn it down past repair.
89
No. There WERE NO FILIBUSTERS during Reid's term as Majority Leader. There were CLOTURE VOTES, most of which were gussied up political pea=shooters to try to deflect The People from understanding that Reid had used; abused, really, his powers of assignment to cut the Republicans from any meaningful political discussion about the content of legislation.
And while I suspect that the Democrats' tears today are real, the tears are the result of actions that they took that are now returning to cause the Democrats the misery of effectual irrelevance.
Oh, what a pity. I'll order some more handkerchiefs for y'all.
And while I suspect that the Democrats' tears today are real, the tears are the result of actions that they took that are now returning to cause the Democrats the misery of effectual irrelevance.
Oh, what a pity. I'll order some more handkerchiefs for y'all.
1
There is no legitimate reason for the Democrats to oppose Gorsuch. Tit for tat is not the basis for a principled decision.
9
The legitimate reason is Gorsuch's record on civil rights...it's dismal.
11
that's actually untrue. He is more conservative than Alito and Scalia. That is a legitimate reason to oppose him, especially when considered in conjunction with how the moderate Garland nominee was treated
194
Gorsuch was designated "well qualified" to become a Supreme Court Justice, he is mainstream and most if not all of the grievances outlined in this Times editorial would have kept all four Leftist justices to have never been confirmed. The Left turned this Supreme Court nomination process into a political, hateful and vicious exercise of venom spewing long ago. The Republicans for the most part have let even the most extreme justices nominated by Democrat presidents to slide through in respectful hearings, as they did with Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomeyer and Kagan. If the Dems are willing to filibuster a mainstream judge like Gorsuch, they are being unethical and disengenuous with the process and therefore McConnel would be right to implement the "Reid" option. The filibuster for Supreme Court nominees is mainly used by democrats so they would be the ones impacted the most and it would open the door for Republicans to confirm picks that are considerably far right of Gorsuch in the future to replace any Liberal vacancies. The Democrats need to put the Republicans' use of the Biden Rule in the case of judge Garland thing behind them because it is blinding them from temperance and common sense.
Some Democrats are selling out to save their political hides. Some are misguided in persuading themselves that there is some higher nobility in accepting Constitutional death instead of proving the Constitution is a living document.
McConnell has proven that Republicans will stop at nothing. They obstructed everything Obama, leading Democrats to change the rules on lower court judicial nominations. McConnell and Republicans denied President Obama's right to appoint Garland for no good reason except to insult President Obama (most everyone assumed Hillary was going to be elected, no conservative judge would be nominated; and if she had been elected, McConnell would never have allowed the empty seat to be filled).
Senator Ben Cardin has not expressed support of a filibuster. His political hide is not in jeopardy. I have written him twice and called his office to urge him to support the filibuster of Gorsuch's confirmation. I hope he will come to his senses.
Every clear thinking American must treat Trump, his administration and the Republican Party as an existential threat to America. Because they are. They should be fought on every front and with every breath we take. This is not about sour grapes or revenge; this is about the future of America and who we are.
McConnell has proven that Republicans will stop at nothing. They obstructed everything Obama, leading Democrats to change the rules on lower court judicial nominations. McConnell and Republicans denied President Obama's right to appoint Garland for no good reason except to insult President Obama (most everyone assumed Hillary was going to be elected, no conservative judge would be nominated; and if she had been elected, McConnell would never have allowed the empty seat to be filled).
Senator Ben Cardin has not expressed support of a filibuster. His political hide is not in jeopardy. I have written him twice and called his office to urge him to support the filibuster of Gorsuch's confirmation. I hope he will come to his senses.
Every clear thinking American must treat Trump, his administration and the Republican Party as an existential threat to America. Because they are. They should be fought on every front and with every breath we take. This is not about sour grapes or revenge; this is about the future of America and who we are.
34
I have written Cardin twice also encouraging him to support a filibuster. I am not so much against Gorsuch as I am against the fact that the Congress usurped a Constitutional responsibility specific to the Executive, but I will remember Cardin's position when he comes up for re-election.
Every Democratic defector has a mid term coming up.
Politics is still politics and I want this Democrats to keep their seats so when we rewrite gerrymandered districts (there is a census coming up) we get to draw sane districts that are Democratic.
We need to be grown up about things and stop flying off the handle.
Politics is still politics and I want this Democrats to keep their seats so when we rewrite gerrymandered districts (there is a census coming up) we get to draw sane districts that are Democratic.
We need to be grown up about things and stop flying off the handle.
