Supreme Court

[Baginns Hobbiton]

I'm really torn on how I think Democrats should handle the Supreme Court nomination. Part of me is still angry over the seat being stolen and wants the Dems to filibuster. This would push republicans to change Senate rules and I'm not sure if that would be a good or bad thing. On the other hand, they should probably be the adults in the room and do what is right and let it go to vote.

[Kulaf]

So you want the Dems to filibuster a nomination for 4 years?

[Baginns Hobbiton]

I don't think a filibuster is any more radical than not even bringing a vote for almost a year. At least it would be a 60 vote threshold which could be met. If the tables were turned, and the Dem's had refused to vote, there is not one doubt in my mind that Republicans would filibuster. The Senate had a constitutional obligation to give a hearing to Obama's nominee and they did not meet it. If Democrats give in, and just let it happen, then it just encourages Republicans to do it again.

[Ddrak]

Gorsuch seems a decent nominee for USSC to me. Sure, he's pretty much a Scalia clone but he's well reasoned, believes in separation of powers and was pretty much the sane one of the list. Sure, Garland was robbed and as far as I can tell, Gorsuch himself isn't too happy about that (his first call after the nomination was to Garland!).

I totally understand the Dems want a bit of revenge, but the way things are working now with the travel ban they may have better fish to fry.

Dd

[Kulaf]

The Senate had a constitutional obligation to give a hearing to Obama's nominee and they did not meet it. If Democrats give in, and just let it happen, then it just encourages Republicans to do it again.

There is no such obligation on the Senate. The President is obligated to nominate. The Senate can vote, or not, as it wills. While there was certainly political motivations to the Republicans refusal to vote on Obama's nomination, it was not because they thought their candidate was a lock to win and make a nomination. In fact, it could have backfired horribly on them had Hilary won in a landslide.

So I think trying to retaliate will just make them look rather foolish. They had some precedent on their side for not taking up a vote on an outgoing President's nomination for a life time appointment.

[Ddrak]

They had some precedent on their side for not taking up a vote on an outgoing President's nomination for a life time appointment.

Not really, at least not for the length of time they held it up for.

Dd

[Baginns Hobbiton]

I think it's in the spirit of the constitution that the senate at least vote on the nominee. I guess you could argue that they are not bound to ever vote on it. I don't have a problem with Gorsuch himself. He doesn't share my views but replacing Scalia with someone who holds similar views keeps some good balance. However, if something happens to Ginsburg, there is no way that Republicans would even begin to consider replacing her with a liberal.

The way I see it, committing to filibuster for two years until there is a new election in the Senate is no different from what Republicans did by refusing to even hold a vote. They have already, sadly, set precedent for it so why shouldn't Democrats fight fire with fire?

[Kulaf]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ee/482733/