Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It already succeeded. You're crying over spilt milk.

Yeah, there's nothing to fight here. They'll change the rules, and not require 60 votes. Then if another nominee comes up there's nothing to fight with. You need to save the fight for the next nominee who is likely replacing a moderate or lefty. Then you go to the mat and if they change the rules for that the American people will come around to sense of fairness because the Democrats were gracious with Gorsuch. If you do it now, America is not going to come along.

 

[unofan]

And you are naive if you think keeping our powder dry for RBG's successor is going to make a bit of difference. The first time the GOP needs to nuke 60 they'll do it. They're not statesmen, they're hoodlums. You are trying to hold on to Roberts Rules when the other side is burning villages.

I understand your argument from an ethical POV. But you're selling is as pragmatic, and it isn't. The GOP is beyond reason and beyond law if they can get away with it; there is no upside to appealing to the angels of the voters' better nature because they don't pay attention. So it comes down to how you deal with a mad dog -- you put it down, you don't reason with it.

You only initiate a coup if you know you'll succeed. The GOP gambled and won on Garland. We don't have to like it, but the Dems are firing a gun with no bullets right now. If the Dems force the nuclear option now, they get absolutely nothing out of it except satisfying their base, and November should've told you that the right cares more about the court than the left does. If the American people couldn't be bothered to care about the GOP's obstruction of Garland 9 months later, what in God's earth makes you think they'll punish the GOP for eliminating the parliamentary procedure known as the filibuster 18 months after the fact?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

You only initiate a coup if you know you'll succeed. The GOP gambled and won on Garland. We don't have to like it, but the Dems are firing a gun with no bullets right now. If the Dems force the nuclear option now, they get absolutely nothing out of it except satisfying their base, and November should've told you that the right cares more about the court than the left does. If the American people couldn't be bothered to care about the GOP's obstruction of Garland 9 months later, what in God's earth makes you think they'll punish the GOP for eliminating the parliamentary procedure known as the filibuster 18 months after the fact?

That cuts both ways. You say save the opposition for when the Dems have already demonstrated restraint, but the GOP played the Heel all summer and won. What makes you think hollering "Fred Blassie has brass knuckles hidden in those flowers from his mother!" is going to matter to the country in 2019?

 

[unofan]

That cuts both ways. You say save the opposition for when the Dems have already demonstrated restraint, but the GOP played the Heel all summer and won. What makes you think hollering "Fred Blassie has brass knuckles hidden in those flowers from his mother!" is going to matter to the country in 2019?

It might not matter then; it would likely depend on if Breyer or Ginsburg die and the fight actually occurs. But it definitely won't matter now. And a possibility of an effective use later is better than a completely wasted effort now.

If you only have one bullet, you don't shoot it at the bear on the other side of the river. You save it in case you run into one that could actually get you. If you wind up not firing it, oh well. It means the worse scenario never happened.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It might not matter then; it would likely depend on if Breyer or Ginsburg die and the fight actually occurs. But it definitely won't matter now. And a possibility of an effective use later is better than a completely wasted effort now.

I could be wrong but I personally think it would be more effective later. If they govern and let the GOP have their win they might have a lot more pull then if they do it now.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It might not matter then; it would likely depend on if Breyer or Ginsburg die and the fight actually occurs. But it definitely won't matter now. And a possibility of an effective use later is better than a completely wasted effort now.

If you only have one bullet, you don't shoot it at the bear on the other side of the river. You save it in case you run into one that could actually get you. If you wind up not firing it, oh well. It means the worse scenario never happened.

Well, I guess my only reason to do it now is to make the GOP do the final nuking, but by my own argument we're in Thunder Dome now and there are no rules, and the crowd just wants blood, so I guess it just doesn't matter.

OK, I give.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I get that the base is clamoring for this, but it's still the wrong call, IMO. This isn't the nominee that you force the nuclear option on.

Now when Ginsburg dies and they replace her with Cletus, you can't stop it.

Agreed.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I could be wrong but I personally think it would be more effective later. If they govern and let the GOP have their win they might have a lot more pull then if they do it now.

I think you're right. You can come from a position of strength. "We allowed Gorsuch because he was qualified. We are opposing Senator Cruz's appointment because he's a zealot and minimally qualified as he's never even been a circuit judge.

The American people deserve better and the GOP will face our filibuster as we protect the citizens of this country from extreme right nominees who do not represent the beliefs of the American people as a whole."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

opposing Senator Cruz's appointment

First nominee rejected by acclamation?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I think you're right. You can come from a position of strength. "We allowed Gorsuch because he was qualified. We are opposing Senator Cruz's appointment because he's a zealot and minimally qualified as he's never even been a circuit judge.

It's only in recent history that it's become a pseudo-requirement that a SCOTUS nominee have previous experience as a judge. I don't have a list of resumes on hand, but a number of SCOTUS justices had law degrees, but no experience behind the bench.

To that end, you don't even need a law degree to become a MN State Supreme Court justice. Some 10-12 years ago, there was a woman on the ballot who only had paralegal experience. Had she won her election, the state would have had to allow her to serve.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

First nominee rejected by acclamation?

I dunno. It gets him out of the Senate. He might get through.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I dunno. It gets him out of the Senate. He might get through.

Good point, though this is the better option.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Mark me down on the side of filibustering Gorsuch as being dumb.

And that kids, is how I met your Supreme Court Justice, Jeff Sessions.

Maybe a few sensible Dems will just go over and vote for Gorsuch to avoid it, but that seems pretty unlikely in the climate.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Keeping in mind if everyone is just going to play extreme hardball all the time, R's could also pull Gorsuch, change the rules and put a real Grade A ******* on the court in two hours. And then perhaps another one just to say "How do you like them apples, Chuck?"

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Keeping in mind if everyone is just going to play extreme hardball all the time, R's could also pull Gorsuch, change the rules and put a real Grade A ******* on the court in two hours. And then perhaps another one just to say "How do you like them apples, Chuck?"

Heck, just put up 5 SCOTUS justices. Or 500. Not sure there's anything to stop them.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I dont think the Dems will really fight it...I think they are playing a bit of chicken.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It's only in recent history that it's become a pseudo-requirement that a SCOTUS nominee have previous experience as a judge. I don't have a list of resumes on hand, but a number of SCOTUS justices had law degrees, but no experience behind the bench.

To that end, you don't even need a law degree to become a MN State Supreme Court justice. Some 10-12 years ago, there was a woman on the ballot who only had paralegal experience. Had she won her election, the state would have had to allow her to serve.

I get that. But it's still being pedantic and missing my point. Unless that was just a "The more you know" moment.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I get that. But it's still being pedantic and missing my point. Unless that was just a "The more you know" moment.

The latter, not the former.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

As I understand it, aren't there two votes?

First, a vote for "cloture" (end debate)?

Then, a vote on the nominee?

If I'm a Manchin or a Heitkamp, I'm voting yes on the first and no on the second. "The country deserves a vote. That being said, I'll authorize a vote and then vote 'no'."