1
Go ahead and filibuster, which will result in a rules change, remember Democrats made the first change and Harry Reid promised to eliminate the filibuster when he was sure Democrats would win the Senate. If you don't like Gorsuch, who is eminently qualified and handled himself beautifully during the hearing, wait for the next appointment, remember the jurist from Alabama. If Gorsuch were not so well qualified may be you could pick up a few Republicans to oppose a rules change but that won't happen, and If you think Democrats will capture the Senate in 2018, lots of luck, look at who is up for re-election. The Schumer strategy is a losing hand, know when to fold. Revenge is best served cold.
8
I never thought that the filibuster rule was constitutional anyway. The Constitution contemplates a simple majority vote. Why else allow the vice president to break a tie if a tie is not possible under the filibuster rule? The Republicans just need to remember that what goes around comes around.
8
None of this would be happening if the democratic party didn't adopt the open border policies of Barack Obama. It is the wedge issue that cost Clinton the election and will continue keep this nation irreparably divided.
In the unlikely chance that the dems would walk away from politicized immigration, The GOP would fade away as we now know it.
In the unlikely chance that the dems would walk away from politicized immigration, The GOP would fade away as we now know it.
2
reps did nothing on immigration policy .. nothng !!!
What open border policy? Under Obama there was a two year vetting process for refugees. That's hardly "open".
No, the Democrats would then BE the racist Republicans. Compromising your core is the GOP way. Progressives are better than that.
Ridiculous - it's just the same partisan politics we were subjected to for the previous 8 years. Democrats used the nuclear option just three years ago, and despite the authors attempt to justify it, it's simply a case of "yeah, well, when WE did it, it was OK!". Its childish, and exposes the authors inability to recognize his own extreme partisan nature. Placing a SCJ that supports the conservative party's values was deemed the highest priority during the election, and one of the main reasons moderates rejected Clinton, held their noses and voted for Trump. The seating of conservative justices is a HUGE issue for republicans - to not persue it with all available means would be a failure.
And did the author even watch the hearings? It is an incredible distortion of truth to try and paint Gorsuch as anything but respectful, polite,patient, a man of careful and thoughtful words. He endured weeks of verbal attack, attempts designed specifically to trick him into stating something they could crucify him over, but he refused to take the bait. THAT'S why democrats are mad at him - he refused to crumble under assault and never gave them anything to send them into orgiastic seizures of protest for the eyes of the public, which seems to be the new MO for the democratic party. This is why 2 democratic representatives have stated they will vote to confirm him - in their words, "there is nothing evident that would keep us from confirming him, he is a worthy candidate for the SC."
And did the author even watch the hearings? It is an incredible distortion of truth to try and paint Gorsuch as anything but respectful, polite,patient, a man of careful and thoughtful words. He endured weeks of verbal attack, attempts designed specifically to trick him into stating something they could crucify him over, but he refused to take the bait. THAT'S why democrats are mad at him - he refused to crumble under assault and never gave them anything to send them into orgiastic seizures of protest for the eyes of the public, which seems to be the new MO for the democratic party. This is why 2 democratic representatives have stated they will vote to confirm him - in their words, "there is nothing evident that would keep us from confirming him, he is a worthy candidate for the SC."
10
I never understood how the Democrats thought they could get Garland through the Senate. They didn't have 60 votes nor even 50. There was no chance for his confirmation, the Democrats had lost the Senate. So if wasn't a stolen seat. If Obama really wanted the seat filled he could have met with Senate and decided on a mutually agreeable nominee. Obama was to radical for that though.
7
too radical? after spending nearly 8 years being blocked on EVERYTHING whether moderate or not? His nominee was deemed qualified by some Republicans, but they weren't in the Senate or up for reelection
1
Hypothetical. So why did they not allow him to have a hearing? The fact that they refused to meet with Garland at all was outrageous. If he wasn't going to win the votes what possible reason did the Republicans have to not follow procedure? It was a personal slap to Obama, and the Democrats are just giving the Republicans a taste of their own medicine. Why reward bad behavior? And if McDonnell wants Gorsch badly enough, he'll just do what he wants to do and he still gets to blame it on the Democrats. But expecting the Democrats to continuously take crap from the Republicans is not fair to say the least!
1
Those Who support Gorsuch, support McConnell's theft from Merrick Garland.
As does Gorsuch himself, who is an accessory after the fact.
As does Gorsuch himself, who is an accessory after the fact.
24
There is nothing in the Constitution or the Rules of the Senate that suggest that the seat was Merrick Garland's to begin with.
1
The NRA has been flooding the Indiana television stations with advertisements asking voters to call Joe Donnelly's office and tell him to vote for Gorsuch. His vote has nothing to do with "Gorsuch's sound qualifications" and everything to do with his fear of loosing his next election.
