If the Dems take the Senate this year, NO confirmation

[edhopper]

of any SCOTUS nominee. We can wait until 2020 to fill it.

The GOP set the precedent.

[MoonRiver]

1. YES!

What goes round, comes round.

[yonder]

4. Indeed,

and we can use McConnell's argument for it as well.

[Gothmog]

2. Agreed

[DemocracyMouse]

11. Brilliant! Do it!

[Gothmog]

12. We need 51 votes in the Senate

Six months ago, I would have told you that this was impossible. I am not so sure. We might be able to keep Florida, Missouri, south Dakota, Montana and Indiana in the current environment and pick up Arizona, Nevada and perhaps Tenn.

I am dreaming of a wave year in Texas and there is a chance that Beto could beat Carnival Cruz. Abbott is sitting on 41+ million dollars in a war chest and that can do a great deal of damage

[byronius]

3. I absolutely agree. Trump or Pence's nominee will be instantly compromised anyway.

But let us agree also that the Republicans have shown an utter lack of political decency in the past ten to twenty to thirty (how long ago was Eisenhower?) years, and that while we should treat them with all civil courtesy, we should accept their new bar and ruthlessly reject every nominee and every idea they put forth until they learn to be Americans.

But I'm just angry. Angry that almost half our tribe have devolved to such poisonous Gollums. It just sucks, for our nation and the world.

The body count for their stupidities is rising.

[Johnny2X2X]

5. Yes

Tell Trump that Merrick Garland is the only nominee that will be considered.

[fierywoman]

7. Exactly.

[lastlib]

17. Either Merrick Garland gets on the bench, or NOBODY does!

[dansolo]

25. Be careful about that request

Trump could nominate Merrick Garland on the promise that we won't block his replacement on the DC Circuit Court. That could be worse.

[OnDoutside]

26. He doesn't get to set the terms, if Democrats re-take the Senate.

[Bradshaw3]

6. Absolutely

Too important since the repubs have taken over the judicial process. Not just SCOTUS either, no confirmations at the lower levels too.

[Demsrule86]

10. The lower levels can't happen...the rules were changed so Pres. Obama could get justices approved.

[PoliticAverse]

28. The rules were changed to eliminate the filibuster for justices but if Democrats have the majority

they don't need a filibuster to block lower level (or cabinet) appointments.

[Demsrule86]

32. My point is we can stop Scotus. I don't know about lower level justices...hope we can.

[Fullduplexxx]

8. How about adding 2 seats to scotus. the population has grown we

Need more opinions on the bench

[Demsrule86]

9. I think that the days when the president's party didn't hold the Senate but the president still got

justices appointed is over. Mitch killed it...now you will have to have the Senate and the presidency.

[tritsofme]

15. I think it still depends on the vacancy.

If it would change the balance of the Court, as Garland would have, all bets are now off. But if it is a GOP president replacing a conservative seat or a Democratic one replacing a liberal, I think an opposition controlled Senate would force a more moderate nominee than otherwise, but I don't think they will hold the vacancy over multiple years. Could be wrong...hope not.

[Demsrule86]

33. Nope. Democrats should never vote for any GOP president's SCOTUS pick if they hold the Senate. The

GOP can't be trusted to play by the rules when they obtain power and we have Grosuck to prove it. And I want to change the balance of the court...thus no Senate no justices...McConnell did it... that ship has sailed.

[RandomAccess]

13. And then we should make it the guy who got passed over

Obama should have fought for him.

[Demsrule86]

34. There was nothing Pres. Obama could do when we lost the Senate...too bad we didn't have

pres. Obama's back both in 10 and in 14...would have been a better outcome.

[RandomAccess]

41. And keeping completely silent without raising

any kind of stink about it ensured that.

[Demsrule86]

42. There was a tremendous amount of anger and 'stink'...but there was nothing we could do. Elections

have consequences and the parties are not the same...so the message voting needs to end before every piece of progressive policy is gone.

[RandomAccess]

44. What you do is YELL and TELL

EVEN IF -- and I seriously disagree with you -- "there was nothing we could do," you could tar and feather them with much, much more "anger and stink" (whatever the hell that is).

Elections may have consequences, but an unConstitutional run around the consequences --- that WE get to pick the SCOTUS nominees and have them voted on when it's our turn -- shouldn't go unnoted and unYELLED about. In fact, it goddamned well should've been legally challenged.

[tritsofme]

14. Call it the McConnell Rule

No appellate judges either!

[NCTraveler]

16. K&R nt

[Jim Lane]

18. A narrow Democratic majority probably wouldn't be enough

Bear in mind that some conservative Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Gorsuch.

And that was for the stolen seat. If a vacancy arises during Trump's (or Pence's) presidency, which the incumbent President would normally be expected to fill, it will be even harder to get all the Democrats on board.

