Supreme Court Nomination Thread

[Ooh-Rah]

Since the Neil Gorsuch nomination could end up taking a life of it's own with the "nuclear" option, I'd like to begin a thread dedicated to the topic.

First, what is this nuclear option everyone is talking about:
What is the Senate's 'nuclear option'?

Personally I am not a fan, people in politics have long memories and the lead from this editorial at The Star Tribune gives a good example as to why:

"It could make the court safe for extremists. Are we ready for Justice Rudy Guiliani? Justice Keith Ellison? "

'Nuking' the filibuster for the Supreme Court could be damaging

I am a fan of checks/balances - blowing something up just because you can, is eventually going to come back 360 degrees and give you a very unpleasant taste of your own medicine.

What say you?

And why?

 

[Grunt]

I'm 100% against "anyone or any side" believing they can change the rules in order for them to win. That's the reason we have a government set up the way it is. Seriously, we have a bunch of delinquents running our country.

What do the Republicrats think is going to happen after they call the "Nuclear Option" this time and then the Democans take over and do the same thing. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth while calling the other side out for their actions.

 

[Devildoc]

The problem is that the nuclear option genie is out of the bottle, and it can't get put back in. There is a chess match right now in DC, and I know, surely as I know I am a handsome bastard, the Republicans are thinking, "if we don't invoke it now for this, the Democrats will whenever they get the chance." The Dems did it first, now the repubs are going to do it, and the dems will do it again.

What I think the Republicans should do is, remove Gorsuch from consideration and nominate someone else. REALLY back the Democrats into a corner, make them prove it is entirely ideological. Then when THAT candidate is turned down by the Democrats they could claim the high road and THEN invoke the nuclear option.

 

[Il Duce]

Seems like short-term disaster for Democrats and long-term disaster for everyone. But, both sides are caught in a problem of their own making forcing them down this path. It's one of those times in politics where real courage is doing something that will hurt you in the short term but help the institution in the long term. The days of politicians making decisions like that, if they ever existed, are long gone.

It's doubly frustrating to me because I don't know who you blame. Democrats are pushed to obstruction by their frustrated base while Republicans have to make the draconian rule changes or be unable to wield the power to push through the agenda they've been touting for the last 8 years. If either one backs down they risk primary challenges and electoral losses - but staying on this course means irrelevance and loss of power for Democrats and a situation for Republicans where they have to be terrified of losing power and getting the same (or worse) fucking over done to them.

 

[Devildoc]

I have to find it, but I saw video of Feinstein saying once, a few years ago, that disagreeing with a SC nominee is not cause to filibuster, contrasted with a recent video of her saying because so many democrats disagree it is their duty to filibuster.

For the life of me I don't understand why they think we (the electorate, the citizens) aren't smart enough to see through them.

 

[Grunt]

For the life of me I don't understand why they think we (the electorate, the citizens) aren't smart enough to see through them.

Because they keep getting elected by that same electorate. That proves they aren't smart enough to know better or they simply agree with their elected officials ways.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The electorate is willfully ignorant. But I'm so glad I'm out of California for good.

All of you guys who think it's awesome have schmucks like the dishonorable Feinstein and Harris in the Senate for you. But in the end, Mark Twain was right oh so long ago when he called Congress the only criminal class of people in America.

Gorsuch is qualified, vote him in. Merrick Garland was qualified, but you didn't have the votes and the the majority advised the President against a nomination that in their eyes shift the court drastically.

 

[Kraut783]

When was the last time both parties semi worked together on issues and weren't so polarized....late 80's?

 

[Devildoc]

When was the last time both parties semi worked together on issues and weren't so polarized....late 80's?

Bush the Elder. Some decent legislation with Clinton, but not a ton. Things really went south with Bush Junior.

 

[Marauder06]

When was the last time both parties semi worked together on issues and weren't so polarized....late 80's?

then, or immediately after 9/11?

 

[Salt USMC]

I wish I had saved it, but there was a handy graphic that charted how members of the senate voted in line with the president at the time. It was essentially as @Devildoc said - the senate was still semi-independent all the way up to Clinton. Around the time of GW Bush, the senate began to vote in lockstep with the president, and by the Obama administration it was virtually a 100% vote. Really wish I could find that graphic because it presents a very clear visual representation of polarization.

 

[ThunderHorse]

There was once a time when the Republicans were the opposition and the Senate was the Enemy. Not no mo.

 

[Kraut783]

then, or immediately after 9/11?

Yeah, I guess they aren't on the steps of the capital singing together anymore....

 

[Il Duce]

I thought this was a pretty good summary of the institutional pressures leading to the current Senate fiasco in a reasonably short read: Analysis: This is why the Senate is at a nuclear brink

 

[Il Duce]

Here's a different perspective - that maybe the loss of the filibuster is not such a disaster: Why I'll Be Glad to See the Filibuster Go

 

[ThunderHorse]

Had some really cool facts, but his disdain for Wyoming makes his slip show.

 

[Devildoc]

Here's a different perspective - that maybe the loss of the filibuster is not such a disaster: Why I'll Be Glad to See the Filibuster Go

Well, at least you know where the author stands. He gets his history correct, but his interpretation of it is a bit skewed. He also cherry-picks history to support his position. Wyoming and California on equal footing? Uh, yeah. It's that other chamber, you know, the House of Representatives, where seats are doled out by population. He also fails to mention that until 1913 and the 17th Amendment senators were appointed by state legislatures, the 17th Amendment was instituted to correct for "pay-for-play" and corrupt senators.

 

[The Hate Ape]

Despite the dialogue of "well if we nuke this... the Dems could nuke THAT down the road if they get control"

Human beings will always act on the high-incentive option. However the most utility is acquired, Humans will follow that particular COA. Dems would not give a shit if Reps didn't nuke this if they had an opportunity to nuke something down the road. Simple fact.

 

[Viper1]

The President is the President for the full 4-year term, not 3.5. Garland should have received a hearing and a vote. The Senate brought this upon themselves.

As older men have told me, the U.S. has survived worse.

 

[The Hate Ape]

We can learn from History but it will never justify the present. Citing a poor decision to shed light to a correctable COA is a waste of time and money.