According to the NRA a vote for Gorsuch is a vote to protect the second amendment and for gun ownership rights.
According to the NRA a vote for Gorsuch is a vote to protect the second amendment and for gun ownership rights.
17
"According to the NRA a vote for Gorsuch is a vote to protect the second amendment and for gun ownership rights."
Of course.
Of course.
If the NRA is for him, he's got to be dirty. Gorsuch's record on civil rights is dismal. All fascism needs to overthrow democracy is to circumvent the law.
Bravo to Mr. Jentleson for calling out McConnell for what he is: a partisan hack who'll stop at nothing to protect his benefactors. Not only should the Democrats stand firm against McConnell's heist of a lifetime, Supreme Court seat, they should tar and feather him with sole responsibility for de-legitimizing the institutions of the Senate and the Supreme Court, and for disenfranchising the voters of 2012 (who reelected Obama) and 2014 (for handing the Senate to the republicans). In essence, McConnell went nuclear when he denied Garland his hearing. Lest the Democrats forget, a spine is essential for standing.
10
The Democrats want two sets of rules. When the Republicans are in, it takes 60 votes. When the Democrats are in, it only takes 51.
The problem with that is, the Democrats install justices who will make it up as they go along. It's an 'anything goes' environment. A box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get, and sometimes what you get are monumental mistakes like this:
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S 393 (1857) (Justice Curtis dissenting).
5 years and 560,000 dead later, we corrected the judicial error.
The MIB are not competent to make law.
The problem with that is, the Democrats install justices who will make it up as they go along. It's an 'anything goes' environment. A box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get, and sometimes what you get are monumental mistakes like this:
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S 393 (1857) (Justice Curtis dissenting).
5 years and 560,000 dead later, we corrected the judicial error.
The MIB are not competent to make law.
3
EXPOSED as the radical he is? The gaslighting is anyone thinking he's ever been anything but!
The Nuclear Option was NOT a Democratic idea. And it wasn't just a loose suggestion like Joe Biden's 1992 suggestion of holding up Supreme Court nominations.
The re-writing of History by the GOP continues. The REAL threat of the Nuclear Option came in 2005 when VP Cheney threatened, as President of the Senate, to arbitrarily take control and throw out the filibuster, despite having no legal or Senate rule basis for it. Rather than holding their ground, Dems blinked and Cheney got away with it without having to actually try it. So Harry Reid was forced because Senators, like Mike Lee, were filibustering judges solely to blackmail the Senate into budget cuts he wanted.
McConnell has ALWAYS been determined to establish absolute power in the Senate and that was all part of it.
Then there's "Borking" a Justice nominee, forgetting that both Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry were "Borked" by Republicans in 1968. Warren Burger became Chief Justice besides being an empty suit, then Nixon nominated first Clement Haynesworth, then G. Harold Carswell, both TOTALLY unsuited and therefore "Borked" and then named Burger's then-friend Harry Blackmun.
That's FOUR nominees "Borked" in our lifetimes well before Robert Bork, again totally unsuitable, was nominated by Ronald Reagan in the 80's.
Gorsuch is another cold-blooded, unprincipled Robert Bork but he's pro-business and anti-abortion.
The Nuclear Option was NOT a Democratic idea. And it wasn't just a loose suggestion like Joe Biden's 1992 suggestion of holding up Supreme Court nominations.
The re-writing of History by the GOP continues. The REAL threat of the Nuclear Option came in 2005 when VP Cheney threatened, as President of the Senate, to arbitrarily take control and throw out the filibuster, despite having no legal or Senate rule basis for it. Rather than holding their ground, Dems blinked and Cheney got away with it without having to actually try it. So Harry Reid was forced because Senators, like Mike Lee, were filibustering judges solely to blackmail the Senate into budget cuts he wanted.
McConnell has ALWAYS been determined to establish absolute power in the Senate and that was all part of it.
Then there's "Borking" a Justice nominee, forgetting that both Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry were "Borked" by Republicans in 1968. Warren Burger became Chief Justice besides being an empty suit, then Nixon nominated first Clement Haynesworth, then G. Harold Carswell, both TOTALLY unsuited and therefore "Borked" and then named Burger's then-friend Harry Blackmun.
That's FOUR nominees "Borked" in our lifetimes well before Robert Bork, again totally unsuitable, was nominated by Ronald Reagan in the 80's.
Gorsuch is another cold-blooded, unprincipled Robert Bork but he's pro-business and anti-abortion.