One plausible outcome for this fall is a net gain of two seats, which would give the Democratic caucus (not all of whose members are Democrats, by the way) a 51-49 edge, with none of the conservaDems having been replaced by progressives. With a Senate like that, a vacancy arising in 2019 would probably be filled by the President's nominee.

[tritsofme]

19. Schumer could simply announce he will not schedule a confirmation vote

Until after the election.

As majority leader, he would control the floor, it wouldn’t matter if a handful of conservative Democratic senators might theoretically support a Trump nominee.

[Jim Lane]

20. I don't think it would be that simple.

Let's hope the Democrats get the majority so that we can find out which of us is right.

[tritsofme]

21. It pretty much is, and would be exactly what McConnell did to Garland.

If Schumer is majority leader, he does not need to allow any Trump nominees to hit the floor, full stop.

[Jim Lane]

23. The House has a procedure for a discharge petition.

There is no direct analog in the current Senate rules, but 49 Republicans plus 2 turncoat Democrats might be able to get around Schumer and amend the rules so as to force something to the floor regardless of what the leadership wanted.

Figuring out the extent of Majority Leader Schumer's power will be a nice problem to have. Let's hope for many threads on this subject in 2019 and 2020.

[NewJeffCT]

38. There were Republicans that thought Garland should get a vote

It never did. In hindsight, Obama should have sent Garland to the Senate with the qualification that if a vote is not scheduled within 60 days, the Senate will have waived their right to advise and consent.

John Roberts also thought Garland should have gotten a vote as well.

[tritsofme]

40. That is fantasy fiction. The president is powerless to define

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2018, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

or limit the Senate’s advice and consent powers.

The Senate fails to act on dozens of nominees during each congressional session, and they are returned to the president, constituting formal rejection, a Supreme Court vacancy, while more prominent, is technically no different.

Obama had no real option to get Garland on the bench, it is a fantasy as best, and a dishonest rewrite of history at Obama’s expense at worst.

[tritsofme]

39. Theres not much to figure out, really, these are easy answers to easy questions

Schumer would control the floor as majority leader, he doesn’t have to allow any vote he doesn’t want. Unless those Democrats are willing to leave the caucus and make a Republican the majority leader, there is nothing that can be done.

[PoliticAverse]

30. Republicans already had 51 votes for Gorsuch's confirmation. Democrats voting for him...

didn't change (and their voting against him wouldn't have changed) anything but it did give them political cover.

[Demsrule86]

35. It is one thing to vote when you can't stop it...they would have gone nuclear, but it

is a different story to vote when it matters...any Dem...that votes for a GOP judge....should be primaried period if we hold the Senate...McConnell started this shit. And you know how I feel about primarying sitting Senators. A judge is a lifetime appointment. I don't think that even conservadems would fill Trumps vacancy...way too much controversy. The conservadems have held the line this year. I expect it to continue. 18 is the worst year for us in terms of the Senate...those who survive in 18 have six years before facing re-election.

[workinclasszero]

22. They sure as hell did!

Those scumbags owe us one!

[Kentonio]

24. Agreed 100%

If we won the senate and confirmed any SCOTUS pick I would be absolutely furious.

[Demsrule86]

36. This may shock you, but You and I are in complete agreement on this.

[duforsure]

27. That's why we need both

The House and the Senate control to have real investigations into many things, and the ability to stop any nominations from proceeding until a Democrat is elected President. As we see nothing but devastating news exposing them more every day now, we'll flip the Senate with the House, and as long as Trump's tweeting, talking and the GOP are doing nothing against him will only make this retaking of both houses in Congress easier. Then add their lies, their wars they're trying to start, and their tax scam they won't have a chance with the daily damage being done to them all in the GOP. The American people can see corruption is running wild and unchecked, look at Pruitt still being there. No matter who he fires he is not above the rule of law, and will have to answer for all his corruption , and crimes like anyone else, and if they do nothing if Mueller is fired they will be beyond voted out of office, they'll be prosecuted too before its all over. The GOP should have gotten rid of him instead of allowing him to drag them down to hell with him.

[Demsrule86]

37. The Senate is very tough...I hope the conservadems like Claire McCaskill survive.

[FarPoint]

29. Absolutely!

Overall, I don't like it...but the standard was already set by McConnell.

[vi5]

31. Definitely. And all we need to accomplish this...

...is for Dems to play hardball every step of the way in the same way Republicans did, for no Dems to break ranks in an effort to shore up their "bipartisan" credentials, a willingness on the part of Dem leadership to make sure any defectors pay some kind of price for doing so.

[Your Waiter Tonight]

43. Have Chuck Schumer speak in a Kentucky Drawl...

"We do not feel it appropriate to consider for elevation to the Supreme Court a nomination made by a mentally-unstable president."