6
The idea it was Gorsuch's behavior that alienated Democrats is laughable. What alienated them was their utterly unhinged base. As McConnell pointed out to the all but unhinged Chuck Todd yesterday, Clarence Thomas - vastly more controversial than Gorsuch - was confirmed 52-48 without anyone even hinting at a resort to the filibuster. It has been Democrats since Schumer himself started the ball rolling who have resorted to it. Nothing in the Constitution okays its use with Supreme Court appointees. For McConnell to "go nuclear" would be to return to the 1990s. I thought Democrats liked those days.
6
And Thomas has proven an unmitigated disaster on the court. So you learn from your mistakes and try not to appoint any more "originalist" losers, like Scalia, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
The Gorsuch nomination ought to be filibustered. At first, I did not think a filibuster was a good idea, but McConnell has changed my opinion.
McConnell is threatening the nuclear option. He may even want to kill the filibuster. He may, or may not, succeed in killing the filibuster depending the extent of support he has among Republican senators.
McConnell has led the Senate Republicans for a long time and he probably can assess his chances of burying the filibuster accurately. Don't expect McConnell to share his assessment with the public. His job is to use bluff and bluster to seat Gorsuch. If bluff and bluster fail, then we'll see whether McConnell's fallback position is the nuclear option, the negotiation option or some other option.
Part of McConnell's strategy is to offer the Republican-Lite senators on the Democratic side the gold star of bipartisanship. He may succeed and if he does those Republican-Lite senators will prevent Democrats from calling McConnell's bluff. And that gold star, it doesn't symbolize bipartisanship, it's the badge of a deputy and McConnell is the self-styled sheriff.
McConnell is threatening the nuclear option. He may even want to kill the filibuster. He may, or may not, succeed in killing the filibuster depending the extent of support he has among Republican senators.
McConnell has led the Senate Republicans for a long time and he probably can assess his chances of burying the filibuster accurately. Don't expect McConnell to share his assessment with the public. His job is to use bluff and bluster to seat Gorsuch. If bluff and bluster fail, then we'll see whether McConnell's fallback position is the nuclear option, the negotiation option or some other option.
Part of McConnell's strategy is to offer the Republican-Lite senators on the Democratic side the gold star of bipartisanship. He may succeed and if he does those Republican-Lite senators will prevent Democrats from calling McConnell's bluff. And that gold star, it doesn't symbolize bipartisanship, it's the badge of a deputy and McConnell is the self-styled sheriff.
3
Isn't this the same Mitch McConnell who said the "goal" of the Republican Party, back in 2008, was the defeat of Mr. Obama in his next run for president in 2012?
I would suggest that if the Democrats ever take over Congress the first thing on the agenda should be "term limits" for the entire crowd; president, senators, congressmen and, yes, Supreme Court Justices. Then individual potentates, like Mr. McConnell and MANY others, won't have the assurance of life long, cushy, well paid "employment" and may actually have to, shudder, GOVERN.
Then again would I willfully give up a job that pays 200 grand a year, a great pension no matter how long/short I served, a staff of hundreds to actually look like I'm doing something and a work year of about 100 days?
Hmmmm...remember, vote for "Rich Petro" next year, please?
Thank you all for your support; now where was that next fund raiser?
I would suggest that if the Democrats ever take over Congress the first thing on the agenda should be "term limits" for the entire crowd; president, senators, congressmen and, yes, Supreme Court Justices. Then individual potentates, like Mr. McConnell and MANY others, won't have the assurance of life long, cushy, well paid "employment" and may actually have to, shudder, GOVERN.
Then again would I willfully give up a job that pays 200 grand a year, a great pension no matter how long/short I served, a staff of hundreds to actually look like I'm doing something and a work year of about 100 days?
Hmmmm...remember, vote for "Rich Petro" next year, please?
Thank you all for your support; now where was that next fund raiser?
5
The Democrats cannot conjure even one rational argument for opposing Gorsuch. He is a brilliant judicial mind, has received the endorsement of the ABA and is a true mainstream nominee. This is in direct contrast to the unqualified far left radical Obama tried to jam down Americans' throats in clear violation of the Biden Doctrine
7
Thanks for the Faux News talking points, but if I wanted lies I'd sign up follow Trump on Twitter.
If Democrats are more principled regarding Supreme Court justice appointments, FDR wold never have proposed to pack the court. Sure,he ultimately failed. But the most popular Democrat ever believed that court-packing was just.
9
The Constitution does not specify the number of Justices. So what, exactly, did FDR do wrong?
Of course, the issue here is contemporary Democrats. The contemporary GOP has contempt for rules unless it suits them. The Democrats have dealt with an utterly intransigent GOP, chief among them McConnell. They own this mess.
So, if FDR jumped off a bridge...
Eventually you rightists are going to have to start thinking for yourselves instead of doing the exact opposite of what we Americans do.
Seems that every day I hear our draft dodging russian gimp president say "well Obama did it."
This is something a child would say which is fitting but still sad.
But as for gorsuch, no, sorry.
Eventually you rightists are going to have to start thinking for yourselves instead of doing the exact opposite of what we Americans do.
Seems that every day I hear our draft dodging russian gimp president say "well Obama did it."
This is something a child would say which is fitting but still sad.
But as for gorsuch, no, sorry.
1
McConnell and the Republicans have already perverted the constitution with their refusal to consider Garland.
The new constitutional reality created by McConnell and the Republicans is that no supreme court justice will be seated except when a party holds both the senate and the presidency. There is no possible reading of the constitution or "originalist interpretation" that enables this -- Gorsuch has been smart enough to duck the whole question.
The absolute worst thing about McConnell's claims and his behavior is that he says "the Democrats would have done it to us, if they could." No adult raising a child can ever accept this excuse -- it is morally completely bootless, and enables any an every cruel and corrupt behavior. It is based on projection, and nothing more.
Demographics and the pendulum of politics will put the Democrats back in power sooner or later ... and the way the Trump administration is stinking the joint up, sooner seems increasingly likely.
The GOP has been the party of angry "NO;" it is fundamentally structured and conceived as a minority party. In power today it is demonstrating that it is unable to actually lead or build anything. It is insanely stupid of such a party to give up the filibuster for SCOTUS justices ... except for one thing:
If this is truly its last gasp, that it has come to the "apres moi, la deluge" moment ... then getting one or two really conservative justices onto the court at this price makes sense.
The new constitutional reality created by McConnell and the Republicans is that no supreme court justice will be seated except when a party holds both the senate and the presidency. There is no possible reading of the constitution or "originalist interpretation" that enables this -- Gorsuch has been smart enough to duck the whole question.
The absolute worst thing about McConnell's claims and his behavior is that he says "the Democrats would have done it to us, if they could." No adult raising a child can ever accept this excuse -- it is morally completely bootless, and enables any an every cruel and corrupt behavior. It is based on projection, and nothing more.
Demographics and the pendulum of politics will put the Democrats back in power sooner or later ... and the way the Trump administration is stinking the joint up, sooner seems increasingly likely.
The GOP has been the party of angry "NO;" it is fundamentally structured and conceived as a minority party. In power today it is demonstrating that it is unable to actually lead or build anything. It is insanely stupid of such a party to give up the filibuster for SCOTUS justices ... except for one thing:
If this is truly its last gasp, that it has come to the "apres moi, la deluge" moment ... then getting one or two really conservative justices onto the court at this price makes sense.
16
Thank you for that!
Your putrid dreams/excuses aside, the Republicans were perfectly within their rights as they had what we call in a democracy, as the votes. The preverters of the constitutional intent as embodied in the over 200 year old Senate rule about a 60 vote threshold for Federal judicial appointments did not have the votes, so they chose to debase our polity and the institution for short term political gain. Thank you Mr. Jentleson and Mr. Reid for your attention to the tradition of bipartisanship that existed for over 200 years. Now that you've destroyed it, please receive your comeuppance with dignity and stop whining.
1
"the Democrats would have done it to us, if they could."
Well, he's right.
Think back to 2013...
"How Democrats Paved the Way for the Confirmation of Trump's Cabinet"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-trump-cab...
Well, he's right.
Think back to 2013...
"How Democrats Paved the Way for the Confirmation of Trump's Cabinet"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-trump-cab...
1
Mr. McConnell knows that the propagandists at FOX have his back. They will blame the Democrats 24/7 without any history or perspective, and their victims will eat it whole and regurgitate it without giving it a thought. And they will yell about it, loudly, until everyone else backs down.
11
Judge Gorsuch is more than qualified for Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. I've called both my NJ Senators offices and asked that they vote yes on his confirmation. If any reader thinks for one minute that Dems would not have stalled a Republican SCOTUS nominee in similar circumstances to Judge Garland ( who was also qualified ) they are clueless.
5
Judge Garland was MORE than qualified for the Supreme Court. He should have had a hearing. There is ZERO evidence that Democrats would have anything like this. In fact no Republican Senate has EVER done this.
McConnell did something new and dangerous. It should never be allowed to become the new 'normal'. I called MY Senators and urged them to vote against Judge Gorsuch.
McConnell did something new and dangerous. It should never be allowed to become the new 'normal'. I called MY Senators and urged them to vote against Judge Gorsuch.
1
Yet another article that talks about eliminating the filibuster as a "nuclear option", i.e., a bad thing. If McConnell does eliminate filibusters for any reason, doing so may be his only contribution to democratic governance in a quarter century in the Senate. Democratic options are so stymied and frustrated by the archane rules of an already undemocratic body (why in the world does Wyoming have the same representation as California?) that pulling that "nuclear" trigger is just fine with me. There will be a Democratic president again in 4 or 8 years and tables will turn.
8
There are plenty of blue states with very small populations. Vermont,Delaware,Rhode island, Hawaii etc. Balances out the Gop advantage in states like Wyoming, SD and others.
Hopefully not 8 years!
You cannot complain about Senate representation. The framers created that body to give every state, no matter how sparsely populated, the same amount of votes in the chamber.
The problem is the house. That body was set up to fairly represent the population of each state, but it does not. In PA, a vote in my ultra-conservative county has the weight of 3 votes in more liberal Philadelphia, because there are three times as many people in their districts. They get one representative and so do I. If the house were a fair representative of population, as Constitutionally intended, each district in every state would comprise roughly the same numbers of voters. But with Republican re-districting, gerrymandering, and voter suppression this will never happen, and the House will be forever conservative-skewed.
The problem is the house. That body was set up to fairly represent the population of each state, but it does not. In PA, a vote in my ultra-conservative county has the weight of 3 votes in more liberal Philadelphia, because there are three times as many people in their districts. They get one representative and so do I. If the house were a fair representative of population, as Constitutionally intended, each district in every state would comprise roughly the same numbers of voters. But with Republican re-districting, gerrymandering, and voter suppression this will never happen, and the House will be forever conservative-skewed.
Senator McConnell is a cynical power hungry apparatchik. No rules ever matter, unless he can use them to advantage the Republican Party. He has destroyed any remnant of amity and in the Senate. He will gut the remnants of the filibuster when he wishes and blame the Democrats.
13
As Harry Reid and the Democrats (including Chuckie Schumer) gutted the filibuster in 2013?
That sort of gutting?
Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander.
That sort of gutting?
Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander.
3
After unprecedented abuse of the judicial filibuster by Senator McConnell and his GOP confederates (almost 500 times), and after failing to get the process to move, Senator Reid had no choice. Here, Senator McConnell will likely kill the filibuster for a Supreme Court nominee after it is used once. Also, where is your "outrage" after the GOP refused to even allow hearings and a vote on Judge Garland?
2
Aunt Nancy, you need to quit the reefer.
1
I don't think the word Nuclear should be used in this way.
It trivializes the word and with the present UN debate and the suggestion of Pre-emptive attacks on North Korea it seems better to use words that say what they mean and mean what they say.
It trivializes the word and with the present UN debate and the suggestion of Pre-emptive attacks on North Korea it seems better to use words that say what they mean and mean what they say.
6
Wouldn't it be an extraordinary turn of events if Gorsuch didn't accept the nomination after the "nuclear option" was employed? An unlikely principled stand that takes the power away from the Senate and sends a clear message that a 60-vote minimum is a bipartisan tradition that should continue. The judiciary making a decision where the Senate can't agree. But this, of course, will not occur.
5
He should not have accepted the nomination that belonged to Judge Garland, if he had any judicial integrity. The nomination was Merrick Garland's and he deserved a hearing.
But Gorsuch has been planning for this this entire professional life and was well-coached and practiced to say nothing.
But Gorsuch has been planning for this this entire professional life and was well-coached and practiced to say nothing.
3
I never heard of this sixty vote bipartisan tradition before the Republican took control of the Senate, where was it hidden all these years?
Even the Washington Post fact checker rated that claim as two pinnochios!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/02/senate-de...
Even the Washington Post fact checker rated that claim as two pinnochios!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/02/senate-de...
1
McConnell has no interest in doing his job to serve the American people. His sole motivation is political. Senate rules are up for grabs if they don't serve this purpose.
7
Perhaps I am mistaken, but didn't the Democrats already "blow up the Senate" by using the nuclear option in approving lower court appointees during Obama's administration? Yes, a Supreme Court nominee is a step higher to be sure, but the precedent had already been set. It is a terrible mistake to force through any appointees in this way, but we cannot forget the slippery slope we were already put on.
3
The number of Supreme court justices does not have to be 9. If the Repubs do this, let them know the next time Dems control all 3 branches, they'll expand the court to 11, and confirm 2 new judges to swing the court the other direction.
3
You know, the Republicans,the party in power now can also do what you mentioned, that is pack the court.
Tried that already and FDR at the height of his power and influence couldn't pull it off. I'll not be losing sleep over that!
The filibuster should be honored. A simple majority should not be the bar for a life time appointment. Despite all the hatred and obstruction lobbed against President Obama, his SCOTUS nominees got 60 votes. Think about the UK and a simple majority voting for Brexit. This was so major that it should have required a super majority for such a history altering move. CA often seems ruled by simple majority referenda and it wreaks havoc with governing that state. Let these be examples.
If the Rs choose to go "nuclear" they will live to regret it when, inevitably, the tables are turned. Instead of using our current state of partisanship as an excuse to change the rule, perhaps we can just accept that right now only a candidate that has bipartisan support can be confirmed. This is a momentary blip on our history and will eventually pass. I hope sensible members will think long term and not be obsessed with the "win" on this one.
If the Rs choose to go "nuclear" they will live to regret it when, inevitably, the tables are turned. Instead of using our current state of partisanship as an excuse to change the rule, perhaps we can just accept that right now only a candidate that has bipartisan support can be confirmed. This is a momentary blip on our history and will eventually pass. I hope sensible members will think long term and not be obsessed with the "win" on this one.
5
If you have a chance listen to Chuck Todd's interview of Mitch McConnell about the failure of Congress to given Justice Garland a hearing last year.
McConnell did not fare well.
McConnell did not fare well.
7
"Democrats have come by their opposition to Judge Gorsuch honestly"
There is nothing honest about that.
There is nothing honest about that.
4
Since,despite his obvious and frightening deficits of ability and character, Mr. Trump is not going away any time soon, perhaps it would be sensible for the Democratic leadership to take advantage of his known characteristics. Namely a desperate desire to be important and a complete lack of ideological stand.
How about an offer to fix the ACA in a bipartisan way, in return for Mr. Trump's withdrawal of Gorsich and substitution of Merrick Garland as his Supreme Court appointee? "The Art of the Deal," right?
How about an offer to fix the ACA in a bipartisan way, in return for Mr. Trump's withdrawal of Gorsich and substitution of Merrick Garland as his Supreme Court appointee? "The Art of the Deal," right?
2
Mitch McConnell's self interest has cost this country many of the benefits President Obama could have led; the function of foundational norms and the promise of reality based policies that might have secured our future. To hold power he blocks and distorts with a pursed lip coldness that is frightening.
4
His miserable, malevolent countenance does suggest one who is prosecuting the Salem witch trials doesn't it.
What an incredibly hypocritical column - nuclear option OK for democrats (thanks Harry Reid) but not OK for Republicans. The circumstances are not dis-similar and hardly matter in a decision of such import. You can't have it both ways Democrats and rejecting a jurist of Gorsuch's reputation and stature on such petty premises reveals the opposition to be petty themselves.
5
Playing to their extremist base, as the Republicans were doing with the Garland nomination.
The Two Wrongs make a Right Theory of Governance.
The Two Wrongs make a Right Theory of Governance.
There's an odd quirk in this saga in that it apparently takes only a simple majority vote to change a longstanding rule requiring essentially a 3/5 vote in the Senate to invoke cloture. Putting that aside for the moment, isn't it really the Republicans that have been killing bipartisanship? The Republicans in the House hold to their iconoclastic "Hastert Rule" - appropriately named for a now disgraced sexual pervert - that "requires" Republican votes alone to provide the majority for any legislation. Absent that straight jacket, bipartisan majorities would be comparatively easy to construct and the people's will truly ratified. The Republican Senate subverted the bipartisan intent of the 60 vote requirement by extending its use to regular order routine matters instead of preserving it for matters of high import. It was hardly defensible for Republicans to use it to block or slow walk nearly every Obama judicial appointment. If McConnell and his deconstructionists choose to eliminate it to grant an undeserved lifetime appointment to a 49 year old wet behind the ears judge who will overturn precedent and apparently has given assurances to Trump that he will overturn Roe v. Wade (since Trump promised he would nominate such a judge), then - yes - bipartisanship will be dead once and for all. Nonetheless, his hand should be forced. We may find some principled Republicans after all that will find that a bridge too far. It would take only three.
22
GOP'ers already effectively invoked another ' nuclear option ' by refusing to even meet with a SCOTUS nominee because they had the bad luck of a conservative Justice dying while Obama was president.
But the biggest objection to Gorsuch is his agenda, as described in the NYTimes piece by Bazelon and Posner:
" Businesses have always complained that government regulations increase their costs, and no doubt some regulations are ill-conceived. But a small group of conservative intellectuals have gone much further to argue that the rules that safeguard our welfare and the orderly functioning of the market have been fashioned in a way that’s not constitutionally legitimate. This once-fringe cause of the right asserts, as Judge Gorsuch put it in a speech last year, that the administrative state “poses a grave threat to our values of personal liberty. "
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/sunday-review/the-government-gorsuch-...
This agenda tilts close to Steve Bannon's radical self-proclaimed Leninism:
" I’m a Leninist, ” Bannon proudly proclaimed. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment. ”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-to...
Radicals with an agenda shouldn't be confirmed as SCOTUS justices.
But the biggest objection to Gorsuch is his agenda, as described in the NYTimes piece by Bazelon and Posner:
" Businesses have always complained that government regulations increase their costs, and no doubt some regulations are ill-conceived. But a small group of conservative intellectuals have gone much further to argue that the rules that safeguard our welfare and the orderly functioning of the market have been fashioned in a way that’s not constitutionally legitimate. This once-fringe cause of the right asserts, as Judge Gorsuch put it in a speech last year, that the administrative state “poses a grave threat to our values of personal liberty. "
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/sunday-review/the-government-gorsuch-...
This agenda tilts close to Steve Bannon's radical self-proclaimed Leninism:
" I’m a Leninist, ” Bannon proudly proclaimed. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment. ”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-to...
Radicals with an agenda shouldn't be confirmed as SCOTUS justices.
30
The GOP acts just like an authoritarian government - we do whatever we want, blame the opposition, and change the rules if we don't get our way. This seeping rot of our democratic principles is much deeper than any one Supreme Court justice. Whether the whole GOP has been corrupted to the core, or is just barreling forward with reckless abandon, they must be stopped or our democratic American government is over.
It is a stolen seat. When someone steals a pair of pants from your store, you don't run after them and hand them a matching jacket and shirt. Filibuster and opposition is the only moral, democratic, reasonable and credible option. And the GOP is hardly eager to make the rule change that could eliminate it.
It is a stolen seat. When someone steals a pair of pants from your store, you don't run after them and hand them a matching jacket and shirt. Filibuster and opposition is the only moral, democratic, reasonable and credible option. And the GOP is hardly eager to make the rule change that could eliminate it.
30
So how is this true of the GOP and not Harry Reid?
The filibuster itself must go. It is not stipulated in the Constitution, and has been exploited for too long by Republicans in their attempts to sabotage the ability of a Democratic majority to craft effective legislation - thus rendering the legislation itself insufficiently robust (as in the instance of the Affordable Care Act) and the process surrounding its passage excessively byzantine (thus jeopardizing public support).
The filibuster must go, and rest assured that once Democrats win back majorities in both houses of Congress, our rank and file will be pressuring the Majority Leader to do away with it at the earliest opportunity.
We can never forgive or forget the attempts of a Republican minority in the Senate (allied to a handful of bought-and-paid-for corporate Democrats) to sabotage the Obama Presidency.
Elections are supposed to have consequences, and perhaps the only way to bring home the inability of the contemporary Republican Party to successfully govern in the 21st century would be to remove the brake of the filibuster, and allow them to do their worst to the American people. The tide would surely turn against them soon enough.
The filibuster must go, and rest assured that once Democrats win back majorities in both houses of Congress, our rank and file will be pressuring the Majority Leader to do away with it at the earliest opportunity.
We can never forgive or forget the attempts of a Republican minority in the Senate (allied to a handful of bought-and-paid-for corporate Democrats) to sabotage the Obama Presidency.
Elections are supposed to have consequences, and perhaps the only way to bring home the inability of the contemporary Republican Party to successfully govern in the 21st century would be to remove the brake of the filibuster, and allow them to do their worst to the American people. The tide would surely turn against them soon enough.
18
You are absolutely right, the senate made up this 60 vote rule and the filibuster. Elections have consequences and the voters gave their power to the current party. Let them deal with themselves! Either the American public will get out and vote in the coming elections or they'll sit back and wonder how in the world could this happen, again.
the real problem here for Democrats is that Gorsuch is a perfectly qualified candidate for the supreme court and should be confirmed. all the rest is political theater.
8
This comment is equivalent to a boxer throwing a punch to his opponent and then standing in the ring with his guard down and saying "I didn't hit you so don't hit me."
I will further illustrate: Judge Merrick Garland "is a perfectly qualified candidate for the Supreme Court and" should have been confirmed after a hearing and a vote.
I will further illustrate: Judge Merrick Garland "is a perfectly qualified candidate for the Supreme Court and" should have been confirmed after a hearing and a vote.
1
as was President Obama's nominee.
Gorsuch is NOT mainstream- he is a corporate 1% enabler
Gorsuch is NOT mainstream- he is a corporate 1% enabler
Mkm: So was judge Garland. I suppose that was also political theater. McConnell should have given a hearing and vote up or down on Garland. There is no precedent for not taking up the nomination in election year. McConnell was and is political theater.
Scoutblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidentia...
Scoutblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidentia...